Scott Lively Ministries

Ever since Oct. 7, 2023, I’ve kept a healthy distance from the propaganda war of the Israelis and the diverse pack of Sunni and Shiite Muslim warlords represented collectively by “The Palestinians.” If ever Israel had a true peer in the use of war propaganda to steer world opinion, it is they. I frankly take every bit of “news” in that real-world “Clash of the Titans” with a large grain of salt and keep my main focus on the larger geopolitical news-front which is harder for the elites on both sides to spin.

Admitting that the Israelis are master propagandists is not to say that my support for the nation state of Israel has diminished. On the contrary, it is to clarify that my support is based on Bible prophecy, not current events, and as such I know there is zero chance the Muslims will win their war to expel the Jews “from the river to the sea” while there is also zero chance that Israel will become a biblically righteous nation prior to the second coming of Christ.

In the not too distant future, probably under Trump, we will see the return of the Temple Mount to the direct control of the Jews and the return of animal sacrifices with or without the rebuilding of the Temple. There is scriptural ambiguity about whether a sacrificial altar could substitute for a fully reconstructed Temple (as was true under Ezra right after the Judean return from Babylon), but I think it most likely will be rebuilt.

The fight to build, activate and defend the Temple won’t make Israel biblically righteous, because the entire process and perspective denies the deity of Jesus Christ – Yeshua Hamashiach – which is the most important Truth of all history. And Scripture warns that this presumed Third Temple soon falls under the total control of the final Antichrist of Revelation, who sets up the Abomination that Causes Desolation there, following the pattern of Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Daniel 11 (described in detail in 1 & 2 Maccabees). All Hell will then, literally, be let loose to ravage the earth and humanity like never before … until Christ’s “military” intervention with the Host of Heaven per Revelation 19:11-21 and Zechariah 12 and 14.

The present battle of support for the Third Temple by Christian Zionists vs. efforts to dissuade them by Christian Anti-Zionists is completely moot and meaningless: This is God’s plan and it will happen.

This perspective I am espousing is called pre-Millennialism or futurism and assumes that the prophecies of the Bible about a future thousand-year Millennial Kingdom in which Jesus Christ rules from Jerusalem on the Throne of David are literally true and not metaphorical or symbolic.

That much of my eschatology will be familiar to many, but I have years of independent post-graduate study in biblical matters beyond the scope of the established camps, specifically the biblical theme of the division of Jacob’s progeny into two distinct “houses” that are only fully unified two times in human history: David’s Kingdom and Christ’s Millennial Kingdom. I believe from my studies that it is the unification of the two houses of the Hebrews, not any aspect of David’s conduct, which makes him the unique “type of Christ” of the Bible.

There is nothing in David’s conduct so distinct and superior from the other righteous kings of the Old Testament to truly qualify him for the comparison to the Messiah. Indeed, his conduct as a man of war disqualified him from having the honor of building the First Temple, and his horrific sins and their consequences related to the theft of Bathsheba from Uriah the Hittite greatly sabotaged their son Solomon spiritually. Only the full unification of the houses of Judah and Israel under the House of David merits his comparison to Christ. The fact that it was Solomon’s sins that caused God to rip the House of David into two again in the very next generation only strengthens my case: The only good and lasting fruit of David’s life was the political legacy of his own regency: “David’s Throne.”

This analysis is important relative to Donald Trump and the question whether he is the King David figure who will fully restore Jerusalem to the Judeans and oversee the rebuilding of the Temple. Some point to Trump’s character flaws and past sins to suggest he doesn’t qualify for that honor – but nothing he’s ever done remotely compares to David’s treatment of Uriah. I think the bigger question is whether Trump can bring true peace and unity to the Holy Land – and if that means by military force like David did, I think his capability is pretty much a given.

My WND column of July 22, 2024, emphasized “The danger of deifying Donald Trump” while acknowledging his obvious similarities to various Old Testament judges. I also compared his relationship and history relative to Joe Biden as akin to that of David and Saul.

I wrote: “Preceding David in Bible history as the first transitional monarch of the new order was King Saul – a Benjamite, not an ethnic Judean; an initially competent King who descended into mental illness under the dominion of a familiar spirit whose chief mission was to destroy David. The similarity to the Biden/Trump relationship is remarkable. (Even more so if one contemplates Barack Obama in the role of the familiar spirit). Additionally, the [first] assassination attempt on President Trump’s life has its parallel in 1 Samuel 10:6-11.”

I made the point that Saul had used a javelin – the ancient equivalent of a bullet – to try and kill David and added later in the piece: “Notably, David escaped Saul’s javelin twice, the second time recorded in 1 Samuel 19, so it’s possible we’ll see another failed attempt on Trump in the weeks or months ahead, if my analogy holds tightly.”

Now that Trump has in fact dodged the assassins’ javelin twice I think my case for the larger analogy of Trump to David is greatly strengthened.

Saul never stopped trying to destroy David, and it is clear the Biden administration will not stop trying to destroy Trump. Like Saul, Biden’s mental health has continued to deteriorate.

In my column I analogized Trump’s true nemesis, the Deep State, to the Philistines and Special Counsel Jack Smith to their champion Goliath. In the months since that was published, Joe Biden was forced out of his own re-election campaign by the Deep State, and he chose to “fall upon his own sword” rather than let them kill him (politically). As it happens that’s exactly what King Saul did in 1 Samuel 31:2-4 when the Philistines had defeated him in a long battle. His choice to literally fall on his own sword cleared the way for David to ascend to the throne – technically speaking.

However, the Philistines became the de-facto rulers of the land at that time per 1 Samuel 31:7 (just as the Deep State is now running America), and it took four chapters of persistent campaigning and coalition-building by David to gain the full backing of the Hebrew people against massive opposition. The Bible equivalent of an election happened fairly early in that process (2 Samuel 2:4), but the people remained deeply divided and polarized amidst great turmoil and strong challenges to David’s legitimacy.

It was only in 2 Samuel 5:1 that “all the tribes of Israel came [in full submission] to David at Hebron and said, “Here we are, your own flesh and blood.” David’s next acts after that, in sequence, were the military liberation of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, two mighty victories over the Philistines, and the triumphal transfer of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.

If my analogy holds true, Trump will win in November, the Deep State will try desperately after the election to keep him out of the White House but fail, and Trump will celebrate his victory over the Philistines by endorsing or sponsoring the Third Temple.

There’s always been a pot of gold for those willing to abuse power for the rainbow lobby.

I am a 30-year conservative Christian veteran of the scorched-earth global LGBT culture war against natural family values and the Bible. I’ve worn many hats in my career, including that of a constitutional law attorney. On Feb. 10, 2004, I happened to be in San Francisco to depose officials of the City of Oakland in my lawsuit against the town for discrimination against my clients: two African-American Christian women whose employment with the city had been threatened for trying to form a Good News Employee Association as a workplace alternative to the Gay and Lesbian Employee Association. I wrote about that case here.

By “chance” (i.e. divine providence) that was the day newly elected San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom held a press conference to stage the then-most audacious act of gay pandering in American history: He declared himself unilaterally authorized to legalize “gay marriage” in San Francisco by executive order.

Newsom became an instant political sensation on the hard left with that stunt, which everyone on both sides of the political aisle knew was a totally lawless act of grandstanding. My law partner and I filed a Writ of Mandamus to declare it invalid, which was denied, but only because the court had other means of invalidating Newsom’s order, which it did. Newsom didn’t care because it earned him the financial backing of the deep-pocketed LGBT political class – which later propelled him to the California governor’s office. He tried to recreate that event in June of 2024 to win the Democrat nomination for president, but got out-maneuvered by his partner in the 2004 event, Kamala Harris.

I scheduled my break in the depositions to be able to attend Newsom’s press conference. It was, of course, a media circus, but I managed to squirm my way into the venue just far enough to see Newsom at the podium flanked and backed by his various flunkies. I can’t say for certain, but I think that was my first glimpse of newly minted SF District Attorney Harris – elected just like Newsom two months prior. At some point over the next few days, perhaps even that day, Harris personally officiated one of the many illegal same-sex unions there at City Hall.

Here’s a little political background on the Newsom/Harris duo. Willie Brown was mayor of San Francisco from 1996-2004 and termed out.

Gavin Newsom inherited both the mayor’s office and Kamala Harris from Brown in the municipal elections of Nov. 4, 2003. Newsom was Brown’s “political protégé” while Harris was the septuagenarian’s 20-something former(?) arm-candy-with-benefits. Her gift from the Brown political patronage machine was the office of San Francisco district attorney.

What’s most important in this story, however, is the phenomenon of rank lawlessness in service to the normalization of LGBT behavioral disorders by highly compensated non-homosexual (or closeted) culture-war mercenaries. In my observation, this factor may be the most common denominator in all the stories of LGBT political conquest worldwide for the past half-century – including the massive trove of LGBT victories orchestrated by the Clintons and Barack Obama, who were funded to the hilt by “gay” money-bundlers like Terry Bean. Remember that Hillary gave her infamous MAGA “deplorables” speech at an LGBT Gala in NYC, the key takeaway being that the worst “deplorables” the left must destroy are opponents of the LGBT agenda.

Let’s segue now to the seemingly unrelated but ideologically connected breaking story of the new major leak scandal at the U.S. Supreme Court.

In summary, the Daily Caller article “‘Worse Than The Dobbs Leak’: Court Watchers Point To Supreme Court’s Liberal Wing As Likely Culprit Behind Latest Leak” suggests that Elana Kagan is the leaker, and I tend to agree. The leak pertains to internal communications about the Trump immunity cases, but the real story is abandonment of judicial ethics by court insiders to serve leftist politics.

Elena Kagan is no less a political opportunist and beneficiary of gender-class affirmative action than Kamala Harris. While Harris slept her way to power in San Francisco, Kagan leveraged her Manhattan family connections to rise through the Democrat ranks. She entered Obama’s orbit in 1991, helped Ruth Bader Ginsburg get confirmed to SCOTUS while a Senate aide, then, rising that same wave of female political empowerment, was appointed the first female dean of Harvard Law – where the LGBT agenda reigns supreme. (To that latter point, read about my experience debating criminal justice reform there as a gubernatorial candidate in 2014.)

Harris and Kagan are both just hard left political assets with a law degree and an unshakable commitment to the LGBT agenda. When Kagan (with no prior judicial experience) joined Ginsburg on the high court they tag-teamed as officiants in separate same-sex “marriages” during the pendency of the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the worst breach of judicial ethics in the history of the Supreme Court. This was far worse than anything the conservative justices have been accused of in recent months by the same partisans who applauded the Obergefell travesty. And no one but me (with a protest sign in front of the courthouse) publicly clamored for their recusal for that! (Of course, the “gay marriage” Kagan performed was for her own law clerk and his male partner.)

There is nothing more sacrosanct in our judiciary than the expectation of all parties to a presumption of impartiality by the justices deciding their case regardless of their personal views – but, once again, advancing LGBT normalization trumped every other consideration, even the integrity of the court. Compared to that, leaking internal confidences about the Trump cases to the New York Times is kid stuff.

The rule of law will not survive in America so long as we allow power-hungry people to get away with trading their ethics for a grab at the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There must be accountability. For Harris that would mean a massive election defeat in November. For Kagan (if she truly is the leaker) that would mean impeachment during Trump’s next term.

Trigger warning: This article employs a term that is considered the most “homophobic” of slurs against men who suffer with Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD). If you are a person so incapable of objectivity in LGBT matters that you cannot separate actual hatred and bigotry from dispassionate academic discourse, STOP HERE.

Caveat: While I have used the term “homophobic” in the above trigger warning, I contend that the term “homophobia” and its derivatives are no less offensive and demeaning to defenders of the natural family and traditional sexual morality than the term “faggot” is to men afflicted with SSADness. A slur is a slur, and none of them has a legitimate place in civil discourse.

What is fascism?

When it comes to speaking hard truths about things dear to the hearts of liberals I like using Wikipedia for a source, because of its well-known liberal bias on all topics important to leftist narrative-setters. When Wikipedia states facts that undermine liberal narratives it offers fodder for conservatives to use that bear such a high level of trustworthiness that our legal system has a special category for them in the rules of evidence. They are called “admissions against interest” and are assumed prima facie (on their face) to be true, because it is assumed that guilty people would normally try to hide such facts from the judge and jury.

Since American intellectuals like to emphasize the strength of their arguments with Latin phrases, let’s look at the Latin origin of the word fascism.

According to Wikipedia, “Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a 1) far-right, 2) authoritarian, 3) ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a 4) dictatorial leader, 5) centralized autocracy, 6) militarism, 7) forcible suppression of opposition, 8) belief in a natural social hierarchy, 9) subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and 10) strong regimentation of society and the economy.” [Emphasis added to number and highlight the 10 defining characteristics of fascism.]

“… The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio, meaning ‘bundle of sticks,’ ultimately from the Latin word fasces. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates. According to Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini’s own account, the Fasces of Revolutionary Action were founded in Italy in 1915. In 1919, Mussolini founded the Italian Fasces of Combat in Milan, which became the National Fascist Party two years later.

We’ll address the second paragraph first to study the what and why of fascism’s etymology, and then return to the first paragraph to ask which factions on the American culture-war battlefield actually fit the term.

To cut right to the quick, let’s bring in Wikipedia’s most shocking admission, from it’s entry on the word “Faggot” as a pejorative against homosexual men.

The first recorded use of faggot as a pejorative term for gay men was in the 1914 “A Vocabulary of Criminal Slang,” while the shortened form “fag” first appeared in 1923 in “The Hobo” by Nels Anderson. Its immediate origin is unclear, but it is based on the word for “bundle of sticks,” ultimately derived, via Old French, Italian and Vulgar Latin, from Latin fasces.

The connection is prima facie self-evident, but the reason is hidden under layers of obfuscation. Here is where the “admissions against interest” end, and the wall of censorship and suppression rises.

The formalization of fascism in Italy as an ideological movement followed almost two decades of de-facto fascism by the German Gemeinschaft der Eigene “Community of the Elite” – a movement of ultra-masculine “butch” homosexuals who taught that homosexuals of their type had been the founders of all nation-states through history (research Adolf Brand, Hans Blueher and Benedict Friedlander). Their underground network of like-minded homosexuals transcended national boundaries, especially with Italy, where the German industrial titan and predatory pederast and international armaments king Friedrich Krupp set up his own “Epstein Island” of boys on Capri in 1904. The Krupp company later became a major arms supplier of Benito Mussolini’s regime.

Fascism finally came out of the closet as an organized political ideology when Mussolini established his Fasci Italiani di Combattimento (Italian Combat Leagues) in 1919, the same year the Nazi Party was formed in Germany.

Importantly, the Butches did not think of themselves as “homosexuals,” a term associated with the effeminate “gay” men aligned with the higher-profile Karl Heirich Ulrichs and his Scientific Humanitarian Committee devoted to repealing Germany’s sodomy laws. The Butches and Femmes were deadly enemies – which is why “homosexuals” were publicly shunned and disparaged in both Germany and Italy, while the Butches of the “Mannerbund” (militaristic all-male society) were everywhere esteemed as paragons of masculinity. Unlike the Femmes, the Butches kept their sex lives as secret as possible, but the truth was well know to the elites and style-setters, and that’s the inside joke about the link of “fascism” and “faggots.”

Mock this brief summary if you choose, but my 6th Edition of “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party” (in progress) offers over 500 pages of unimpeachable proof of its larger thesis, of which this topic is a small part. Read the 4th Edition if you can’t wait for the upgraded 6th).

Turning back to Wikipedia’s first paragraph on “Fascism,” I highlighted the 10 characteristics it says defines “Fascism.” 1 & 3, “far-right” and “ultranationalist” are redundant, being synonymous opposites to internationalism” (more precisely “one-worldism”), which is a central tenet of Communism. The remainder are all obvious characteristics of the American hard left, not the right. The American right is still defined by its love – indeed demand for – constitutionalism, government by limited delegated authority, opposition to “forever wars,” self-determination not governmental dictates, and provably fair and honest elections and election laws.

Taking for our examples only the COVID plandemic, Ukraine policy and the “Green New Deal,” it is clearly the left that exemplifies authoritarianism, dictatorial leadership, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy (based on ideology), subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race (i.e. racial minorities), and strong regimentation of society and the economy. To those I would add, the “groomer” obsession with total cultural supremacy of all things LGBT – evolved from Butch fascist origins in the on-again/off-again partnership of Germany and Italy – and sustained into the future through the relentless indoctrination of schoolchildren.

Out of their own mouths, the leftist “fact checkers” of Wikipedia condemn themselves.

Anyone who’s ever looked deeply into the well of human sexual depravity will recognize that all deviance is measured against the standard of true normalcy: monogamous binary heterosexuality. It is a universal human norm, known in Christendom as the One-Flesh Paradigm, based on Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Faithful Jews and Christians adhere to this standard, or at least aspire to do so.

The sinfulness/harmfulness of any given sexual act, inclination or relationship is judged by God and His law based upon its degree of its deviance from the standard. The acts, inclinations and relationships most similar to the standard are judged least harshly in the Bible. These include female concubinage (a man having a “mistress” with or without the knowledge or permission of the wife), bigamy (two wives) and polygamy. These forms of deviance are actually tolerated in the Mosaic Law in the way and for the reason divorce is tolerated there. Introducing the terms of the New Covenant about 1,300 years later, Jesus explained that those laxities were temporary accommodations to human weakness in the Old Covenant: “because of the hardness of your hearts.” Humanity wasn’t morally evolved enough to meet the higher standard in the days of Moses, and so God left some wiggle-room in the law.

Make no mistake: There are always negative consequences for violating the standard, even within the limits of the Mosaic law, because anything humans do that is “out of order” has ripple effects that compound over time (just look at the lives of most divorced people and their children). Jesus thus began his Sermon on the Mount by contrasting the letter of the old law with the spirit of the law that He now would expect humanity to faithfully embrace – at least aspirationally. Implicit in his exhortation to that higher standard was the truth that no one could actually meet that standard perfectly except Himself, which was why he explained, “I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by Me.”

Now, the other end of the spectrum of deviance – the collection of most-deviant sexual sins cataloged in Leviticus 18 – was NEVER accommodated by God but in fact was always punished with death (physical and/or spiritual). That harshness was re-affirmed in the New Covenant in Paul’s treatise on Christian theology in Romans 1-8, particularly chapter 1:18-32. That remains God’s law to this day, notwithstanding the opinions of any human revisionists. Thank God for Grace and Mercy in Jesus Christ – the only path of escape from that fate.

So when you look down the well of sexual depravity you can see that all the way on the bottom are the most deviant behaviors of all: homosexuality and bestiality, in that order (Leviticus 18:22-23 – the original source of British and American sodomy laws), because they’re the farthest from the One Flesh Paradigm.

About halfway down that well is Epstein’s island, where you can see super rich and powerful adult men preying on “underage” girls collected there for their sexual pleasure. And you can see the sleazy adult women who helped facilitate that. (If you look even more carefully, you can see all the “honey-pot” hidden cameras gathering evidence for blackmail.)

We’re all rightfully scandalized by Epstein Island, but to put it in perspective, the girl victims are sexually mature and technically of marriageable age. The sex they’re involved with isn’t much different from the concubinage allowed in the Mosaic Law. It deserves condemnation, but the bigger question is where are the Epstein Islands of the more deviant kind? You know they must be out there somewhere in real life, hidden beneath the dark conspiratorial clouds of the “pizzagates” and Franklin cover-ups – because evil people of means have always pursued their lusts from time immemorial.

In my research for “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party,” I’ve discovered one of history’s “Epstein Islands” of boys – the Island of Capri, Italy. Here is an excerpt from the 6th edition (in progress):

According to Edward Rothstein, in a July 6, 2002, New York Times editorial titled “Is There a Gay Basis to Nietzsche’s Ideas,” “Richard Wagner spread rumors that Nietzsche suffered from the side-effects of excessive masturbation and, perhaps, pederasty.” The Rothstein editorial was based primarily upon the book “Zarathustra’s Secret: The Interior Life of Friedrich Nietzsche” by Joachim Kohler. The flyleaf of that book describes its thesis: “In a revealing reinterpretation of his letters, diaries and writings, Kohler shows that Nietzsche’s suppressed homosexuality, generating a hatred of Christianity and conventional morality, was a central influence on his work.”

Kohler writes: “The hidden yearning nestling behind Nietzsche’s hatred of morality and of secrecy had as its goal the world of handsome, healthy bodies in a reborn antiquity. … In Italy he found what he had been looking for.” (Kohler:xvi). “In the work of August von Platen, who had inspired his novella ‘Capri,’ Nietzsche found what he needed…In Italy, wrote Platen, ‘love between men and men is so common that even the boldest of demands do not meet with a rejection.’ … Throughout the nineteenth century and far into the twentieth the exiles from Sodom sought a new home in the ‘warm south.’ Nietzsche joined them: ‘I flew across the sea to the south,’ he wrote.” (ibid:161)

[But those weren’t mere rumors.] … According to Macintyre in “Forgotten Fatherland: The Search For Elisabeth Nietzsche,” Frederich Nietzsche never married and had no known female sex partners, but went insane at age 44 and eventually died of syphilis. According to Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, Nietzsche had caught the disease at a homosexual brothel in Genoa, Italy (McIntyre:91f). [But it might well have been Capri instead.]

… The German police had a secret file about highly placed homosexuals who might be liable to scandal and blackmail. It included dossiers on the armaments king, Friedrich Krupp, one of the Kaiser’s brothers, the Kaiser’s aide, Prince Eulenberg, the Kaiserin’s private secretary, Count Kuno von Moltke and others. [Krupp] was married, but he and his wife lived separately so that he could lavishly indulge his homosexual desires. At his Grotto of Fra Felice, a cave above the sea on Capri, he created a private pleasure palace where he …[became notorious for] seducing minors.

I suspect Portland, Oregon, had its own version of this and still does. In the late ’80s, my wife worked as a volunteer for the Salvation Army in a Portland program for street kids and was told that many of the teen boy street hustlers were “graduates” of a string of “floating brothels” of pre-teen boys. (Word was that once they got too old to appeal to the rich Portland pedophiles they were kicked out on the street.) I think this is much more common than people believe.

We should all treat the Epstein Island case as a tip-of-the-iceberg phenomenon and keep looking deeper to find and expose the worse scandals and rescue the victims – using everything we find as evidence that God’s standard has always been right in every respect.

For more on this topic see “The Pink Swastika” 4th Edition here.

I have been very impressed with the anti-DEI efforts of conservative activist Robby Starbuck. In just the past year he has persuaded multiple major corporations, including Tractor Supply, John Deere, Harley-Davidson, Jack Daniel’s, Lowe’s and Ford Motor Co., to scale back or end their cooperation with the homo-fascists behind the Diversity Equity and Inclusion mandates being forced upon the business world in this country. He’s a fellow Tennessee transplant from California whom I’ve never met, but I’d like to help him and all those fighting this heroic battle by offering a little helpful history on the main driving force behind those DEI mandates, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s largest LGBT lobbying organization and political action committee.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a disinterested party in this matter. The HRC published a dossier on me about a decade ago, funded by the reprobate RINO megadonor Paul Singer, naming me public enemy No. 1 of the LGBT agenda internationally. Truth be told, those were my glory days in the pro-family movement – the peak of which was pushing for a ban on LGBT propaganda to children in a 50 city tour of the former Soviet Union, including many stops in Russia, which actually passed that law in 2013. These days I’m pretty much a groundskeeper on my son’s farm, focused on publishing my sixth and dramatically expanded final edition of “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party” (my “magnum opus”). (Get the fourth edition here.)

Here’s some of the new material I’ve just included in the book’s sixth manuscript in a section comparing the pederasty at the heart of Nazism with that among powerful homosexuals in the USA today:

[Begin excerpt.] In November of 2014 , Terry Bean, founder of the world’s largest and most powerful LGBT lobbying organization and political action committee, the Human Rights Campaign, was charged in Lane County, Oregon, with the pederastic abuse of a 15-year-old boy, specifically two felony counts of sodomy in the third degree, and one misdemeanor count of sex abuse in the third degree.

The Willamette Week wrote: Bean made millions as a real estate developer and used his wealth to promote political causes, primarily gay rights. He is a founder of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading gay-rights organization and has given more than $1 million to the group. He has also been a central figure in national Democratic politics. As WW reported in June: “No Oregonian has raised more money for President Barack Obama. At a 2009 Human Rights Campaign dinner, Obama called Bean a ‘great friend and supporter.’ The president in 2012 hosted Bean on Air Force One, and when Obama visits Oregon, Bean has had the honor of greeting him as the president gets off his plane.”

The Willamette Week newspaper, based in Portland, is no enemy of LGBT causes. This same paper had been caught with egg on its face for endorsing openly “gay” Sam Adams for mayor of Portland (despite allegations of pederasty against him) when he later admitted he lied about having a sexual affair with a teenage boy.

The Terry Bean saga did not end with a simple trial and sentence, however. The original trial never occurred because Bean “reached a settlement” with the complainant in the sum of $200,000. The judge, it appears, had allowed Bean to “buy off” the victim, and the case was dismissed to the shock of prosecutors and the public. The following is from an article in the Eugene Register Guard of Jan. 18, 2019:

“In 2015, when the case was dropped, Prosecutor Scott Healy wrote in his objection that he had ‘never seen a civil compromise agreement offered in a case this serious. … It was somewhat of a surprise to find out such a remedy was even available in a child sex abuse case,’ Healy wrote. ‘Normally, such a remedy is suggested in low-level property crime cases where the facts are not too aggravated and the defendant has no prior criminal record or history of similar conduct. This is not the case here.’ Healy characterized Bean as a predator with a ‘history of targeting, grooming and victimizing young teenage boys for his own sexual exploitation.'”

But the Bean soap opera did not end there. In 2019, the alleged victim (now an adult) re-emerged and Bean was criminally re-indicted. The man further filed a $6.5 million civil suit against the attorney, Lori Deveny, who had represented him in the 2015 “settlement,” whom he alleged had pocketed most of the money from Bean herself and gave him just $5,000. Reported the Register Guard: “The man also alleges Deveny forged his signature on the agreement and provided him with negligent advice against the orders of a judge to accept the payment from Bean. … [She] hid the boy and his guardian from the Lane County District Attorney’s Office in various places around Oregon until the case against Bean was dismissed in 2015, the lawsuit states. … According to the [Oregon State] bar’s database online, Deveny was suspended in April and resigned in July of [2019].”

The Bean criminal case was not resolved until Jan. 14, 2022, when all charges against him were dismissed because the alleged victim “declined to participate” in prosecution. [Jaquiss, Nigel (January 14, 2022). “State Dismisses Criminal Sex Abuse Charges Against Terry Bean.” Willamette Week. Retrieved 2022-01-15.”] [End Excerpt.]

Now, given that mere association with out-of-favor historical figures has been sufficient cause in the logic of DEI advocates to cancel countless conservatives and remove statues and other historic artifacts from public lands, it stands to reason that the Human Rights Campaign should be held to account for its association with its own founder, Terry Bean. At the very least, all future invocations of the name Human Rights Campaign or its acronym HRC should be accompanied by the reminder that it was founded by an accused pederast.

The fact Bean is merely “accused” and not convicted and jailed (as was his non-politically-connected co-defendant) seems to be another example of the abuse of power in our two-tiered justice system. As Assistant DA William Oakley said to “Saul Goodman” in the comedy-drama series “Better Call Saul” about Goodman’s similarly dubious escape from justice: “There’s proving and then there’s knowing”

It would be good for the corporate giants being bent to the will of the depraved HRC to know who they’re actually in bed with.

The next time some smarmy leftist calls the MAGA movement fascist, hit back with the truth.

Since WWII Americans have been so saturated with facts and fiction about Nazi Germany that most people think they know its history pretty well, and in some respects they do. But the narratives that shape public perception about a topic do not always tell the whole truth. Indeed, sometimes the narratives intentionally suppress and obscure facts that powerful interests want to shove deep into history’s closets.

Such is the case with Germany’s status as the birthplace of the modern “gay” movement and the central role of that movement in the rise and rule of the Nazi Party. These facts have been purged from the narratives and replaced with a cynical mythology about the Nazi persecution of “gays.”

As with most effective lies, there’s a grain of truth or two to make it believable, but the actual whole-truth of the matter is so stunningly contradictory to the popular narrative as to be breathtaking. When you finally see the strength and sheer volume of the evidence, you wonder how the liars could have pulled off a cover-up of such magnitude. (Given that I’m writing this just after the astonishing gaslighting efforts of the Democrat National Convention of 2024, that level of audacity doesn’t seem so implausible.)

Finding the proof is actually not that hard if you know where to look. Ironically, a great many of the best sources are the early 20th century Marxist counterparts and predecessors of today’s most oppressive censors. In the 1920s and ’30s, the hard left intentionally exposed and documented the homosexuality of the Nazis because, although they were fellow Marxists in the sense of the Nazis being “National Socialists,” they were fierce political rivals for control of Germany. Commies and Socialists are often deadly enemies (e.g., the Bernie Sanders/AOC bloc vs. Pelosi and the Clintons).

After the war, however, when the Marxist priority shifted to eliminating Christianity as its main rival in the world’s new superpower, America, their primary strategy was “sexual revolution” (aka sexual anarchy), and for that to work they needed to hide just how socially corrosive widespread homosexuality really is. It just wouldn’t do to have their own cultural storm troops being compared side by side to Germany’s.

The first phase of sexual revolution was relatively tame and almost exclusively heterosexually oriented. The SSADs (sufferers of Same-Sex Attraction Disorder) needed to sexually compromise the Normies before pushing the envelope into more deviant territory. That was “mission accomplished” by the 1960s, making hard-leftist political control possible nationally under LBJ, while making censorship of the homo-fascism of pre-war Germany urgently necessary before they could unleashed their own overtly homo-fascist campaign. It was in the early ’60s that the suppression of the truth about Nazi Germany really started getting heavy.

Their war plans were delayed until the days-long Stonewall Riots began June 28, 1969, “Gay Pride Day.” That was the anniversary of the very weekend on which the German “Night of the Long Knives ” occurred in 1934: the so-called “Roehm Purge.” While not necessarily planned in advance, it was instantly adopted as the birthday of hardcore militancy by “gay” leaders.

On that first “Gay Pride Day,” Roehm-style homo-fascism arose like a Phoenix from the ashes, relentlessly focused on total cultural supremacy over Christianity, following Italian Marxist Antonio Gramschi’s model of methodic incremental change at the institutional level – coerced by constant pressure from the street and the media. German-born immigrant and Cultural Marxism pioneer Herbert Marcuse had long set the guiding narratives from high on his perch in the pre-CIA Office of Strategic Services (OSS) from which he flittered like Tinker Bell from one Ivy League university to the next as the “fair-haired boy” of the American intelligentsia. All with a strong assist since the late 1940s by fraudulent “sex researcher,” social engineer and pan-sexualist pervert Alfred Kinsey, backed by the Rockefellers. By ’69 the entire network was fully prepped for cultural Blitzkreig.

In the American reiteration, however, the SSADs would not make the fatal mistake of disunity, having learned from the German experience the hard lesson that “a house divided cannot stand.” Thus came the post-Stonewall emergence of an unbreakable coalition of “sexual minorities” under the LGBT banner. Their differences were hashed out in a Chicago conference of 200 entities that produced one common agenda called the 1972 Gay Rights Platform, a list of demands to federal and state governments including all the priorities of the various factions presented as a single package. It even included the priority of the pederasts and pedophiles, which became Item 7 of the Demand for States: “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent” (the only demand still not granted – although the MAPs Maneuver and the Lincoln Project are edging them closer).

The LGBT street-activists then took the battle to the streets – targeting the American Psychiatric Association (APA) first with Brownshirt-style pubic harassment and disruptions (which they called “zapping”) of any medical professionals unwilling to remove the behavioral disorder of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM4), the “bible” of the mental health profession. Within a year they forced a politically, not scientifically, driven vote-by-mail in the APA (of which they controlled the mailing list), and viola, homosexuality was no longer a behavioral disorder, and the APA forever after belonged to LGBT Borg.

Immediately on the heels of the APA conquest, “closeted” Cultural Marxist forces who had long been marbled through the elite strata of society, forced open to LGBTs the previously closed doors of K-12 academia and many other culture-shaping professions. Before long they controlled them all, although it wasn’t until Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12968 that they apparently got control of U.S. intelligence agencies, too.

That, in a nutshell, is the concise history of the American culture war that has evolved into the DEI and child grooming/mutilating nightmare Donald Trump and the MAGA movement promise to end.

The American left is fond of equating the MAGA movement with fascism, when they themselves are the true Brownshirts as proven by their actions. The common impulse when being falsely accused of “hatred” is to take some step of compromise to try and prove you’re not. IT’S A TRAP. They’ll never concede you’re not a hater, no matter how much you pander, and you’ll end up just diminishing your inherent moral authority as a Normie.

My appeal to the MAGA patriots is this: Don’t fall prey to the leftist narrative that “sexual orientations” are harmless equivalents to normal sexuality and the natural family. Don’t give in to virtue signaling impulses on, for example, so-called “gay marriage” to try and “soften” your stance against transgenderism. Always say YES to sympathy, compassion and reasonable tolerance for those who suffer from Gender Identity Confusion and/or SSADness, but never shrink from your duty to protect society from the harmful LGBT political and cultural agenda.

For more on this topic, read “The Pink Swastika” here. (A 6th Edition is in process.)

Adolf Hitler did not create the Third Reich – it created him. What started as a nationalist movement dominated by butch male homosexuals grew from an idea to an empire, and as it did these ambitious men literally groomed the young Adolf in both the modern and the old-school meaning of the term.

The Third Reich was a German inevitability: No nation ever escapes the dream of recapturing its former greatness, which in Germany’s history was no less a world power than Charlemagne’s thousand-year Holy Roman Empire. Otto von Bismarck tried to recreate it in 1871 with his Second Reich, which died in World War I under the mismanagement and unshakable homosexual scandals of Kaiser (Caesar) Wilhelm II (research the Eulenberg Affair). But the third effort was launched while the second was still a pile of smoldering embers, while Adolf Hitler was just a teenage street hustler turning tricks in Munich and Vienna to fund his aspiring career as an artist (a fact today’s gay-pandering leftists would self-immolate before admitting as reflected in Wikipedia’s faux-disinterested but desperately dishonest dismissal of Lothar Machtan’s documentation-packed exposé “The Hidden Hitler”).

Hitler’s earliest influence was “The Man Who Gave Hitler His Ideas,” Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels, the presumably homosexual former Catholic monk who was expelled from the Cistercian Order for “worldly and carnal desires” and who published Adolf’s favorite magazine, Ostara. Lanz was given that title by German psychologist Wilfried Daim who catalogs and elaborates on the numerous ways Lanz shaped Hitler’s worldview in his 1957 book of that title.

Lanz, along with occult partner and “rune” expert Guido von List, headed Helena Blavatski’s Theosophist movement in Germany and published its magazine, Lucifer, which featured a swastika in its emblem. Lanz was the first to fly the swastika flag in Germany, in 1907 over an old castle he bought to run his operations from, including the homo-occultic “Germanen Order” that later morphed into the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Heavily suppressed post-WWII by the leftist-controlled press and publishing world in the U.S. and Europe, Hitler’s start as a boy prostitute and his lifetime preference for male homosexual associates was already well-known in Germany in the early days of the Nazi Party – documented in police records and by multiple witnesses. UNTIL, that is, the “Night of the Long Knives” in 1934 when just about anyone who knew Hitler’s secrets –friends and foes alike – were murdered and the evidence purged: literally hundreds of people. (But some witnesses and evidence about Hitler and the “gay” Nazis survived as Kevin Abrams and I invested years of our lives documenting in “The Pink Swastika”).

It was Jewish-born news journalist and publisher Maximillian Harden (and the Jewish editors of the Munich Post) who made sure the German public knew that the nationalist/monarchist movement was rife with homosexuality. In 1906 Harden heroically exposed the homosexual cabal that controlled the young Kaiser and kept that scandal alive until Wilhelm (according to some observers) launched WWI to deflect attention from the years-long public trials and their aftermath that threatened his reign. It is said that Hitler’s hatred of the Jews began then, when the Prussian “gay” war heroes at the heart of the Eulenberg scandal were being dragged through the mud for the very sexual orientation Adolf shared with them. The timeline he relates in “Mein Kampf” about his attitude toward Jews fits this theory.

Hitler was a nobody in the military-dominated nationalist movement. He emerged from WWI as a lowly corporal with the taint of a barely hidden homosexual relationship with a fellow soldier hanging over him, which was perhaps what attracted Capt. Ernst Roehm to him. Even today’s leftist propaganda machine can’t bury Roehm’s homo-fascist personae and history, so notorious was he as the founder of the Sturmagteilung (SA) Storm Troopers. For example, a Munich Post article of June 1931was headlined “Warm Brotherhood in [Roehm’s SA] Brown House: Sexual Life in the Third Reich” and began “Every knowledgeable person knows … that inside the Hitler Party the most flagrant [homosexual] whorishness … is widespread.”

Roehm had been recruited into homosexuality by Gerhard Rossbach whose “Rossbachbund” troop of all or mostly homosexual ex-soldiers was called the Brown Shirts because he clothed them in the leftover brown uniforms of Germany’s defeated African colonies – as distinct from the grey uniforms worn by all the other Freicorps. Roehm took command of the troop from Rossbach, and by 1932 had built his Brown Shirted SA to a force 3 million strong – a true threat to the traditional army limited by the Treaty of Versailles to 100,000 (which was the real reason Roehm was killed by Hitler in ’34 at the insistence of President Hindenberg and the military/industrial powers; purging the “gays” was a cover story only partially true).

Roehm was the true power behind Hitler’s throne until his murder: a part of the early leadership circle that prized the young Adolf’s skill for oratory and his passionate hatred of the Communists – whose bands of street fighters were pressing hard into Germany through Bavaria in the late 1910s and early ’20s hoping to repeat their recent victory over Russia. Roehm’s fast-growing fascist SA army, for which Hitler was at first just a figurehead, was recognized by the Socialist Weimar government as its best hope for defeating the Reds and gave them a long leash (at least until the Beerhall Putsch of November ’23 – but by then the Nazi movement proved too strong to kill).

The Third Reich vision and movement was older and broader that the Nazi movement that assimilated it, but nearly every symbol, practice and policy that is emblematic of Nazism also became synonymous with the Third Reich. Importantly, nearly all of these icons originated in one or another of the factions of German’s huge “gay” subculture, specifically those of the butch male persuasion, in contrast to the “femmes” who aligned with the Communists, explaining why many effeminate “gays” (called kummerlings – “puny beings” by the butches) got persecuted and sent to camps by fellow deviants on the Fascist side.

It was the butch-“gay” vision of a homoerotic military hierarchy – popularized by the pederast group Der Meinschaft der Eigene, and implemented by “gay” leaders like Rossbach and Roehm – that produced the Nazi social order. It was in the Wandervogel youth movement built on that mannerbund model where the Seig Heil salute and semi-religious leadership designation “Der Fuhrer” were popularized. That organization was made infamous as a homosexual grooming operation by the brazenly frank 1912 book, “The Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon,” by Wandervogel leader Hans Blueher, and later morphed into the Hitler Youth.

The homo-occult movement of Lanz, List et al. gave the Nazis their swastika and numerous runic symbols such as the single and double lightning bolt, and inspired Heinrich Himmler to spawn the military-occultic order called the SS and its demonic Gestapo. The list goes on and on – all documented by reliable sources, most of which are either well-respected mainstream reporters or self-admitted “gay” journalists or historians.

The term “Third Reich” was never a part of any official declaration by Adolf Hitler, even after the Nazis long march to power put him in the office of German chancellor in 1932. It was only after he orchestrated the Reichstag Fire in 1933 to solidify his control over the legislature that the Nazi Party, not specifically he, adopted the increasingly common public reference to a Third Reich as its own. In reality, the term embodied the vision of the ultra-masculine social and political movement upon whose tide Hitler rose to power – a vision most clearly articulated by a 1923 book on nationalist theory by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck’s titled “Das Dritte Reich” (The Third Empire). Bottom line, the butch-“gay”-dominated Third Reich movement created Hitler, not him it.

WND publishes my regular columns on Tuesdays. Today’s posting corresponds with the deeply solemn Ninth of Av on the Hebrew calendar – the anniversary of the Hebrews’ fatal failure to obey God’s command to invade the Holy Land from the south under Moses. There is a reasonable risk that Iran will choose today to retaliate against Israel for its recent presumed assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyehin in Tehran, and I urge prayer that any such attack will be thwarted or minimized. [Update: Iran has reportedly delayed it’s revenge pending U.S. talks … we’ll see.]

This is the third in a series that began with my article “Zionism and the ‘Last Days War’ for Israel” and continued with the sequel, “Islamo-Hebrew Relations from Hagar to Hamas.” In this article, I want to expand upon a point I made in the second piece. I wrote, “Most in Christendom who battle over ‘Zionism’ wrongly think the fight is about the ‘goodness’ or ‘evil’ of the modern House of Judah relative to its possession of the Holy Land.” However, Judah’s land rights (while subject in the longer term to the mandate of Leviticus 18:24-30) are not “merit based” in any short-term sense of the phrase.

I frequently debate anti-Zionists who erroneously characterize me as a “Christian Zionist” (a slur from their perspective). I am neither a Christian Zionist nor an Anti-Zionist. I consider myself a Two-House Millennialist, which means I believe the Bible’s prophecy, best summarized in Ezekiel 37:15-28, of a future earthy kingdom under Christ, exemplified by the reunification of the two Hebrew houses between which God’s covenant was divided under Jacob. As I explained in the first article, “Zionism” has been defined since it was formalized in Great Britain in 1897, by exclusive control of the Holy Land by the House of Judah. I happen to support the Jewish land claim but not the premise of one-house Zionism. And, incidentally, I don’t base my support upon the claim of moral right due to Jewish suffering in the Holocaust and centuries of horrific pogroms – which persecutions I vigorously deplore.

My support is based almost entirely on Bible prophecy because prophecy reflects the will and plan of God, not the priorities and traditions of men. My first article addressed God’s eternal covenantal land grant to the descendants of Jacob, but here is the path of some additional proof-texts I follow:

God’s unbreakable and perpetual covenant promised Abraham that “Your descendants will possess the gates of their enemies” (Genesis 22:17b). This explains the phenomenon of outsized Hebrew influence in the affairs of the world throughout history. Its practical manifestation is clearly showcased in the Bible in the lives of Joseph (House of Israel) and Daniel (House of Judah per Daniel 1:6).

Joseph rose from suffering in prison to sit “second chair” to Pharaoh and controlled Egyptian domestic and foreign policy as it related to the priorities of the Hebrews. When the seven-year famine he had prophesied occurred, he used the crisis he had planned for to vastly enrich and empower the Pharaonic Dynasty, which he served as its de facto central banker/trade minister, while saving the entire region from starvation (Genesis 41-43).

Daniel rose from the role of Judean captive to sit “second chair” to King Nebuchadnezzar. “[T]he king promoted Daniel and gave him many generous gifts. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and chief administrator over all the wise men of Babylon. And at Daniel’s request, the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to manage the province of Babylon, while Daniel remained in the king’s court” (Daniel 1-2, especially 2:48-49).

This is the same model we have seen during much of the Gentile Age – Jewish trade and banking powers aligned with Christian monarchies and steering domestic and foreign policies largely with benign effect for the empires in which they sit “second chair” (the best and most recent example being Great Britain). This well-documented historical truth is characterized as an anti-Semitic trope because of the violent reaction of supersessionist Christians who believe the Christian church fully supplanted the Hebrews at the First Advent of Christ, but it is in fact the outworking of the will of God and a fixed aspect of human civilization since Abraham that will only end at the Second Advent of Christ, when the Jews collectively do finally receive Him per Romans 11:25.

This is not to say the policy-steering Hebrew powers are always benign, because they’re not. They’ve always been a mixed bag (read Jeremiah 24). Indeed, as measured by the yardstick of Leviticus 18, we are presently in a season of malignancy and abominations – which will be punished by God as it was of old: with the desolation of the land in His perfect timing.

For Christian end-time prophecy (outlined by Christ Himself in Matthew 24:3-26:1) to be fulfilled, the House of Judah must be in possession of the Holy Land. It’s people must succumb to the deceptions of the false-Christ Antichrist that only the “elect” (defined in Romans 11:5-7 – essentially Messianic Jews saved by grace) will recognize as a fraud. And it must suffer the “time of Jacob’s trouble” as a consequence of rejecting Jesus Christ at His first coming. It is living under Christ’s curse of Matthew 23:37-39 until it finally bends the knee to Him in the events described in Zechariah 14 (note the exclusive mention of Judah in 14:14).

At the present time the House of Judah has full authority to represent all Hebrews in its naming of the Holy Land as Israel rather than Judea. Jacob himself prophesied that “Judah, your brothers shall praise you. Your hand shall be on the necks of your enemies. … The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes and the allegiance of the nations is his.” That “scepter” prophecy of a Judean monarchy was begun with King David and continued despite the division of his kingdom under Rehoboam and Jeroboam. Indeed (right or wrong) the assertion of “British Israelism” that England’s monarchs were a modern continuation of that Judean monarchy was a centerpiece of that world-shaping doctrine.

The fact that the Northern Kingdom “House of Israel” was divorced by God (Hosea 1-3, Jeremiah 3:8) following Ahab and Jezebel’s sins, vested all remaining Hebrew authority in Judah … “until Shiloh comes and the allegiance of the nations is his.” Shiloh was for four centuries the House of Israel’s capital in the Holy Land, which house has been defined by Christianity since Jesus died on the cross to free it to remarry – making every believer in Him a “Bride of Christ” pending the “Wedding Feast of the Lamb.” Shiloh IS Christ in the Jacoban prophecy, bringing us full circle back to modern Israel where the “time of Jacob’s trouble” grows daily closer.

When as a Christian law student in the mid-1990s I collaborated with the late Rabbi Samuel Dresner on a book project, he taught me to recognize many of the stories of the Old Testament (especially in Genesis) as cautionary tales: what humanity ought not to do and why. These mostly involved sexuality and family relationships; for example, polygamy (Genesis 4:19-24), homosexuality (Genesis 19:4-11) and incest (Genesis 19: 30-38).

The consequences to civilization of these sins were severe and lasting. The self-pride associated with Lamech’s polygamy led both to murder and the tradition of exacting revenge on others beyond proportion to what one suffered. (The Mosaic law of “eye for and eye” is actually an attempt to correct that error.) The social acceptance of homosexual depravity caused it to spread like a virus (Psalm 12:8) and became the key harbinger of God’s wrath from Genesis to Revelation. Lot’s incest with his daughters spawned the rival “Mamzer” nations of Amon and Moab – strictly banned from interbreeding with Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:3) as border nations continually hostile to the Israelites through Bible history.

One example we didn’t discuss is modernly called “swinging,” which is letting a stranger or strangers into the marriage bed by permission of the spouse. The first case of that in the Bible was initiated by (pre-covenant) Abram’s wife, Sarai, who thought the shame of her barrenness could be overcome by having her husband mate with her handmaid, Hagar. The near-term consequence of that was Hagar’s sudden and growing contempt for Sarai upon awareness of her pregnancy, which produced her son Ishmael – technically Abram’s firstborn. The long-term consequence was a root of lasting racial bitterness which vengeful Sarai caused when she “treated [pregnant] Hagar so harshly that she fled from her” into the wilderness per Genesis 16:6. (Abram himself had abdicated his responsibilities to both women and the baby by giving his wife free reign to do it.)

But God intervened there, when “the angel of the LORD told [Hagar], ‘Return to your mistress and submit to her authority.’ Then the angel added, ‘I will greatly multiply your offspring so that they will be too numerous to count.’ The angel of the LORD proceeded: ‘Behold, you have conceived and will bear a son. And you shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard your cry of affliction. He will be a wild donkey of a man, and his hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.’ So Hagar gave this name to the LORD who had spoken to her: ‘You are the God who sees me,’ for she said, ‘Here I have seen the One who sees me!'”

The trouble that Abraham and Sarah invited into their pre-covenant home became a permanent part of it, but also was revealed to be a part of God’s plan for their eventual redemption after millennia of social and political complexities and drama.

Ishmael is racially and theologically the tap-root of Islam – the original “victim” of an ancient “oppression,” grounded in the ostensibly plausible claim of a stolen birthright. The world religion that eventually emerged from this grievance is thus centered on hatred of “Jews,” and in practice fulfills the Angel’s prophecy of a nation of innumerable “wild donkeys” in perpetual conflict with and hostility toward everyone outside of itself. History shows that description is perfectly represented in Islam – a religion of war and conquest for whom “peace” means total submission to itself. But which, to be fair, largely respects the God of the Bible to the extent they understand Him. Granted, their perspective is very confused and convoluted and mixed with ancient paganism involving a moon god – Judges 8:21 – but in some other ways cleaves more closely to biblical morality and social policy than do leftist and “moderate” versions of Christianity and Judaism.

The sin of polygamy was repeated by Jacob, causing the inheritance of Abraham’s covenanted promises to be divided between the separate houses of Leah and Rachel – a topic I write on frequently because of its forgotten centrality to Bible history and prophecy. That spawned the sibling rivalry of Judah and Joseph, which was spotlighted at their first crossroads with protean Islam in Genesis 37: Judah orchestrating the sale of Joseph to the Egypt-bound Ishmaelites – who were already slave-traders then, a custom and practice that persists today.

That was only the fourth generation of the civilization-restart God established through Abraham’s bloodline to reshape the post-flood world (which Sodom proved wasn’t going so well) and just the 14th generation from the flood itself. Racial genetics was a big factor then for God’s own reasons that don’t apply in the Christian era. People reaped blessings and curses based upon their ethnic relationships – individually and collectively. It was the sad reality of the world that innocent children paid the price for the conduct of their forebears (historically being slaughtered or enslaved by conquering armies) – until Christ came with a new standard of individual merit-based reward (prophesied in Jeremiah 31:29-30), which has since become one of the implicit first principles of “universal” human rights.

Although their diversified cultures have assimilated many Christian views and values over the past 2,000 years in whole or in part, self-identified Jews and Muslims by definition reject Christ as Savior and thus retain ancient ethnicity-based vows and animosities, which, biblically speaking, are still fully binding upon them – and are on full display today in the Middle East.

God told Abraham that “through your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed” – and that fulfilled promise is manifestly true in that salvation in Christ is held today by individuals across the entire genetic spectrum of humanity. But the tribes/nations/races and sub-races themselves also still exist and still hold their own group identities – including very emphatically the Judeans (Jews), and the numerous now-Muslim nations of Bible history that still hate them, represented in genetic amalgam as Hamas “Palestinians.”

One other key group deserves mention here also, and that is the Edomites – descendants of Esau who was the victim of another sin involving family relations when his mother, Rebecca, dishonestly orchestrated the passing of Isaac’s estate to her favored son Jacob through trickery (Genesis 27). The enmity that arose then between fraternal twins Esau and Jacob and their descendants persists to this day – having arguably peaked in the lifetime of Herod the Great who slaughtered (with Roman backing) the entire Hebrew Hasmonean Dynasty to take the Judean throne for himself. (The Herods were among many Edomomite families forcibly converted to Judaism about a century before.) [I believe it was primarily the prevalence of Herodians (politically aligned with the Sadducees) among the Jews and Israelites in Jesus’ time that explains His use of parables to hide the true meaning of His messages from non-Hebrews (Luke 8:10).]

Most in Christendom who battle over “Zionism” wrongly think the fight is about the “goodness” or “evil” of the modern House of Judah relative to its possession of the Holy Land. The real fight is between Modern “Israel” and the ancient nations with alternate claims to the land whose dispute can only be resolved on the Field of Armageddon. And the reality is that the Jews are and have always been such a stiff-necked and rebellious people that only their loss of that war in the coming “time of Jacob’s trouble” – far beyond anything they’ve yet suffered on this earth – will be sufficient to finally break them to the will of the Messiah God at the heart of their religion and all their prophecies.

In the very end, they win it all – through collective surrender to Christ – after losing every earthly possession they ever gained and held through duplicity (Zechariah 14). And with that surrender comes the final reconciliation of the two houses that was first broken in Judah’s sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites. That’s the message of Romans 11, backed by Jeremiah 31:12-13 – and by Hosea 1-3, Ezekeiel 37 and Matthew 24:3-26:1 – if you read them with two-house awareness.

This is the first in a series of articles explaining why the battle over “Zionism” that underlies all the wars of modern Israel is unfixable by anyone but Jesus Christ.

When in 1897 a group of Jewish would-be nationalists in Great Britain formally launched a political movement under the banner of Zionism, they usurped for themselves a vision for reclaiming the Holy Land that had previously involved a partnership of both Jews and Christians.

Indeed, that vision and process was centuries old, going back at least to the 1500s in Holland and the British Isles, embodied in the commonly held doctrine of “Millennialism” (the future thousand-year bodily reign of Messiah from Jerusalem) which took the form of world-shaping ideology in the historical and theological doctrine of British Israelism (BI). For the purposes of this article, the validity of the BI doctrine is totally irrelevant. What is most essential to recognize is that highly influential Jews and Christians believed it to be true and/or used it as a controlling narrative to steer British national and international policy by.

BI virtually disappeared from Christendom upon the completion of the Zionist plan to take physical possession of the Holy Land by military force in 1917, when (on their behalf) the armed forces of the British Empire wrested control of Jerusalem and much of the original territory of the Kingdom of David from the Ottoman Turks and legally established the Jewish right to resettle it with the Balfour Declaration. Instead of the long-anticipated joint venture of two houses – Christians and Jews – united in the Holy Land under the banner of Millennialism, the modern State of Israel was born as the exclusive possession of the House of Judah. The war in Christendom about whether to oppose or support one-house Jewish nationalism was engaged: Christian Zionism vs Anti-Zionism.

For the past decade, my primary focus of research has been the history of Christian and Jewish cooperation around the theme of Millennialism during the Age of the Gentiles. I view the present battle of Zionism from far above the battlefield as a blip on a very long timeline that begins with the Abrahamic Covenant in which the land rights were first granted, and tracks the parallel paths of the two houses (Leah’s and Rachel’s) between which those covenantal rights were divided when Jacob married two wives. That timeline ends somewhere in the near future with the second advent of Christ when He will finally end the family squabble by taking personal control of the land and re-establishing the “Throne of David,” which is symbolic of the complete unity of the two houses (two-house harmony in David’s kingdom being the only time it existed in all of Hebrew history – which is the primary reason David is a “type” of Christ.)

The truth of the conflict over the Holy Land and its resolution is found only in the Bible – in the history and prophecies of the two houses: Judah (Leah) and Joseph (Rachel), which represent two distinct but interrelated cohorts in perpetual conflict. That conflict began with Judah’s sale of Joseph (Israel) into slavery to the Gentiles in Genesis 37:26-27, continued through Joseph’s salvation at the cross of Calvary (creating Christianity) and will only end with Judah’s (the “Jews”) final redemption by Christ at the close of the Gentile Age (Romans 11:25, Zechariah 12:10). Again for emphasis – the sole exception to the rule of conflict between the two houses was the reign of David, which is why his “throne” is the model (Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32) for the harmony that will eventually exist in the Millennial Kingdom for the reunited family of the Abrahamic covenant (Ezekiel 37:15-31).

God bequeathed the Holy Land to Abraham in a series of expanding promises: First Shechem (Genesis 12:7), then “all the land you see” (Gen 13:15), then broad specific boundaries (Gen 15:18) and finally “all of Canaan – as an eternal possession” (Gen 17:8). But the right to physical possession was delayed until after a prophesied four hundred years of slavery in Egypt was completed (Gen 15:13), pending the full ripening of the wickedness of the Canaanites that justified God’s sentence of extermination (Gen 15:16, Leviticus 18:24-28).

Hebrew slavery began when Judah convinced his brothers to sell Joseph to Egypt-bound Ishmaelites (the ethnic and theological progenitors of Islam) in Genesis 37:26-27. Joseph soon rose to power second only to Pharaoh, wearing his ring and robe (a fact highly symbolic of the House of Israel in Jesus’ parable of the restoration of the Prodigal Son). His father and all his brothers ended up there too, under his domination in fulfilment of Joseph’s prophetic dreams (Gens 37:3-11).

As the firstborn of Rachel (Rueben, firstborn of the first wife Leah having been disqualified by sleeping with his father’s concubine – 1 Chronicles 5:1), Joseph took his father’s covenantal name – Israel – as part of his inheritance, and received a double portion of the land inheritance in that both his sons held one-twelfth of the Holy Land as tribes alongside their uncles. When it came Jacob’s time to bless the two boys, he broke tradition and chose the younger grandson to inherit his name and first-born rights (Gen 48:8-20). Thus the millennial prophecy of Jeremiah 31:9 states “For I [God] am Israel’s Father, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”

So, first under Joseph and then Ephraim, the House of Israel held leadership power over the 12-tribe Hebrew nation beginning in Egypt until the end of the period of the Judges, with one important interruption. When Joseph’s legacy no longer gave the Hebrews favor under the Egyptian monarchs, God raised up the Levitical priesthood under Moses as an alternative leadership structure that operated alongside the two houses from that time forward and served as the Hebrews’ bridge out of Egypt back to the Holy Land.

Importantly, when God told the tribes to immediately enter the Holy Land from the south, it was only Joshua the Ephraimite and Caleb the Judean of the twelve spies sent to scout the path into Canaan who voted to obey God. The rest rebelled and brought severe judgment on everyone (Numbers 14:36-36). The anniversary of that rebellion is the highly significant 9th of Av (the next being Tuesday, August 13, 2024 on the Gregorian calendar).

When Moses died, the primary leadership mantle fell back upon the House of Israel, led by Joshua, through whom God established the Israelite Republic/Commonwealth featuring a significant degree of tribal and individual self-government under the rule of law (the Mosaic code). Israel’s capital was at Shiloh, where the Tabernacle of God and its holy treasures resided, including the Ark of the Covenant, through the entire period chronicled in Joshua, Judges and the first part of 1 Samuel.

When the House of Israel failed in its leadership duty – allowing the Ark of the Covenant to be stolen by the Philistines – God transferred ruling power to the House of Judah, where it lasted only until David’s son Solomon’s sins caused the division of the two houses to dramatically widen into two opposing kingdoms – which remains the case to this day, visible in the theological conflict of Christians (House of Israel) and Jews (House of Judah), and in the political battle of Christian Zionists vs Anti-Zionists.