‘Swastika’ NO – ‘Cross’ YES!

zionism[1]In order to bring more Christ’s sheep to support the Zionist entity – Jewish professor Bernard Starr (City University of New York, Brooklyn College) has been waging his Zionist-jihad for decades to convince Christians that Jesus was “Jewish” and Jews had nothing to do with nailing Jesus on the Cross. Romans did it and blaming Jews for collaborating with Roman in that heinous crime is anti-Semitism.

In case you believe that Popes Francis or Benedict XVI or John Paul II, represented the original dogma of the Catholic Church, then you got to agree with Starr. All three of them were pro-Israel and said that Jews didn’t kill Jesus. But, then there were no Jews during Jesus’ lifetime, according to Israeli historian Shlomo Sand. They’re called “Israelite” or “Hebrew speaking people”.

Christians who never bothered to read their New Testament or Christian history from some objective source – I would recommend Jewish historian Benjamin H. Freedman’s book Common Sense in which he claims that Jesus was NOT a Jew.

This BIG LIE technique is brainwashing United States Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was “King of Jews”, in the sense that so-called today ‘Jews’ called themselves ‘Jews’. This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the Jews hijacked the word ‘Jew’ in the 18th century AD to palm themselves off on the Christian world of having a kinship with Jesus Christ. This alleged kinship comes from myth of their common ancestry with the so-called ‘Jews’ of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable,” Freedman said.

American priest Rev. Ted Pike believes that Jews did kill Jesus but the present-day Jews shouldn’t be blamed for the crimes of their ancestors just like the present-day Christians shouldn’t be blamed for the Crusaders who killed millions of Muslims in the Holy Land and Spain in the past.

We all know how the organized Jewry made Mel Gibson ‘Hitler’ for producing movie, The Passion of Christ, based on Christian Scriptures.

Alex Kronemer, an American Muslim writer, who was born to a Jewish father and Christian mother, watched The Passion of Christ and called it a corrupted version of Jesus’ life and message.

In his latest article, Bernard Starr, spilled his Zionist hatred against other cultures which refuse to take dictation from his Tribe. He claims that the ‘Cross’ was not an evil symbol until Romans applied it in the execution of Christ, but with the passage of time it has lost its ‘evilness’.

It wasn’t until the fourth century that the cross first became a Christian symbol. Legend says that the night before the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine was preparing to go to war with the Western Emperor, Maxentius, he had a vision of a cross in the sky with the words “by this symbol you will conquer.” Interpreting this as prophesy, Constantine placed the cross on his military banners and shields. After his victory, the sign of the cross began its role as a devotional religious object, eventually becoming one of the most revered symbols in Christianity. The cross became so closely identified with Christianity that by the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, when artworks inspired by Christianity proliferated, the original terrifying meaning was lost. Christianity was able to transform a negative symbol into one of victory and conquest–Jesus’ conquest of death and Christianity’s victory over Rome,” Starr wrote.

Starr, on the other hand, show the usual Zionist double standard when ‘forgiving Swastika’ which appeared on the uniforms of 150,000 German Jewish soldiers.

Four hundred years or more from now, could the narrative be changed? Could the swastika become a symbol of victory over persecution and genocide? It seems unimaginable. But perhaps someone might dare to propose a new rationale, to declare: “The ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and the Third Reich are gone. Jews are still here. If Moses embarked from a plane in Tel Aviv he would be greeted in his familiar language (sic) in the Promised Land,” Starr said.

In 2014 documentary, Reclaiming the Swastika, producer Mukti Jain Campion said that the Holocaust industry has demonized the ancient Swastika, which symbolizes ‘love and prosperity’ not only in Hindu religion but had existed in other ancient cultures in Asia and Africa.

 

Advertisements

One response to “‘Swastika’ NO – ‘Cross’ YES!

  1. Bernard Starr wrote an article about the “swastika” that appeared in the Huffington Post and the following is a debunking of Bernard Starr’s article –

    It is hilarious -to use my term- that you totally misunderstand and distort your own article to poorly express whatever is your underlying agenda.

    You are so intellectually dishonest that you wrote “Whether the Nazis called it a swastika or not is irrelevant…” when you now know (thanks to my telling you) that German socialists did not call their symbol a swastika. So there is no “Whether” question here. Face the reality. Deal with it. You have learned something. Stop covering up what you have learned.

    http://edward-bellamy.blogspot.com/2015/03/bernard-starr-schooled-about-nazis.html

    Here is another news flash for you: the “Nazis” did not call themselves “Nazis.” Your ignorance (or intellectual dishonesty) regarding this unscholarly misnomer is related to the errors you make with the term “swastika.” That is one reason why you did not make the discovery that the notorious German symbol was used by the German group to represent crossed “S” letters for “socialism” (a discovery made by the historian Dr. Rex Curry). You did not make that discovery because you have never wanted to write about what those Germans actually called themselves: socialists.

    That the German socialists did NOT call their symbol a swastika is relevant to the symbol’s current meaning for much of the world. Just Google the word swastika and see what comes up—what the symbol means throughout the world-not just for you.

    Your refusal to address this topic continues when you wrote: “And my article clearly stated that it’s unfortunate that the Nazis in adopting the swastika symbol has harmed those cultures which have -and still-revere the symbol or variants of it,” because the group did not call themselves “Nazis” and did not call their symbol a “swastika.” It is more accurate to say: “it’s unfortunate that YOU (and the many people who make the same errors that you do) have harmed those cultures which revere the swastika symbol, because of the way you use the unscholarly terms “Nazi” and “swastika” when referring to the German socialists and their symbol.

    You then raised the question of the prospects of the symbol being redeemed by those who revile it. You concluded, based on recent events, that the prospects for redemption in the near future are not encouraging. Nowhere did you say that it shouldn’t be redeemed. But you continue to ignore the role of your own unscholarly language habits (your use of the terms “Nazi” and “Swastika” for German socialists and their symbol) in the poor prospects for redemption in the near future. You are part of the problem and you make it clear that you will not stop being part of the problem in regard to the terms you use and the ignorance that your terms perpetuate.

    You suggested a possible path to redemption based on the changing meaning of the cross in history. For educated readers, your comments about the cross emphasized your lack of understanding the topics addressed here and about the German socialist symbol as a type of cross (a Hakenkreuz, or “hooked cross,” not a swastika).

    So what is the basis for your championing of the swastika? And what is the basis for your continuing to cover up for those German socialists and the actual name that they used for their symbol? Come on, be honest!

    ……………………………

    Bernard Starr is an instructor at the City University of New York (Brooklyn College).

    Below is the original criticism of Bernard Starr and his “swastika” article.

    This article is accidentally hilarious because the author does not know that German socialists did not call their symbol a “swastika.” The hilarity grows because the author discusses the history of the Christian cross, even though the author does not know that German socialists called their symbol a Hakenkreuz (hooked cross) because it was a type of cross, and was altered for use by German socialists to represent crossed “S” letters for “socialism” (that is one of the many amazing discoveries by the historian Dr. Rex Curry). Re-read the part where the author goes on about the Christian cross and appreciate how funny it is that the author does not realize that the German socialist symbol was a cross, a hooked cross. This also explains why huffpost and the author cannot help the swastika symbol because they will not explain any of the above, and the author and huffpost participate in the slander of the swastika, repeating an old effort to cover-up for the Christian cross by distancing it from German socialist’s hooked cross. The author and huffpost will not explain any of this post ever. They are part of the problem they claim to want to solve. If they cared about the swastika then they would tell readers that German socialists did not call their symbol a swastika, they called it a Hakenkreuz, hooked cross, because it was a type of cross, and they altered it and used it to represent crossed “S” letters for their socialism. But they do not want readers to know learn the truth.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s