26 August 2000

I enjoy very much your discussion and these remarks follow those of Dr. Mathis, 25 August.

There are certain aspects of it which are somewhat distressing. One of them is Dr. Mathis' readiness to dismiss as rubbish anything which comes from "right wing" sources. I no more appreciate this then I do a remark that Jewish sources are not worth bothering with. All groups have their own agenda but to dismiss out of hand any of their statements smacks a bit of bigotry. I'll stick to a few examples.

Dr. Mathis apparently disagrees, in regard to 'nation', with most of the dictionaries I have used. Webster's 1956 unabridged edition gives as a primary definition: a race, a people, born of the same blood. Following it is a secondary definition: a people inhabiting a given geographical area. It appears that both Dr. Mathis and Eric Thomson are correct but since Dr. Mathis was the first to state that Mr. Thomson was in error, he is the one at fault for not knowing better. I am afraid that giving Mr. Thomson's ORION the credit for a new definition is undeserved.

It appears that Mr. Thomson is older than Dr. Mathis in that Mr. Thomson appears to be more rudimentary in his use of terms as opposed to modern usage. No matter how people use the term 'race' today, it indeed was coupled with 'nation' in the past.

I know nothing about the "Andropov – Lieberman" or "Litvinov – Finkelstein" name topic other than what appears in the National Archives relative to the The reports of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia, during the upheaval period of 1919. The official reports, and correspondence, clearly indicate the overwhelming presence of Jews in the top echelon of the group, which overthrew the Tsar of Russia, with their changed names. Why Katz changed his name to Kamneff,  Goldman to Gorev, or Garfield to Garin, serves no purpose other than to make non-Russian Jews, mostly from the U.S.,  appear to be Russian. Since name changing is so pervasive among the Jewish community, I'll have to side with Mr. Thomson as probability would dictate to any person of sound mind. Furthermore, the wide spread use of American sounding names in regard to political action committees is a modus operandi for communist and Jewish groups. The Abraham Lincoln Brigade, which sided with the Reds in the Spanish Civil War,  was jewish and communist to the core. The Jews who control the GEICO insurance company are fully aware of the appeal their red, white and blue stationary has on the average American. I could cite many passages in the report of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives 1944, but I refrain because that report might be labeled as an anti-Semitic witch-hunt. When the truth comes to the fore, it appears necessary to discredit it with name calling and thereby discourage the average fellow from ever reading it.

I well know that, as Mr. Thomson points out correctly, that the Bible is useless as a reference source due to the dozens of "translations" which are available. I even note that a feminist group is now writing their own interpretation so as to eliminate what they feel are 'sexist' remarks. Here are a few comments about the "beast" of the Bible.

The "beast of the field" probably refers to the Negro.

Jonah 3:8

"But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth...", Companion Bible, 1964. "But every man and beast should put on sackcloth...", The Holy Bible, Beck. "But let man and beast wear sackcloth...", Nashville Bible House. In their "authorized" K.J. edition, The American Institute of Theology omitted this passage entirely. One either has to assume that God commanded 'man' to clothe his animals or that some animals were able to "put on" clothes of their own.

Joel 1:19-20

"The beasts of the field also cry unto Thee...", C.B. "O, Lord, to Thee I will cry... The beasts of the field cry also unto Thee..." K.J.V. "Yes, the beasts of the field also cry out to you..." Here we have certain beasts begging to God for water. Odd, if we consider that that this is from sheep and cows. How do animals pray anyway? And to God especially, if they didn't have the power of speech? Maybe God participates in "chicken talk".

Leviticus 20:16

"And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman and the beast:..." C.B. Also K.J. How does a woman lie down with a donkey she wishes to copulate with? Or even a cocker spaniel? They don't call it "dog fashion" for nothing.

Revelation is full of references to beasts which can say things and other books clearly differentiate between "beasts of the field" and cattle and donkeys. In Exodus we find that "...the Lord slew all... in the land of Egypt... the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast.." Pray tell, how can a cow commit a sin and therefore deserve punishment? If the Lord wanted to punish a people, then why not kill ALL of the animals? The firstborn is only of significance to humans.

I see two distinct thinking processes at work. Mr. Thomson merges details into a conclusion. He sees a "2" followed by a "3" and envisions a sum of "5" or a product "6". Dr. Mathis sees only the "2" and the "3" and argues why anyone thinks that a "5" or "6" is involved. Certainly Mr. Thomson has a broader scope to his reasoning.