A Compendium Of The New Pope’s Woke Tweets: 2015-2025
With the news that 69-year-old Robert Prevost, an American, has become the new pope of the Catholic Church, we wanted to catalog his history of squishy, woke, and downright questionable tweets, demonstrating his liberal views on race and immigration are identical to his progressive predecessor, before they are purged and culled from his timeline forever.
About Author
God smite everyone who accepts this pope. Amen.
God smite all Roman Catholics. Amen.
God smite all who favor immigration. Amen.
Remote work isn’t just a trend, it’s the future of work. qs Work Remotely from your own house. We just want your typing skills, You can make more than 120USD/Hr. No matter where you are. Let’s Grow together and do great things, even if we’re far apart…
Take a Look……… https://tinyurl.com/mue2rsbj
Remote work isn’t just a trend, it’s the future of work. qs Work Remotely from your own house. We just want your typing skills, You can make more than 120USD/Hr. No matter where you are. Let’s Grow together and do great things, even if we’re far apart…
Take a Look……… https://tinyurl.com/mue2rsbj
I get paid over 220 Dollars per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. i never thought i’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 15k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do, check it out by Visiting Following Website
HERE—————⊃⫸ https://tinyurl.com/46fjveeh
Trump should begin rounding up and deporting any Catholic who will now renounce this pope.
I meant “who will not renounce this pope.” Anyone who accept a man that opposes deportations as pope is a traitor. It is not possible to be a Papist and an American. We need a constitutional amendment outlawing Catholicism since it is loyalty to a foreign nation. Ban Judaism and Catholicism as both are POLITICAL not religions, as is Islam. Only Protestants can be allowed to live in America.
With your attitude, pretty soon you’d be the only one left. Is there anyone you don’t hate ? Besides yourself…?
The popes are antichrist. Anyone saying otherwise is not a Protestant. This is why modern Protestantism is so gay. Real Protestants continue to acknowledge that the papacy itself is the seat of antichrist and therefore would oppose allowing Catholics in their country.
Habent antichristum
James Martin SJ, the advocate for alphabet perversion?
When a socialist quotes Matt. 25, he means “you” is to be replaced with “someone else”.
Considering most of the “asylum seekers” at our southern border are coming from predominately RCC countries. Yet they’re coming here to a predominately protestant country.
Apparently it hasn’t dawned on them that when Jesus says “you”, He means “you”. Your time. Your money. Not somebody else’s. YOURS. Not forcing somebody else to do it at the point of a gun. Not enslaving somebody else to do it. But rather YOU do it. And that is how Jesus said that He will judge.
If the RCC actually honored Matt. 25, in those predominately RCC countries, we wouldn’t have any problem with illegal immigration, because they wouldn’t have any need to come here. Mr. Palmo and Co. might want to give this fact some thought.
Matt. 25 is also an example of ordo amoris. Who is Jesus talking about? Those around us. Those near us. Starting from our own family and household (1 Tim. 5:8, etc.) and then outward. The very concept they criticized JD Vance for.
Yet if they themselves honored it, nobody would be fleeing those predominately RCC countries to try to come here.
I wonder how many RCC “churches” illegals pass on their long trek north. Probably hundreds.
The New Pope from Chicago
The Second Vatican: Papal Renewal Beyond the West – Where the Pope lives is where the Church listens. Repentance, exile, diaspora—an act of moral courage. A functioning Roman Curia intact—Rome as the “embassy,” not the throne. A spiritual Vatican abroad (e.g. Bogotá), and an administrative Vatican in Rome—mirroring Orthodox and Eastern Church multi-polarity. The Cross cannot atone for Auschwitz. No theology of the Cross is complete without acknowledging the silence of God at Auschwitz. The papacy must become a witness to repentance, not imperialism.
The Catholic White Paper: Relocating the papacy as a form of exile rather than schism – a diasporic moral witness. Moral legitimacy, simply more important than territorial continuity. 2024 as the Vatican’s “final break” with Europe. Diaspora, exile, “bearing the mark of Cain.” Rome, morally discredited by its complicity in European antisemitism and 2000+ years of Jew hating theological lies. The Cross of Jesus cannot atone for the Shoah. Rome has become the tomb of Catholicism’s imperial past, not the womb of its future. Relocate the papal court to the spiritual frontiers of the faith—in Bogotá, Nairobi, or even Washington—without surrendering the Petrine title.
Throughout history, popes have temporarily relocated for various reasons (e.g., during wars or crises) while still retaining their title and authority as Bishop of Rome. This flexibility in residence could be invoked to justify a more permanent arrangement. Canon law recognizes the pope’s authority to govern the Church and make decisions regarding his residence. The Code of Canon Law (CIC) does not explicitly mandate that the pope must reside in Rome, allowing for the possibility of a new residence while maintaining the canonical status of the Holy See. The pope is always the Bishop of Rome, regardless of his physical location. This title could be retained symbolically, allowing the pope to govern from a new location while still being recognized as the Bishop of Rome.
The pope could delegate certain administrative functions to representatives or curial officials in Rome, ensuring that the governance of the Church continues without interruption. This delegation could help maintain the connection to the Holy See while allowing the pope to operate from a new residence. Modern technology could facilitate the pope’s engagement with the Vatican and the global Church, allowing for virtual participation in meetings, liturgies, and decision-making processes, thereby reinforcing the connection to Rome.
The pope could continue to celebrate key liturgical events in Rome, such as Easter and Christmas, reinforcing the connection to the Vatican and the historical significance of the city as the heart of Catholicism. The pope could perform symbolic acts, such as the annual blessing from St. Peter’s Basilica, to maintain a visible link to the Holy See and its traditions, even while residing elsewhere.
The pope could consult with the College of Cardinals and other Church leaders to build consensus around the decision to relocate the papal residence. This collaborative approach would help ensure that the move is seen as legitimate and in the best interest of the Church. A formal declaration or apostolic letter could be issued to explain the rationale for the move, emphasizing the continuity of the papacy and the ongoing commitment to the Church’s mission.
While the idea of relocating the papal residence presents challenges, canon law and tradition offer pathways to accommodate such a shift without formally changing the seat of the Holy See. By drawing on historical precedents, leveraging the flexibility of canon law, and maintaining liturgical and administrative continuity, the Church could navigate this transition in a way that honors its traditions while responding to contemporary realities. This approach would allow the papacy to adapt to a global context while retaining its essential identity and authority as the Bishop of Rome.
Would there be two functional capitals (Rome and Bogotá)? Would the College of Cardinals be expected to shift its base? What mechanisms ensure continuity of apostolic succession? Jesus’ own itinerancy and homelessness (Luke 9:58); Pauline epistles on the universality of faith beyond Jerusalem; early Church models of decentralized leadership.
The theological movements emerging from Latin America and Africa represent significant developments within the Catholic Church that reflect the unique cultural, social, and political contexts of these regions. These movements not only address local issues but also offer valuable insights and models for a diasporic Church that seeks to engage with a diverse global community. Liberation theology emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response to the social injustices and economic inequalities prevalent in many Latin American countries. It emphasizes the preferential option for the poor and the need for the Church to advocate for social justice and human rights.
This movement integrates Christian faith with the struggles of marginalized communities, encouraging a critical examination of societal structures that perpetuate poverty and oppression. It calls for active engagement in social and political issues, viewing the fight for justice as a fundamental aspect of living out the Gospel. Liberation theology can serve as a model for a diasporic Church by emphasizing the importance of contextualizing faith within the realities of people’s lives. It encourages the Church to be a voice for the voiceless and to actively participate in the struggles for justice and dignity in various cultural contexts.
African inculturation theology seeks to integrate African cultural values, traditions, and practices into the Catholic faith. It recognizes the richness of African heritage and aims to express Christianity in ways that resonate with local customs and beliefs. This theology emphasizes communal values, relationships, and the interconnectedness of life, which are central to many African cultures. It challenges the individualistic tendencies often found in Western expressions of Christianity and promotes a more holistic understanding of faith. African inculturation theology offers a framework for the diasporic Church to embrace cultural diversity and foster inclusivity. By valuing local traditions and practices, the Church can create a more vibrant and relatable expression of faith that resonates with diverse communities around the world.
Synodality emphasizes the importance of listening, dialogue, and shared decision-making within the Church. It encourages the involvement of laypeople, clergy, and bishops in the governance and direction of the Church, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility among all members. Synodal experiments in various regions, including Latin America and Africa, have demonstrated the potential for local churches to adapt their practices and governance structures to better meet the needs of their communities. This approach promotes a more dynamic and responsive Church that is attuned to the realities of its members. The synodal approach can serve as a model for the diasporic Church by promoting inclusivity and collaboration across cultural and geographical boundaries. It encourages the Church to listen to the voices of diverse communities and to adapt its practices to reflect the richness of global Catholicism.
By focusing on these theological movements, the diasporic Church can become more culturally relevant and responsive to the needs of its diverse members. This relevance is crucial for engaging younger generations and those who may feel disconnected from traditional expressions of faith. Emphasizing these movements fosters a sense of global solidarity among Catholics, recognizing that the Church is not monolithic but rather a tapestry of diverse experiences and expressions of faith. This solidarity can strengthen the Church’s mission and witness in a globalized world. The insights gained from liberation theology, African inculturation, and synodal experiments can inspire innovative models of ministry that prioritize social justice, cultural integration, and participatory governance. These models can help the Church navigate contemporary challenges and engage meaningfully with the world.
Cardinals will still convene in Rome for a conclave when a new pope needs to be elected. The conclave is traditionally held in the Sistine Chapel, and it is a key part of the process of electing a new pope following the death or resignation of the sitting pope. Now a global rite with millions of adherents around the world. The Catholic Church has seen substantial growth in regions such as Africa, Asia, and the Americas, leading to a more diverse representation within the Latin Rite.
Benedict XVI’s resignation as precedent for humility, decline of Roman authority. Galatians 1–2, Philippians 3—to emphasize a faith not anchored in a holy city but in the risen Christ. Benedict XVI & the Jewish statement “Dabru Emet.” The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) marked a pivotal moment in Catholic-Jewish relations, particularly with the declaration “Nostra Aetate,” which rejected the notion of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus and emphasized the shared spiritual heritage. He rejected the classic Church substitution theology. He maintained that the Church does not replace Israel but rather sees itself in a relationship with it. He encouraged Catholics to engage with Jewish thought and tradition.
“Dabru Emet” explicitly condemns anti-Semitism and calls for Christians to confront their historical complicity in anti-Jewish sentiments and actions. The statement emphasizes the importance of Jewish identity and the need for Christians to respect the distinctiveness of Judaism.
Catholic post-Shoah theology represents a significant evolution in the Church’s understanding of its relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people. Through the contributions of theologians like Joseph Ratzinger and statements like “Dabru Emet,” there is a growing recognition of the need for dialogue, respect, and acknowledgment of the shared heritage between Jews and Christians. This ongoing theological reflection continues to shape Catholic teaching and practice in the contemporary world.
After the humiliations of the 2024 European Olympics and the collapse of Vatican influence in France, Germany, and Italy, Pope Leo XIV made the unthinkable decision—to leave Rome. Not as a schism, but as an exile. A diasporic papacy, symbolizing not fragmentation, but acknowledgement that Hitler’s Shoah murdered the Catholic Church in Europe.
During crises (e.g. the Avignon Papacy, 1309–1376), the Church never officially moved the Holy See, only the pope’s residence. Europe is increasingly post-Christian, with declining Mass attendance, priestly vocations, and moral authority. The contrasting approaches to secularism and religion in France and Germany. Laïcité is a French concept of secularism that emphasizes the strict separation of church and state. It is characterized by a strong stance against religious influence in public life and institutions. This aggressive form of secularism means that religious symbols and practices are often restricted in public spaces, including schools and government buildings. The French model of laïcité, rooted in the 1789 establishment of the Church of Reason. And continued through the French 1905 law that established the separation of church and state, reflecting a historical context of conflict between the state and the Catholic Church. By contrast cultural acceptance of religious symbols. In Germany, religion remains generally more accepted in public life. Yet still there persists the ancient system, a “church tax” – where the state collects taxes on behalf of registered religious communities, which reflects a more integrated relationship between the state and religious institutions. Germany’s more pluralistic cultural style, more forgiving towards permitting some type of coexistence of various religious practices and symbols in public life.
Many of the worst abuse cases and resistance to Vatican authority have emerged from European dioceses. The rising “New World” faith, nearly 40% of the world’s Catholics, live in S. America, European hostility towards the Vatican, perhaps best exemplified through the 2024 European Olympics, which basically denounced the Vatican’s very existence. But even the EU attempt to write a Constitution which made no mention of the Church – another glaring attribute that Europeans have long rejected the moral decay of the Catholic Church in the Vatican.
The U.S. Church has immense wealth, media reach, and access to political influence. The American Church has diverse Catholic populations (Latino, African, Filipino, traditionalist, charismatic). The First Amendment arguably provides more institutional autonomy than many European secular states. A relocation to a city like Buenos Aires or Bogotá could preserve Catholic heritage while affirming demographic reality.
Removing the Holy See out of Europe would echo the Church’s earlier moves toward the “Global South”, consequent to its now popular populous decolonizing or democratizing tendencies. Europe has radically shifted away from both imperialism and Monarchial rule. The Pope could reside in Washington, New York, or Chicago, while technically retaining the title “Bishop of Rome.” The, to quote Bush #1, “new world order”, a diasporic papacy, reflecting the global dispersion of the faith.
The Avignon Papacy eventually triggered the Western Schism, which had profound implications for Vatican authority and church unity. In 1309, Pope Clement V moved the papal court from Rome to Avignon, France. The French monarchy, at that time, sought to exert control over the papacy. The papacy remained in Avignon for nearly 70 years, seven successive popes resided in Avignon. Perceived French domination over the Holy See increased tensions with other European powers, particularly Italy and England.
The prolonged absence of the papacy from Rome diminished its authority and legitimacy in the eyes of many Christians. The perception that the popes were more aligned with French interests than with the universal Church contributed to growing discontent. In 1377, Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome, which was seen as a restoration of the papal authority. A Pope, anti-Pope schism followed, Urban VI in Rome and Clement VII in Avignon.
The Western Schism lasted for nearly 40 years, during which various European nations aligned themselves with one pope or the other, leading to political and religious divisions across Christendom. The schism was finally resolved at the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which deposed the rival popes and elected Pope Martin V, restoring a single papacy in Rome. The resolution of the schism ultimately led to reforms within the Church and a reevaluation of the papal role in the broader context of European politics and society. At least until the Protestant Reformation 30 year War exploded early in the 17th Century.
The mass human slaughter of the 30 Years War almost depopulated all of Germany. The horrific barbarity of that War, compares to the death toll caused by WWI. A comparison of the two wars, 8 vs 16 million people killed.
The key strategic battlefields fought in Germany. The Thirty Years’ War began as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states within the Holy Roman Empire but evolved into a broader struggle involving many European powers, including France, Sweden, and Spain. Estimates suggest that the population of Germany was reduced by as much as 25% to 50% due to the war. This staggering loss of life resulted from not only direct military engagements but also from famine, disease, and the breakdown of social order.
The war was marked by extreme violence and brutality, including widespread atrocities committed by both sides. Armies often pillaged towns, leading to civilian casualties and suffering. The use of mercenary troops, who were often poorly paid and motivated by looting, exacerbated the violence.
The Thirty Years’ War ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which established a new political order in Europe based on the principles of state sovereignty and religious tolerance. The war significantly weakened the Holy Roman Empire and altered the balance of power in Europe. In that same year the terrible Cossack revolt burned like a wildfire across the plains of the Ukraine and Poland. The competing European empires carved up Poland like an American Thanksgiving turkey. Only post WWII did the Allied power return Prussia back to Poland – split between Poland and the USSR. The devastation caused by the 30 year war, led to significant demographic, economic, and social changes in Germany. Many regions took decades to recover, and the war left a legacy of mistrust and division that would influence German politics for generations, particularly in terms of its impact on the German population and the broader European landscape.
Bottom line, the Holy See has a fractured legacy in Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia entrenched state sovereignty and religious pluralism, paving the way for Enlightenment secularism, which ultimately culminated in the French Revolution and the birth of laïcité. The worst clergy abuse scandals and most aggressive calls for doctrinal overhaul (e.g., from Germany’s “Synodal Way”) come from European dioceses.
The post WWII “faithful” in Europe: childless, aging, shrinking, and increasingly disengaged. The Pope is by definition the Bishop of Rome. Moving the Holy See means either redefining that identity or retaining the title symbolically while relocating the de facto papal court. It validates that the moral influence of the ancient Roman empire as dead as the rise of the Jewish state in 1948 proved the Catholic hate speech against the Jews of Europe as an utter lie and ‘blood libel’ slander.
A Second Vatican (perhaps in Washington, Buenos Aires, or Bogotá) emerges as the real base of operations. This “diasporic papacy” echoes the Church’s global dispersion—and acknowledges that Rome no longer speaks for Catholicism’s dead reality. Moving the center away from Europe honors Catholicism’s demographic shift. The First Amendment, despite U.S. flaws, provides more space for institutional independence than European secular bureaucracies. European hostility, symbolized by the 2024 Olympics and EU secularization, has ultimately delegitimized the Vatican’s presence in Rome, perhaps irreparably.
Moving the Holy See could redefine the papacy’s identity while acknowledging the Church’s global dispersion. The notion of a Second Vatican Council in a new location could serve as a base for a revitalized Church that honors its demographic shift and responds to contemporary challenges. The challenges posed by secularization, demographic shifts, and internal dissent will require innovative approaches to leadership and governance within the Church.
The Vatican, as a European power center, no longer represents the heart of global Catholicism. The collapse in Mass attendance, vocations, and cultural relevance across France, Germany, and Italy signals more than just apathy—it reveals deep hostility toward the institutional Church. Catholicism has lost not just power but credibility.
The Church’s failure to protect Jews, the later revelations of complicity or silence, and the enduring legacy of anti-Judaic teachings (now widely condemned but still lingering in parts of Catholic theology) have morally compromised its position. The founding of the State of Israel in 1948 did indeed expose the “blood libel” and other lies as genocidal propaganda cloaked in theology.
A global papacy would reflect reality, not cause a rupture. A diasporic papacy today could be a leap into a post-imperial, multicultural future. Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia are also growing Catholic strongholds. Meanwhile, the American Church—with its wealth, media power, legal independence (via the First Amendment), and demographic diversity—offers strategic advantages as a logistical base.
.Just as Vatican II reoriented Catholicism in the 20th century—updating liturgy, acknowledging religious freedom, and engaging the modern world—a new base could recenter the Church in its emerging heartlands. Rome no longer speaks for Catholicism’s dead European reality. A “diasporic papacy”, recognizes that post WWII, the Christian Church, bearing the mark of Cain, has gone into the disgrace of exile. Just as did the Jewish people after the Roman empire crushed their revolts 2000+ years in the past.
A new base for the papacy could serve as a revitalized center for the Church, honoring its demographic shift and responding to contemporary challenges, much like Vatican II did in the 20th century. The concept of a diasporic papacy reflects a recognition that the Church must adapt to survive and thrive in a global context. As Europe becomes increasingly secular, the Church’s ability to maintain relevance and authority will depend on its willingness to engage with new cultural realities and the diverse experiences of its global congregation. A diasporic papacy could symbolize a new chapter for the Church, one that acknowledges its past while looking forward to a more diverse and interconnected future.
Just as Vatican II sought aggiornamento—bringing the Church into dialogue with the modern world—a diasporic papacy in the 21st century would be a bold act of ecclesial realism and pastoral renewal. A diasporic papacy represents a pivot from imperial nostalgia to global responsiveness, from Eurocentric bureaucracy to a pluralistic pastoral imagination. By relocating the papal court without discarding the historical title “Bishop of Rome,” the Church could honor its Petrine legacy while signaling a new chapter—one defined not by proximity to empire, but fidelity to its global flock. A Second Vatican, in a new city, could serve as the institutional symbol of this transformation.
A new base for the papacy could serve as a revitalized center for the Church, honoring its demographic shift and responding to contemporary challenges, much like Vatican II did in the 20th century. A Second Vatican Council in a new location as a means of revitalizing the Church; a willingness to engage with the modern world and adapt to the realities of a globalized faith. A renewed sense of purpose and connection among Catholics worldwide, reinforcing the Church’s commitment to its mission in a rapidly changing landscape.
The theological movements emerging from Latin America and Africa are not merely demographic phenomena; they represent profound expressions of faith that address the unique challenges and aspirations of their communities. By focusing on liberation theology, African inculturation, and synodal experiments, the diasporic Church can draw on these rich traditions to create a more inclusive, relevant, and responsive expression of Catholicism that resonates with the diverse experiences of its global congregation. This approach not only honors the cultural contexts of the faithful but also enriches the universal Church, fostering a deeper understanding of what it means to be a global community of believers.
Hey Mosckerr, can you repeat that…….
Hi VantyofVanities what’s to repeat other than reading it a second time?
Who was the Rambam and what impact did he inflict upon the Jewish people?
Was the 1232 ban only on Moreh Nevuchim or also on Mishneh Torah? It seems to me, that the ban made by the Baali Tosafot covered both. The former treif book openly praised the Arabic interpretations of how to learn Aristotle’s syllogism deductive reasoning. While the latter openly copied, much as did king Shlomo did with his Beit HaMikdosh which duplicated the extravagance of Goyim Temple construction across the world, the egg-crate organization of statute law into subject matter which defines both Greek and Roman legalism which subordinates the legislative review of the courts subsumed before the primary authority of the legislatures or Senates.
The 1232 ban initiated by the Ba’alei Tosafot (specifically the rabbis of Northern France, notably Rabbi Shlomo of Montpellier and his circle) was explicitly focused on Moreh Nevuchim and other philosophical writings by the Rambam. However, it is historically unclear whether Mishneh Torah was officially banned by the same decree — though many critics implicitly or explicitly saw the codification and systematization of halakha in Mishneh Torah as deeply problematic and part of the same rationalist project they opposed.
No post-Tosafist, ghetto-era rabbi succeeded in reestablishing a Talmud-based common law jurisprudence. The yeshiva model after the Shulchan Aruch largely became a pilpulist or posek-based culture, not a dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) as modeled by the Talmud. The shift in the yeshiva model after the publication of the “Shulchan Aruch” and the rise of pilpulist and posek-based cultures marked a significant change in Jewish legal practice. This shift has been critiqued for moving away from the dynamic, integrative approach exemplified by the Tosafists.
Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema, 1520–1572) wrote his statute law commentary to the statute law Shulchan Aruch. The idea that communal legal practice, responsa, and local precedent, compares to – much less replaces the sealed masoret of the Talmud patently absurd.
The Maharshal (Rabbi Shlomo Luria, 1510–1573) – In Yam Shel Shlomo, he critiques halakhic decisions made by earlier authorities. But did he go back to the Talmud and weigh the sugyot with a common-law mindset? No. His Yam Shel Shlomo never once acknowledged sugya integrity within the Order and organization of the Talmud. He never once addressed how the Baali Tosafot wrote a common law commentary to the Talmud or how they condemned the Rambam in 1232 for writing a statute law perversion, the first of its kind, of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic and Midrashic common law jurisprudence.
He never once engaged with the methodology of the Baalei HaTosafot, who viewed the Talmud not as a loose anthology of traditions, but as a tightly integrated common law system. The Baalei HaTosafot commentaries cross-referenced parallel sugyot across tractates that reached to the depths of the Yerushalmi.
The process of integrating and harmonizing legal principles and rulings from different sugyot (sections or topics) within the Talmud, known as the etzem ha-mishpat or inter-sugya legal synthesis which involves analyzing various legal discussions, interpretations, and precedents found in multiple sugyot to create a cohesive understanding of halacha, his commentary never once achieved.
Etzem ha-mishpat represents the essence, the core of legal reasoning, focusing on how different legal arguments and rulings can be reconciled or applied in a unified manner. This approach allows scholars and jurists to derive comprehensive legal conclusions that reflect the complexity and dynamism of Jewish law, rather than treating each sugya in isolation. By engaging in this synthesis, legal authorities can address contemporary issues while remaining rooted in traditional sources, ensuring that halacha – most essentially common law – does not descend unto the legal corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law Hades. The latter grossly fails to evolve in response to new circumstances while maintaining its imaginary Talmudic foundational principles, as the Rambam so – bold faced – falsely declared.
The Rashbam predates the Rambam, his intellectual lineage among Tosafists reflects an earlier form of Ashkenazi resistance to rationalism. The Paris rabbis explicitly publicly opposed the Rambam’s statute law perversion of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. The Goyim threw the Jews into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries but rabbinic leadership betrayed and abandoned judical Jewish courtroom common law. Rabbinic Torts damages courts utterly forsook the 3 man Courts division of labor which divide the Court organization into Judge, prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney as the definition of all Torts 3 man courtrooms! This retreat from common law Talmudic courts, commanded not to accept bribes, compares to Kashrut mash’gichim who receive their salaries from the stores they police! An absolute and utter corruption of Talmudic common law.
The Tosafists did not codify—they commented dynamically, upheld disputes, and refused the false security of closure. This, the hallmark of covenantal jurisprudence: law as a living court process, and most definitely not some arrogant appeal to authority – imperial fiat. The later pilpul schools which sprouted as weeds following the Gra utterly failed to grasp.
After the Shulchan Aruch, the yeshiva model shifted towards a pilpulist or posek-based culture, moving away from the dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) exemplified by the Talmud. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) wrote his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, which represented statute law, but (as previously stated) the notion that communal legal practice and local precedent could replace the Talmud’s sealed masoret simply fundamentally flawed.
Etzem ha-mishpat, or inter-sugya legal synthesis, represents the core of legal reasoning, allowing for the reconciliation of diverse legal arguments. This synthesis absolutely essential for addressing contemporary issues while remaining rooted in tradition; to ensure that halacha retains its common law essence and does not devolve into the corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law, as falsely promoted by the Rambam.
Despite the challenges faced by Jews in the ghetto, rabbinic leadership felt itself forced to abandoned the judicial common law system, forsaking the three-man court structure essential for Torts damage law suits. This retreat parallels the corruption seen in kashrut supervision, where mash’gichim in Israel today face conflicts of interest! Who pays their salaries?
Rabbinic divorce courts today make the public חלול השם ברבים when they permit רשעים to publicly profane their sworn oath made before kosher witnesses and a minyan of Jews, these רשעים have no shame. Their arrogance imprisons their ex-wives to the disgraceful status of agunah! Because the post Rambam Civil War rabbis ignorantly fail to grasp the implications of the Shemittah precedent which permits Jewish farmers to sell their produce to a “beit din” (a rabbinical court) or to a non-Jewish entity.
This action, done to circumvent the prohibition of working the land and to allow for the distribution of produce while adhering to the laws of Sh’mitta. The precedent of prosbul serves as a primary precedent. The mitzva of kiddushin absolutely requires than the baal acquire Title to the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of his wife; meaning he acquires – based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from nothing – the baal acquires title to all the seed produced in the world to come/future of this marital union. Another worthy and similar precedent, the minchag of selling חמץ before Pesach to Goyim.
Statute law pesel Judaism, which dominated ghetto Jewry in Europe, abysmally failed to grasp that the divorce Beit Din has the power to impose the ban of נידוי upon the רשע ex-husband, based upon the precedent of gere tzeddik as a “new creation”. The דיוק of this mitzva, that the reverse din of כרת equally expels and cuts off this רשע, who publicly makes false oaths – as כרת, not part of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. The divorce beit din has the power to retro-actively annul the original kiddushin. Therefore the divorce beit din has the Torah authority to issue the required ‘get’ to the imprisoned agunah ex-wife, permitting her to make k’ddushin with a man who has fear of heaven, permitting them to sanctify the mitzva of fruitful and multiply.
The concepts discussed in Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide important precedents for the authority of a divorce Beit Din to place an ex-baal into נידוי and subsequently issue a get that frees the agunah prisoner. Ketubot 3a: discusses the obligations of a husband to his wife, including the financial responsibilities outlined in the ketubah (marriage contract). It emphasizes the importance of the husband’s role in providing for his wife and the consequences of failing to fulfill these obligations. If a husband refuses to grant a divorce or fulfill his marital duties, the court can take action against him, including placing him in נידוי. Unlike the Aggadic 3 oaths, which religious Jews quote in order to denounce Zionism, found at the end of mesechta Ketubah, the baal has Torah/halachic obligations toward maintaining the dignity of his wife.
The rationale, a husband who neglects his responsibilities to his wife, simply not acting in accordance with Jewish law and community standards, thus justifying the court’s immediate intervention. No רשע should ever assume his refusal to give a get to his ex constitutes as a powerful weapon of revenge – a direct negative Torah commandment.
Yevamot 90b: This passage addresses the concept of a husband who refuses to grant a get, particularly in cases where his decision acts against the interests of his wife. The Talmud discusses the authority of the Beit Din to impose sanctions on such a husband, including excommunication. The reasoning: that the court has the responsibility to protect the rights of the agunah and ensure that does not abuse his get obligations which could leave her in a state of marital limbo. By placing the husband in נידוי, the court exerts pressure on him to comply with the law and grant the divorce. The Gemara of Sahedrin attributes the floods in the days of Noach to false oaths. The mitzva of kiddushin directly swears an oath alliance based upon the oath brit sworn at the brit cut between the pieces which eternally תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing.
The combination of these two sources establishes a legal framework that empowers the Beit Din to act decisively in cases of refusal of the baal to returned the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba soul of his wife. The imposition of נידוי serves as a means of compelling the ex-husband to fulfill this Torah warning – not to make vain oaths. The threat to the security of the World, thereby mandates the court to issue the get following the ban. This action ultimately frees the agunah from her state of marital imprisonment, enabling her to remarry and move forward with her life.
In summary, Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide the necessary precedents for the Beit Din to impose נידוי on an ex-husband who refuses to grant a divorce, thereby facilitating the issuance of a get and addressing the plight of the agunah.
Consequent to the 1306 expulsion of all Jews from France which obliterated the Rashi/Tosafot common law commentaries made upon the Talmud, and ultimately crippled common law T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship – on par with the 1242 disaster of the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts in France! The destruction of evidence means that no conclusive proof exists that a majority of the Baali Tosafot condemned the Rambam. Clearly Rabbi Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy, known also as the Smag, this Baali Tosafot who wrote Sefer Mitzvot Gadol – clearly rejected the condemnation made by the “majority” of the Baali Tosafot; based upon the simple fact that only on two occasions does the Baali Tosafot commentary mention the Rambam and no both occasions in the whole of the Sha’s; they rejected and opposed his halachic posok both times.
Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, known as the Smak, another Baali Tosafot scholar noted for his support of lifting the נידוי that had been placed upon Maimonides in 1232 by “a group of rabbis” in Paris, including many of the Ba’alei Tosafot. Some rabbis attempt to limit the excommunication only to the Moreh’s exultation of Greek logic. However, organizing law into defined subject matter, as does the Rambam code, equally represents the influence of Greek and Roman statute law. But name the Yad – Mishna Torah – an utter perversion due to the simple fact that Rabbi’s Mishna based its name upon the Book of דברים having the second name משנה תורה. The Book of D’varim defines the Torah judicial legal system as common law. For the Rambam to distort this Torah name with his statute law code, this absolute לשון הרע merits that he like Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), that the reputation of his name for ever rots.
In the early 2000s a group of rabbis, which amazingly included myself for a spell, attempted to re-establish a Federal lateral common law Sanhedrin court system together with the small Sanhedrin cities of refuge. Rebuilding dayyanut britit rather than posek-based rulings – my dream. Reliance upon the Talmud as the basic model for a Federal Sanhedrin court system across all 12 Tribes of the Republic. Restoring the legitimacy of beit din as a sovereign legal authority, capable of acting boldly in the face of injustice (as in the agunah case), guided by Talmudic precedent, not shackled by post-codification legal inertia. Alas I personally failed, the Yatzir to impose legal halachic closures, which defines Judaism today, dominated the hearts of my peers. The Rambam Yad triggered a tectonic shift in halakhic consciousness.
Xtianity no different —
The YOUTUBE clip: Brandon Gill SHUTS UP unhinged Jasmine Crockett after her woke tirade crosses the line, depicts tuma cognitive warfare.
In this context, the Brandon Gill–Jasmine Crockett exchange isn’t just political drama—it’s an orchestrated moment of cognitive warfare. It bypasses policy debate and instead targets identity, emotion, and tribal loyalty. Whether orchestrated or simply exploited after the fact, it contributes to a larger system of psychological manipulation in the infosphere.
The exchange, especially when edited for conflict, activates the amygdala—The amygdala is a small, almond-shaped cluster of nuclei located deep within the temporal lobes of the brain. It is part of the limbic system and plays a crucial role in processing emotions, particularly those related to fear, pleasure, and aggression. The amygdala is involved in the formation of emotional memories and helps to regulate responses to emotional stimuli. It also interacts with other brain regions to influence behavior and decision-making based on emotional experiences—engaging fear, anger, and pleasure centers more than rational analysis. This is neurological capture: inflaming emotional circuits to override deliberative cognition, keeping the brain in “us vs. them” mode.
The incident is cast as a metaphor for larger ideological battles: conservatism vs. progressivism, order vs. disruption, “truth” vs. “wokeness.” It conditions viewers to see political discourse as a zero-sum spectacle, aligning them with a cultural narrative beyond just policy.
The audience for this clip is clearly targeted: politically engaged individuals on the right who are fatigued by “woke” rhetoric. The language, editing, and dissemination aim to reinforce existing biases and trigger dopamine-rewarding outrage or schadenfreude—a German term that refers to the feeling of pleasure or satisfaction that one experiences from witnessing the misfortunes of others. It combines the words “Schaden,” meaning harm or damage, and “Freude,” meaning joy. This emotion can arise in various contexts, such as when someone feels happy about a rival’s failure or when they find humor in another person’s embarrassing situation.
The clip’s virality is no accident. It is tailored for shareability—short, emotionally charged, adversarial. Social platforms algorithmically favor such content, turning it into a weaponized meme that deepens echo chambers and reduces nuanced discourse to winner/loser binaries.
By elevating one lawmaker as a symbol of order and the other as chaos, this exchange becomes a tool to rally supporters and demoralize opponents. It sends an implicit message: “Our side dominates; theirs is irrational.” This plays on tribal loyalty, a cornerstone of PSYOPS.
The viral framing—“Brandon Gill SHUTS UP unhinged Jasmine Crockett”—is a classic example of selective narrative construction. The title primes viewers with a judgment (“unhinged”) and a victor (“shuts up”), shaping perception before any facts are absorbed. This is cognitive framing designed to elicit emotional reactions, especially among partisan audiences.
While various frameworks exist to understand cognitive warfare, one perspective outlines six key facets that collectively target neurological and psychological processes:
1. The deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information to confuse, mislead, or influence target audiences. This includes tactics like spreading fake news, deepfakes, and conspiracy theories to erode trust in institutions and factual information.
2. Strategic campaigns designed to influence the emotions, motives, and objective reasoning of individuals or groups. These operations aim to alter perceptions and behaviors to align with specific objectives.
3. Utilizing platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to amplify divisive narratives, suppress dissenting opinions, and create echo chambers. This facet leverages algorithms and bots to manipulate public discourse and sentiment.
4. Employing data analytics and machine learning to identify cognitive vulnerabilities and tailor messages that can influence decision-making processes. This includes personalized propaganda and predictive behavior modeling.
5. Emerging technologies that interact directly with the human nervous system, such as brain-computer interfaces and neurostimulation techniques. These tools have the potential to alter cognitive functions and behaviors, raising ethical and security concerns.
6. Shaping cultural narratives and ideological frameworks to align with specific agendas. This includes influencing education, media, and public discourse to gradually shift societal values and beliefs.
The Pope is Antichrist
Yet another woke old dude in a dress – sorry Catholics : (
The Horny Roman Boy Rapist Church – Thankfully Pope Demon just Died – Prime Disciple of Satan – only to be replaced by another Boy Rapist Supporter from Shitcago. All Gay – All Pedo – Crossdressing “Men” with Vaginas? or do they All speak out like Karen’s? This Demonic Cult has a Serpent Chapel in Vatican City – Satan Central. The “Church” went Commie a Long time ago. Why doesn’t The Vatican take Refugees? Ignore The Vatican & Read The Bible – There Is NO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE BIBLE!
I get paid over 220 Dollars per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. i never thought i’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 15k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do, check it out by Visiting Following Website
HERE—————⊃⫸ 𝗝𝗼𝗶𝗻.𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝟰𝟯.𝗖𝗼𝗺
Before the Church criticizes Trump, it needs to divest itself of all assets to pay back the indigenous American people the wealth it took over the centuries and, also, make restitution for all the death it as caused… Don’t throw rocks if you live in a glass house.
In the Shadow of the Lie, In the Light of the Brit … Blood and Brit: A Judgment Against Revision and Hypocrisy.
In the shadow of the past, they twist and turn,
Revisionist tongues, where the embers burn.
Genocide,” they cry—a hollow refrain,
While Tora! Tora! fades in disdain.(1).
Infamy cloaked in a selective veil,
As kingdoms of Judea fade, their stories pale.
Three crowns of defiance, in history’s grip,
While the Arab presence slips, a phantom’s trip.
Jordan’s grasp on Samaria, a name to erase,
“West Bank” they call it, a political face.
No state for the people, no dreams to ignite,
Just shadows of rulers who vanished from sight.
Egypt held Gaza, a fleeting charade,
Yet Nasser’s ambitions left nothing but shade.
Arafat’s embrace of a name, ’64 newly found,
In the wake of recapture, the truth’s tightly bound.
Revisionist whispers, like ghosts in the night,
Denying the horrors, distorting the light.
To compare Gaza as Holocaust, a vile, bitter jest,
In the theater of history, they fail the true test.
So let them rewrite, let them spin their tale,
But the weight of the truth will forever prevail.
For history’s not written by lies that deceive,
Though buried in Arab sands of deception & fraud,
Israel arises in Zion, on its own ancient National feet.
WordPress participants, if you slap the term “genocide” onto Israel’s response to the Oct 7th Abomination War, then intellectual honesty demands you paste the same label on the Dec 7th, 1941 assault—the “day of infamy”—which launched America into World War II. Accusing Israel of genocide while excusing the Allies’ firebombing of Tokyo and atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reveals either flagrant hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty.
Revisionist hacks whitewash the role Arab states played between 1948 and 1967, fabricating a myth in which a sovereign Palestine once flourished—until Israel supposedly destroyed it.
In truth, Jews rooted themselves in the land through three distinct political eras:
The united Twelve-Tribe Kingdom,
The Judean Republic under Persian suzerainty, and
The Hasmonean Dynasty, which threw off Greek-Syrian domination through armed revolt.
No Arab or Muslim polity ever ruled a sovereign state in the land now called Israel. Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied Samaria—renaming it the “West Bank” in a rhetorical land grab—but never lifted a finger to forge a Palestinian state. The British Mandate for Palestine dissolved in 1948; no successor Arab government attempted to revive it. Arab states rejected UN 181, Britain’s feeble divide and conquer UN 242. Post the Nakba defeat and Israeli Independence, the UN has no authority to impose 194 – “right of return” upon the Jewish state. Despite the Goebbels repeated mantra refrain: Zionist entity Crusader State.
Egypt, likewise, seized control of Gaza. Despite the 1950 UN condemnation (endorsed by every member state except England and Pakistan), Egypt’s monarch made no moves toward Palestinian statehood. Nasser later toppled that king, but Arafat didn’t even adopt the term “Palestine” until 1964—just three years before Israel’s recapture of both Gaza and Samaria. The PLO’s founding charter, penned under Arab occupation, refused to claim either territory; instead, it called for Israel’s destruction. Their silence about Gaza and the West Bank in 1964 screams louder than any later propaganda.
Revisionist history mimics Holocaust denial by distorting the record, concealing cause and context, and blaming the victim for surviving.
When Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership named the new state “Israel,” they didn’t merely select a name—they resurrected an identity. “Israel” evoked ancient sovereignty, tethered modern Jewish nationalism to ancestral roots, and announced a reborn nation. This name galvanized a people and reshaped geopolitics.
Had the Jews named the state “Palestine,” the identity landscape might have fractured. For centuries, “Palestine” referred to geography—not Arab nationality. During the British Mandate, the term “Palestinian” often denoted Jews, not Arabs. Arabs roundly rejected both the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which carved out a Jewish National Home. That rejection didn’t spring from a desire for Palestinian independence—it flowed from opposition to Jewish statehood.
The Jerusalem Post bore the title Palestine Post during the Mandate, further underlining the term’s original association with Jews. The Zionist movement, founded on Herzl’s vision, drew legitimacy from the Balfour Declaration. Every Arab war against Israel traces back to Arab rejection of Jewish self-determination.
Foreign propaganda outfits often deploy the word “created” to smear Israel as artificial or illegitimate. But in 1947, two-thirds of the UN voted in favor of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East. Following Israel’s Declaration of Independence, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union immediately recognized the Jewish state. Yet Arab states categorically rejected the British-sponsored UN Resolution 181 and waged war to erase Israel from the map.
The emergence of a “Palestinian Arab” national identity didn’t arise in a cultural vacuum—it developed as a reaction to Zionism and the Jewish victory in the War of Independence. Jewish sovereignty forced clarity onto a region long trapped in imperial ambiguity.
We didn’t steal a land. We reclaimed a homeland—and we won our war of national survival. Arab propaganda still clings to the word “created” because it cannot stomach the truth: Israel wasn’t manufactured by foreigners. Jews rebuilt it. Fought for it. Bled for it. Secured it.
The Palestinian national identity emerged in opposition to Zionism, not as a longstanding expression of sovereignty. Historical facts—like the Jewish political presence across millennia, the origins of the term “Palestinian,” and the legitimacy of Israel’s statehood—have been distorted by propaganda.
“There are those who parade mitzvos in public and butcher the brit in private.” Yet even as we confront the lies of nations, we must confront the lies we whisper to ourselves—in the shadows of our courts and the corners of our sanctuaries.
They sculpt their piety for the crowd. They cloak themselves in tallit and tefillin while gutting mishpat behind locked doors. Their lips chant hallel; their hands extort, manipulate, betray. They don Torah like theater, not oath. They fear scandal, not sin. Exposure, not exile. They crave applause, not HaShem’s judgment. They hijack yirat shamayim and weaponize it for social control.
“And there are those who break Torah laws in Zion, but build it in secret.”
They offend the eye. They scandalize the synagogue. They clash with halakhic decorum. But when no one watches, they feed the widow, guard the convert, return the lost. They wrestle with the brit in the dead of night. No banners. No blessings. Just emunah forged in sweat and silence. They cut paths through darkness while the righteous sleep.
“I prefer the latter.”
The Kotzker doesn’t flinch. He scorches the hypocrite. He crowns the broken. He hunts the soul that bleeds for justice while the choir sings. Better the one who stumbles in daylight but plants mishpat in the shadows than the one who dazzles the crowd while hollowing out Sinai with assimilated Greek logic and statute halachic codes. Better the sinner who limps toward HaShem than the Cohen who flees like naked Adam who clothes himself in gold and titles.
A Mashal: The Two Sons of the King: Yitzak & Yishmael
To what may this be compared? To a King who had two sons.
One son dressed each morning in royal garments. He walked the palace courts with a Koran under his arm and Molotov cocktail burning in the wind while publicly fasting on Ramadan to show honor to the homeless poor. When courtiers passed, he bowed low and recited Surahs & Ayahs in full voice. He offered tithes from the royal table and dipped his bread with flourish. But in the cellar—where no servant dared tread—his corrupted scales weighted profits from theft, scrolls smeared with lies, two separate accounting books. His voice rang holy; but his hands shed the innocent blood of corruption.
The other son wore torn g’lut clothes and wandered the outer gates. He walked upon dusty roads while his lofty brother goose stepped upon paved sidewalks. He spoke roughly, fought openly, and refused to step into any court which switched the syllogism for פרדס(2). When he prayed tefillah within his heart, the k’vanna did not address any God in the Heavens, but rather he stood before the Torah ark and remembered the oaths sworn by the Avot. The ministers mocked him; the elders wrote him off. But by night he visited the sick. He buried the forgotten. He returned coins dropped by the blind. His door on Shabbat remained open to orphans and strangers. He studied Torah alone, by candle, and wept when he did not understand its common law פרדס inductive logic. No trumpet announced his deeds. No ledger recorded them but the King’s.
When the Day of Reckoning came, both sons were summoned. The first stood proud, wrapped in Alba, Stole, Chasuble, Cincture, Pectoral Cross, and Liturgical Colors. The second stood silent, eyes lowered, hands crusted and scarred. And the King said:
“Better the son who stumbles in the street but guards My brit in secret, than the one who honors Me with his lips but who Koran never once mentions the brit in print. (3) For I do not seek actors in My court, but servants who carry justice in the marrow of their bones.”
Thus taught the Kotzker Rebbe: “Give me no angel wrapped in costume. Give me the soul that limps, bleeds, hides—but clings to HaShem with both fists.”
Chagigah 5b:
The baal teshuvah does not merely regret; he wrestles, burns, and rebuilds. He rips out the rotted beams of his past and drives Torah into new ground. No pedigree props him up. No ancestral merit shields him. He grafts emunah into the flesh of his heart and buries it deep within the souls of his children—where no eye sees, where only HaShem weighs the kiddushin mitzva of ‘fruitful and multiply’. He constructs his legal identity from the rubble of assimilation and statute laws. He births halakhic common law identity out of intermarriage chaos—not through inheritance, but through fire. Through sweat. Through judgment. Through t’shuvah.
The righteous man who never falls may stand, but the baal teshuvah ascends. Not like a Cohen on temple steps—but like a soldier dragging himself up Sinai, gashed, ragged, but clutching the sworn oath brit in stained bloodied hands. The baal teshuvah climbs from the pit of assimilation and intermarriage ruin to build something stronger than innocence—he builds justice from ash.
This Kotzker line doesn’t whisper piety. It shouts Torah common law. It carves a verdict: authenticity belongs to the one who fights for the brit in secret. The Rebbe doesn’t moralize—he judges. He cuts down the pius religious Jew who bases statute law Judaism code upon Greek foreign logic.
۞ Haqq al-Kadhib: The Truth of the Lie ۞
In the cadence of ancient reproach
Have they not claimed what they did not build?
Have they not wept over stones they did not lay?
Have they not called themselves what they were not named?
Lo! The land spoke before their tongue.
The hills bore witness before their fathers’ dust.
Zion remembered her children—
But they remembered not her name.
They cry “return”—but whence did they come?
From Kheibar? From Damascus? From the sands of Najd?
Not from Yehudah, not from Shomron.
Their fathers did not plant olives in Ephraim.
Their mothers did not sing by the waters of Zion.
Woe to the people who inherit envy.
Woe to the nation born of grievance.
They forged a people from negation.
They raised a flag over a wound.
And say: “Nakba! Nakba!”
But who cast the first spear?
Who heard the call of Mufti and Pharaoh?
Who marched seven nations against one boy, wrapped in prophecy?
And they were broken like clay jars on the threshing floor.
And lo—they claim Jerusalem!
Did their prophets anoint it?
Did their songs rise from her gates?
No—
The Temple did not weep for them.
The Cohonim did not speak their tongue.
Say to them:
You are Ishmael, son of the field—
And we are Israel, bound to the altar.
We remember the fire.
You remember the sand.
So perish the lie that cloaks itself in keffiyeh.
Perish the myth born in Cairo’s tongue.
The land knows her children.
The stones cry out against their claim.
And history is not mocked.
________________________________________________
(1) “Tora” references the Japanese military code for “lightning attack” (totsugeki raigeki), famously transmitted during the Pearl Harbor assault on December 7, 1941. The line critiques modern willful ignorance or contempt toward historical warnings or aggression.
(2) “פרדס” (Pardes) – A one-line footnote or aside explaining the four levels of Torah exegesis (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod) might enhance the meaning of rejecting syllogism for covenantal reasoning.
(3) The koran affirms earlier prophets but omits the concept of the brit as a legal-political alliance cut with Israel. The first word of the Torah בראשית contains ברית אש.