Official Religion of the United States

reply to post by pthena


Wow!

Thanks for showing us, I didn't know this.

Good post OP.

First, you make good points about the authority for the Noahides, the talmudists, and how they infiltrate. Essentially, their position would be boiled down to this statements: "It is better for us to have 1000 laws, than to have the few hundred of Moses." ...This is the truth: They hate Moses except that he bows to their priests. This can be traced back to Peor, where from Encyclopedia Judah says under the subheading "Phineas", that "rabbis say he precedes the messiah. Phineas, the man who runs ahead of Moses, is given "a priesthood for all eternity" ...And yet the Levites (Moses) already had the priesthood, so from whence cometh this new priest-tribe?

Second, you make good points about Paul's letter to Corinth. I always say that the truth existed before Paul. So the truth was the logos of Christ. Yet, musn't we expect Jesus to have suffered the same damnation as Akhenaten his idealogical ancestor? Shan't we also expect Jesus, as Moses has had done, to be seized as a corpse, and dressed in armor and used like some "Weekend at Bernie's" type puppet? I am saying this has been done in both Moses and Jesus' case, or more correctly, I am saying that we can easily see that "Judah-ism" of today, uses Moses' corpse (corpus?) as one would mutilate the remains of a conquered foe.

Paul in his NLP tactics upon the Corinth believers, is explaining that Jesus died and that was the whole point. I do not see Paul ever attacking the Pharisees for having too many laws. No, he is emphasizing the death-sacrifice of Jesus.

This man Paul, who martyred and killed all the original Christians, and therefore had heard all their pleas and cries and arguments, suddenly has a revelative experience and he becomes one. Picture a witchburning or catholic inquisitionary lawyer, whose job it is to listen to the screams of women and men being slowly flayed or burned, and note in detail what is said as they are tortured to death. Ask yourself how evil a person has to be, to end up in that line of work. His conversion is fine, some people want to believe in conversion. Also, these same people who will say "Any man can be converted!" are also crypto-religionists, who relish in, and profit from, being false on the outside. That is to say, it is far far more profitable to have a false exterior, in their worldview. That is to say, Jacob Frank is famous for having "converted" many times, to the three different branches of Abraham. And Frank like Zevi before him, had proclaimed himself the messiah, by his understanding of taboo.

It is important in all this, to comprehend that Paul and Jacob Frank, and all crypto-religionists, have the superior idea of faithlessness. That is to say, it makes very little sense to actually have faith and be like Jesus. Since he's long gone, and his idea of "peace" was crushed and proven false, it is far better, to fleece those who are stupid enough to still believe in him or his ways of living. So what I am saying is that it's easily 5x more profitable to pretend to be some holy person, whilst actually being a hateful little turd inside. The real people who are godlike, or godly, are not the people in charge.

Jesus said plainly that the meek would inherit the Earth. He said plainly that Caesar's things should go back to him, that means all the things of Caeser: Agrigulture, the aqueduct, vineculture, roads, public order, public health.... I am of course quoting Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" here in this list, wink wink

The point is that when Jesus was asked by a lawyer, a trick question of law "should we pay the tax?" his answer was simple, but first he had to ask for a coin. So he didn't have any. Because see, if he'd had a coin purse, someone would say "Well what is your opinion of the drachma versus the sheckle?" See, Jesus didn't have time for all that coinage bullshazzery because he knew it was all designed around siphoning capital from the meek. He didn't care about carrying a tax coin, and in this way, the authority has no grasp on him.

So your thread here frames two points quite well.

1: The welding of this "talmud" to Moses' framework of torah. We can see that since 1300bc or so, there have been the tribe called "haters of Moses", who could be considered like mutineers on a ship who seized power. These men takes the captain's position and seek not to identify and humanize or be decent with the man whose name they seize. No, they instead, as a caste of priests, spend centuries welding every saying or thought, to Moses' corpse.

2: you are trying to unweld the writings of Paul, from a similar crime, that done to Jesus, the good and penniless King. Frnakly in my opinion, if Paul had converted and lived like Jesus, then the gospel would stand on its own merit, along with the plain description of Jesus' enemies, and who they were, and what that valued most.

In both cases, I think you are doing a service to truth. Thanks.

A Question for Zionist Christians

Just how exactly do you reconcile in your own hearts and minds the fact that you morally and sometimes financially support the steps leading up to a stone temple as the residence for anti-Christ in Jerusalem with your own self confessed devotion to Jesus as the Christ?

If you emotionally, physically, and morally support anti-Christ, then how are you a Christian?

To add to my earlier post on the meaning of the word, ethnikos, there is a Greek word for foreigner, which is nearly identical to the name for the mountain range in eastern US, the Alleghanies (also spelled Alleghenies).
That word only shows up once, in Luke where Jesus heals ten lepers and the one who returned to give thanks was the Alleghanies (not an ethnikos), being a Samaritan (a racist distinction, where the Alleghanies word denotes being of another blood-line), which in his case would have been almost identical to a Jew. The point being, what is translated as, gentile, has nothing to do with being foreign, but what culture one subscribes to. One being restrictive in nature (Jews), the other being inclusive, open and inviting (Greek).

Simple question here:

Why is "NATO" not called "NAJO"? Just swap the word "Trade" for "Jubilee"

See because, they have nothing to do with trade. No, they mean "markets", not trade. They should at least call it NAMO because it is markets they defend, not trade.

See, trade as such, is object for object. An example would be in that film "Dances with Wolves" where the indian takes the main character's hat. He says "He left it on the battlefield. He didn't want it." So then he is forced by the consensus, to give fairness. NOTE: He is forced by the tribe, to do something FAIR.

Now, this idea of modern "trade" has nothing to do with the scene above, where an actual trade happens. Nope. They mean markets. Markets mean moneychangers and credit houses, you know like Ebeneezer Scrooge and the Pharisees of Jesus' time. Markets are an anti-trade institution, marketplaces as such were granted by the King, for a cut of the coins.

Again: Trade means person to person, for the actual property.

So why do I recommend the word "jubilee"? Well simply because that was the original way. It was the rabbi Hillel of Jesus' time who cancelled Jubilee. It is the scheme of everlasting debt, that this "North Atlantic Trade Organization" is based on.

And this idea of the destruction of the word trade, via a global army which defends the immortal debt, well, it's just not going to last any longer than the markets themselves. So it would be better to get back with the real way in the old days of Pharaoh, who would cancel personal debts. And no, I do not mean the debts of the corporate persons, I mean actual and real people with blood and lungs. That is whose debts would historically be cancelled, and it must be so in the future. NAJO would be the administration that oversees the North Atlantic Jubilee Organization. We can still have jets and tanks and cool stuff like that, just a different mission, more in line with Jesus' way, since europe claims to be fighting Mohammedans on behalf of Jesus anyway. Then it is fair to force them to honor the jubilee as Jesus would have done, if he had accepted the Kingship. As he didn't accept, then we have to assume what he would have done. I think I am right about what he would have done, if he were King. He would have cancelled all debts first off, that's obvious from his actions in the temple.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Simple question here:

Why is "NATO" not called "NAJO"? Just swap the word "Trade" for "Jubilee"

[...]

NAJO would be the administration that oversees the North Atlantic Jubilee Organization. We can still have jets and tanks and cool stuff like that, just a different mission, more in line with Jesus' way, since europe claims to be fighting Mohammedans on behalf of Jesus anyway. Then it is fair to force them to honor the jubilee as Jesus would have done, if he had accepted the Kingship. As he didn't accept, then we have to assume what he would have done. I think I am right about what he would have done, if he were King. He would have cancelled all debts first off, that's obvious from his actions in the temple.

No comments or stars? Wow. Do you hear that echo? Do you hear the silence? I'd almost prefer a good four or five page beat-down of truth, but complete and utter silence is almost better than that, hee hee, know what I mean?

Let's simplify it a bit:

Je-sus = Hung on a tree, obtained higher knowledge (stole 'everlasting life' from the gods)
Prometheus = Hung on a tree/rock, obtained higher knowledge (stole 'fire' from the gods)
Odin = Hung on a tree, obtained higher knowledge (stole 'runes' from the gods)

And then there is the enemy of Jesus/Joshua.
And then there is the enemy of Prometheus.
And then there is the enemy of Odin.

But the real question is this:

If 'fire' be the gift to mankind,
and if Jesus be "the word"
Then there would only be a certain time, when words, would rule.
And when words rule, then there must be one Word to rule the words.

And now I must quote Solomon:

"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." - Eccl. 12:12

Notice that "books" as such, did not exist in the time of Solomon, nor Jesus. No, books were kept locked away by the religious authorities until just a few centuries ago when thousands of believers said they would die to have the words of Jesus freely printed. In this moment of Jesus' gospel being released to the people, buried though it is under all the biblical crap, well, it's like fire, in the minds of men. Jesus and his life's path, is the Word, which trumps all "words" of his enemies, the pharisee class.

Jesus called them the sons of Satan. These men, his enemies, are of the sort of men who show up AFTER Prometheus is being punished for delivering fire to Earth, and try to talk the people OUT of using fire. They literally are doing damage-control on Earth, from the truth of the cauldron, into which the bones of the old world were cast, and out of which Uncle Sam was born.

Therefore, we must assume, logically, that, if a nation be born of the "age of words", the age of Weishaupts (wise-heads) and Washingtons, a nation be birthed (or foundation laid at least), and said nation claim to submit to "The Word", then the scriptural ancestor of the words, aka, the "Jew King" "Solomon" as he is called (Not SULiman, he's a mohammedan don't get mixed up here) means that the making of words, is in effect, a weariness to the human soul. The greatest Jewish King ever, Solomon, said that words were a weariness to the soul, aka a Fabian sort of WEAPON. It is impossible, logically, to remove Jesus from his Judaist ancestor, the nebulous "Solomon" of high-intellect.

And therefore, when the Nation of "Law" meaning, the good old USA, claims to represent the "Word" but issues endless "books and study of weariness" and call it law, then in effect, they are asking for a Solomon sort of word-ender, to step forward and have a supreme Word. Said words uttered from the "Word", would utterly ruin, all the years of wordmaking from those who actually hate the Word of truth. The "Word" of Jesus is simple and clear. This does not create sheckles, therefore, Jesus is a fool. Or so sayeth the rabii and lawyer: "Jesus be fool such that he cannot see how words can make sheckles! He useth words sparingly like a mute fool"

So this could not have happened without the USA coming into existence. For further research, go get Ezra Stiles' speech at the founding of Yale, or at least at the founding of his presidency of Yale. In that speech he lays it all out. He says, essentially, "We are spiritual Israel, and these Natives are the spiritual Canaanites." He explains much in that speech as to him and his rabbis intent to be like "Joshua" and eradicate the natives. I bet the biblical Joshua would take exception to that.

I would say it is easy enough to see that the official religion of the USA is "The religion of words". And I'd say further that this has been designed to produce much "weary study which kills the soul". It is called "lawyering" and you will note the effect of its study, on the poor sad humans who are consigned to study law.

reply to post by smallpeeps

No comments or stars? Wow. Do you hear that echo? Do you hear the silence? I'd almost prefer a good four or five page beat-down of truth, but complete and utter silence is almost better than that, hee hee, know what I mean?

I must admit that I went on to other subjects. I'll have to re-read your posts to see what you're saying. I did look up 'NLP tactics' that you mentioned in your first post.

Neuro-linguistic programming
The term "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic") and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life.

I've never read any Richard Bandler or John Grinder, so I don't know precisely how to apply that to Paul.

It is important in all this, to comprehend that Paul and Jacob Frank, and all crypto-religionists, have the superior idea of faithlessness. That is to say, it makes very little sense to actually have faith and be like Jesus.

While I don't particularly believe in the dying for sins/rising/coming again Jesus taught by Paul, I'm not confident enough of what his true biography may be. It's altogether possible that he is misrepresented in the book of Acts. I've run across the name Jacob Frank before, but I'll have to refresh my memory.

On Stiles, I found this The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor (1783) with the whole text available here: Electronic texts in American Studies. I'll have to read this. Thanks for the tip.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by smallpeeps

No comments or stars? Wow. Do you hear that echo? Do you hear the silence? I'd almost prefer a good four or five page beat-down of truth, but complete and utter silence is almost better than that, hee hee, know what I mean?

I must admit that I went on to other subjects. I'll have to re-read your posts to see what you're saying. I did look up 'NLP tactics' that you mentioned in your first post.

You are explaining the use of words, and you speak of "Torah". That is fine.

You explain you have not heard of NLP, which stands for Neuro-Linguistic Programming which essentially means "Brain Word Programming".

I am explaining mind control.

Have you ever sat in church? Notice how it always must be boring? The droning of words, emptily, is the NLP technique. To know it, means to fight it.

Then there's the other type of church, let's call them "Non-boring". What do these churches do? Well, they clap and sing and get all emotional, perhaps praising with foreign gibberish or rolling about as per the Quakers of old who built America (ostensibly).

Same thing: Programming the mind and hence, the body. Program the mind with music, you get the toe to start tapping. Or, program with band music and you get the soldiers marching. Same thing.

Good luck on your journey to understand mind kontrol as you seek the true knowledges and trooths. I will be here, reply if you have questions, but yes, you must understand how words are used as weapons.

Frankly you are already on the right path here with your thread, thanks for letting me type in it, let me know if I should bail on it. I encourage others to discuss this idea of hypnosis and words, or other topics I raise, if they will. Essentially, words are weapons, and the programming which results from hypnotic repetition of words (a la the Judaist way of droning on and on) is the most powerful trance state which can hold a group of people. Droning and chanting, a la the Judaist, Mohammedan and Tibetan as well, puts the brain into a receptive state. Today the knowledge of words as programmatic weaponry, is colloquially called "NLP".

When the true "Word" of Jesus shows up, the hypnosis will end as surely as the Japanese idea of their Emperor being godlike. That's the feeling which will happen when USA peeps are made to wake up. Word will be spoken in some way, and the old dreams must surely evaporate.

reply to post by smallpeeps

Have you ever sat in church? Notice how it always must be boring? The droning of words, emptily, is the NLP technique. To know it, means to fight it.

Then there's the other type of church, let's call them "Non-boring". What do these churches do? Well, they clap and sing and get all emotional, perhaps praising with foreign gibberish or rolling about as per the Quakers of old who built America (ostensibly).

Same thing: Programming the mind and hence, the body. Program the mind with music, you get the toe to start tapping. Or, program with band music and you get the soldiers marching. Same thing.

I've spent about as much time in front of a congregation preaching as I have sitting in the pew. It's what we actually say ourselves that has the most brain washing effect, (reciting creeds, responsive reading, singing hymns).

It was about 1992 that I was in the middle of preaching a sermon to a liberal Christian congregation, trying to "show them the light" when I started asking myself, "Do I actually believe what I'm saying, or am I merely repeating what some one else wrote?" From there, I went to rationalizing "Is there good to come from repeating something as literal, in order for some ethereal benefit to the hearers?" I couldn't quite justify that to myself.

And maybe as you say, the fact that I never collected a single shekel from preaching, I was free to move along. Since then, the few times I've gone to a church meeting, I found the singing of hymns, as participatory part of service, to be the element most repelling. Sermons preached can be listened to, and agreed with or not. But singing a hymn is as if the message is pre-agreed upon.

Originally posted by pthena
It was about 1992 that I was in the middle of preaching a sermon to a liberal Christian congregation, trying to "show them the light" when I started asking myself, "Do I actually believe what I'm saying, or am I merely repeating what some one else wrote?" From there, I went to rationalizing "Is there good to come from repeating something as literal, in order for some ethereal benefit to the hearers?" I couldn't quite justify that to myself.

And maybe as you say, the fact that I never collected a single shekel from preaching, I was free to move along. Since then, the few times I've gone to a church meeting, I found the singing of hymns, as participatory part of service, to be the element most repelling. Sermons preached can be listened to, and agreed with or not. But singing a hymn is as if the message is pre-agreed upon.

Excellent points and well stated reply.

One thing you might have noted is how blank people's faces look when they are staring back in church. In that moment of speaking to a crowd, even as a child in my church, I knew these people were entranced, I just didn't know what that blank expression meant. I was of course, a young parishoner, only repeating the learning I had been given by the elders of that church, so I was a conduit for the organizational-church-trance which produces that look I observed on the audiences' faces. Did you feel like that when you were speaking in church? That you were repeating stuff which you didn't believe but which messages are designed to keep the people entranced?

Anyway, what is interesting is that there is no church for "those who think on their own". I mean if you get a bunch of people together, say in a stadium and give them a microphone to openly discuss ideas, well, it wouldn't be like the church we are discussing. You'd have 15,000 different positions on every subject. No group consensus = no trance.

reply to post by smallpeeps

One thing you might have noted is how blank people's faces look when they are staring back in church. In that moment of speaking to a crowd, even as a child in my church, I knew these people were entranced, I just didn't know what that blank expression meant.

Actually, I was quite an engaging speaker, presenting new aspects for examination. My material was my own, yet designed to bring acceptance of orthodox Christian teachings, to those less than orthodox (Liberal).

The only time I recall seeing the "blank face" was years later, 2003, within weeks of U.S. invasion of Iraq. I was attempting to show the potentially destructive tendency of the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine to some Baptists when an evil spirit broke loose and was spinning around in front of the people in the study group. That's when I saw the blank stares of the listeners, they neither sensed the evil spirit, nor heard what I was saying. I was ejected from the meeting, while the evil spirit was allowed to remain. Disturbing!

I just could never quite reach the mute button fast enough so probably why I don't turn on the radio or tv.
It is a kind of hypnosis, especially from Obama. I need to go back and listen to a fairly recent interview on the internet radio show (i listen to the podcasts, where they cut out the news parts) the Paracast, where this researcher (the one being interviewed in this show I was listening to) was lecturing at Columbia, and Obama was in the audience and asking questions almost as a heckler. Very scornful attitude and jeering sort of behavior. I'll have to listen to it and make a transcript of that part, but the point is that he is not at all like he is presented as and is very sarcastic and hateful. But he is trained in this sort of hypnotic way of talking and people buy into it, and what I was referring to earlier that I wanted to shut off was his talking which they constantly play on the airwaves. You don't notice how frequently it is repeated, unless you do something like I did, which was to make a conscious effort to turn the sound off, every time his voice was played. I gave up and leave it off permanently.

Originally posted by pthena

A Question for Zionist Christians

Just how exactly do you reconcile in your own hearts and minds the fact that you morally and sometimes financially support the steps leading up to a stone temple as the residence for anti-Christ in Jerusalem with your own self confessed devotion to Jesus as the Christ?

If you emotionally, physically, and morally support anti-Christ, then how are you a Christian?

point blank

how does a day bill designed to only commemorate someone make any religion the "official religion of the united states"?

it doesn't

you just used it to try to open up a discussion, and not a very flattering one for you I might add

reply to post by syrinx high priest
No.
No . . no . . no.
This is not a view Pthena is alone in.
I have heard this discussed on internet radio shows and on discussion blogs and other places, so this is something a lot of people are concerned about. This is legitimizing and placing on the books a religious code of behavior for Americans that involves a single entity as the center of worship and who's name is to be considered sacred.

reply to post by jmdewey60

How recent was that Columbia lecture? There are some former Secret Service people who say Obama is a very arrogant and snobbish sort.

As for the hypnosis, it helps to try and read between the lines, so to speak. For instance, while he was running for President I kept asking myself, "What exactly is he promising?" Nothing, was the answer. "Is he really pro-peace?" Answer, no, he was talking about extending Afghanistan occupation into Pakistan, which he has done, along with Yemen and Libya.

reply to post by pthena
That was when he was a student there. Maybe 87/88?
The researcher who was lecturing at the college remembered him because of how he acted, and he went back to the school (I think the campus was in NYC) for a second lecture and Obama was there again and they had a short exchange, which was the researcher had looked into answers to what he had asked him the earlier time.
I thought it was funny when I listened to the show because of the people who think he never even was a student there.

It's just the extension of the Great Game that was going on with the British controlling all the trade routes in the nineteenth century and now with US help.

I figured this thread here, would be a good place to post this evidence of A: wrecking of the US school system, and B: the historical burying of that fact.

It is explained by Anthony Sutton, that Skull n' Bones (tm) has waged a war against learning. It is explained by the Luciferian doctrine of the Frankists, that ignorance, illiteracy, and neurosis, are what needs to be cultivated. Satan loves it when nobody can read. That's really what is boils down to. That's why the priests as a class, fight so hard to keep the masses illiterate and stupid. The official religion of the US, os lawyering, aka Marxism, aka, rule-by-admins.

Note that Stalin, a Jesuit administrator, decapitated the entire Russian army, prior to his stunning victory in WW2. In this moment, the admin of K. Marx is proven stronger than any General. One wonders how easy it will be for the Marxists of today, to decapitate his own Army as Stalin left the pattern to follow. But if he was a Jesuit, then that means he was just a slave on a mission. The point is: Marxist admins run this world, and they feel they can defeat or decapitate any Army of any size.

Here is a key document, thanks to the zerohedge poster who directed me to it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Norman Dodd was born in New Jersey, he attended private schools, Andover, Massachusetts, and graduated from Yale University. He was, by his own words an indefatigable reader. He worked in manufacturing before devoting himself to banking according to himself. During or after the 1929 stock market crash he was assigned by his superiors the task of restructuring the bank he was working at, after a period of which he recommended what at the time was referred to as "sound banking". He was told that his recommendations would not be considered because his superiors told him that "we will never see sound banking in the United States again".

en.wikipedia.org...

He said, on p. 11 of the report:
“In summary, our study of these entities and their relationship to each other seems to warrant the inference that they constitute a highly efficient, functioning whole . Its product is apparently an educational curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American student from matriculation to the consummation of his education. It contrasts sharply with the freedom of the individual as the cornerstone of our social structure . For this freedom, it seems to substitute the group, the will of the majority, and a centralized power to enforce this will-Presumably in the interest of all . Its development and production seems to have been largely the work of those organizations engaged in research, such as the Social Science Research Council and the National Research Council.

[...]

The result of the development and operation of the network in which Foundations have played such a significant role seems to have provided this country with what is tantamount to a national system of education under the tight control of organizations and persons unknown to the American public. Its operations and ideas are so complex as to be beyond public understanding or control. It also seems to have resulted in an educational product which can be traced to research of a predominantly empirical character in the inexact or social sciences.

[...]

it has been difficult for us to dismiss the suspicion that, latent in the minds of many of the social scientists was lain the belief that given sufficient authority and enough funding, human behavior can be controlled and that this control can be exercised without risk to either ethical principles or spiritual values and that therefore, the solution to all social problems should be entrusted to them.

reply to post by smallpeeps

I figured this thread here, would be a good place to post this evidence of A: wrecking of the US school system, and B: the historical burying of that fact.

Thank you for your consideration. I'm a little bit behind on all this research. The links you gave bear to be examined quite thoroughly.

I've read Stile's address of 1783, post revolution, and pre constitution. I take it that Yale was founded as a Congregational/Presbyterian College with strong Puritan roots. The goal would have been similar to what is the mission of universities like Liberty is today, train future lawyers and politicians to believe in American Exceptionalism and US call to spread Christianity as a worldwide model for nationalism(theocratic).

The views of Stiles seem rather shocking to me, seeing as he spent so much time in Rhode Island.

Roger Williams - wikipedia
Roger Williams (December 21, 1603 – April 1, 1683) was an English Protestant theologian who was an early proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In 1636, he began the colony of Providence Plantation, which provided a refuge for religious minorities.

I've always viewed Williams as the model for true American style separation of church and state. In fact, that was always my opinion of what Official American Religion should be, Free and Separate from all forms of coercion, legal and societal

As a Separatist he had concluded that the Church of England was irredeemably corrupt and that one must completely separate from it to establish a new church for the true and pure worship of God. His search for the true church eventually carried him out of Congregationalism, the Baptists, and any visible church.
. . .
He believed that soul liberty freedom of conscience, was a gift from God, and that everyone had the natural right to freedom of religion. Religious freedom demanded that church and state be separated.

- - Ibid.

Notice that his concept of God includes the divine gift of "freedom of conscience". That directly contradicts the notion of a deity demanding worship of "self"(that is, the god's self) through extraordinary pressures, both psychic and physical. Of course, people can go ahead and worship such a needy "god" if they want to, but that should never receive any governmental endorsement or encouragement. (That's a bit of my own interpretation of Williams)

I highly recommend the wikipedia article on Williams. Something that I learned was the extents that the other colonies went to in order to stamp out "the heretical and seditious colony".

Narragansetts allied themselves with the English and helped to crush the Pequots in 1637-1638. When the war was over, the Narragansetts were clearly the most powerful Indian nation in southern New England, and quite soon the other New England colonies began to fear and mistrust the Narragansetts. They came to regard Roger Williams' colony and the Narragansetts as a common enemy. In the next three decades Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Plymouth exerted pressure to destroy both Rhode Island and the Narragansetts.

In 1643, the neighboring colonies formed a military alliance called the United Colonies and pointedly excluded the towns around Narragansett Bay. The object was to extend their power over the heretic settlements and put an end to the infection.

That pretty much fits the description of a "Holy Crusade".

You can see by this post how slow I am at looking things up. I get side tracked. I was planning to write some sort of essay comparing Williams with Stiles, I don't know if I'll get to it.

Here's a link to the actual Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations (1954) I'll read it when I find a little leisure time. I think this will give a bit more support to the theory of foundations and think tanks having way too much influence on education, media, and legislation. Thanks for the links.

reply to post by pthena

If you were to click on the link above, in this post, to pull up the one I am replying to, you will find a video Pthena posted where this obviously ultra-orthodox Jew is explaining the 7 Laws of Noah, there is something I want to comment about the video itself.
I made a post on another thread where I felt this video would be instructive on a point I was making so I copied the link from the post in this thread and put it in my own post. When I watched it, I found something different from what was in it that I saw earlier, when it was first posted on this thread.
Here is what I said in a private message to Pthena after watching it three times (after he posted it here, but before I later posted the same video):

The dude in the cave . He says Jesus and makes faces, and looks around as if he was looking for a piece of crap to show the camera and then stares off into space and say, "he is just . . nothing."

Whoever put the video up on YouTube edited it to take that out, and it starts, after jumping from him being on one side of the room, to the other side, with him barely saying, ". . .nothing". Could it be that people realized how disgusting and offensive that is to Christians?

Wow. This is real. Look up,

"UN NGO Reps Pledge to Follow Noahide Laws"

Everyone will be forced to worship yahweh as God or be decapitated when these laws are enforced.

The Constitution gives Freedom of Religion, noahide / laws signed in 1991 forbids it. Why are more people not talking about this?