CHARON RANSOMWARE

Comments (6) on “CHARON RANSOMWARE”

1. Peace a noun, while shalom a verb. The verb requires trust. No trust No Shalom. The noun simply a nice name and nothing more. Hence political rhetoric employs continuously the Pie in the Sky bull shit of “Peace”.

   Learning out to discern like from like defines “understanding. Another example:

   Distinguishing between Mercy from Pity

   johncoyote·john-coyote.com

   Have mercy.
   Have mercy Pretty girl, she told me. Chameleons faces we do have. We have become strangers to our self, forgot who we were. Once we were whiskey drinking people, who ….
   ___________________________
   ___________________________

   John mercy not the same as pity. Mercy the 4th tohor middah of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev which the church categorically denies. Torah law, something which the NT writers systematically refused to define. Torah law a legal judicial common law jurisprudence and determination of government rule – known as “Legislative Review”. Wherein the Sanhedrin common law courts not only can declare a law passed by the Legislative or Executive Branches as unconstitutional. Legislative Review takes Judicial government one step further. The Great Sanhedrin court re-writes the questioned constitutionality of a law passed by Congress or the Executive and thereafter re-introduces this court re-written law. This process known as “Mishna Torah”.

   The 4th middah of the Oral Torah stands separate and distinct from pity. Torah common law stands upon precedents. Torah commandments qualify as legal precedent in this common law legal system. Three precedent by which a person can interpret the middah of Mercy: 1. The commandment to slaughter all inhabitants of Canaan Man, Woman, and child. 2. The commandment to make eternal war against Amalek. 3. The commandment to kill the stubborn and rebellious child.

   The Torah oath brit alliance – actively entails blessing and curse polarities. If actions have their consequences like the ripple effect of a stone thrown into a pond, then these 3 negative commandments listed above they prevent a Torah curse to curse the people of Israel. No pity shown not to the people of Canaan, nor to Amalek, nor to the child who qualifies as a rebellious son. Herein distinguishes the tohor middah of Mercy from the notion of taking pity upon someone or something.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Mosckerr — I see what you’re saying. There’s a real difference between a word that just sounds good in speeches and one that carries the weight of action, trust, and consequence. I also get your point on mercy versus pity — one is grounded in principle and justice, the other can be hollow sentiment. The way you frame it makes the gap between the two impossible to ignore.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Selective Memories

         loboteroIn Saner Thought

         Historical Events
         NOTE: This is not necessarily about the current mash-up in Gaza just a few observations that I have made in my many years.

         I would like to reiterate that I am NOT anti-Jew, personally I do not give a shit about their religious beliefs.

         This post is more about the selective memories of the American people than it is about the current situation.

         WARNING: This post may include some offensive language that may offend the sensibilities of some readers….so if you are easily offended then maybe this post is not for you.

         The date is 04 November 1979….US ally Iran has had months of protests against the policies and tactics of the Shah and on this date Iranian students stormed the walls of the US embassy in Tehran breaching them and taking 52 Americans hostage which were held for 444 days until their release on 20 January 1981.

         Since that fateful day Americans have despised anything remotely Iranian. (There so much more to that action than just a bunch of pissed off students)

         To this day they, Iran, can do nothing right in the eyes of most Americans….for they are evil.

         The date is 08 June 1967….during the 6 Day war when Israel was fighting against the combined forces of the Arab nations.

         The US signit ship, USS Liberty, was patrolling in the Eastern Mediterranean….when suddenly the ship was attacked by Israeli jets and gunboats….the attack left 34 American sailors dead and 174 wounded.

         Yet Americans ignore this murderous attack and support Israel in everything they do….why?

         If you are interested, which you are not, I have a post the has articles about this attack….fucking read them and see what our good ally is capable of doing.
         ___________________________
         ___________________________

         Prior to the outbreak of the 2nd Israeli War of Independence, commonly referred to by Goyim as the June 6 Day War, France – not the US – functioned as the key ally to the Jewish state. Charles de Gaulle duplicated the British treachery. In 1939 PM Chamberlain’s London passed the 2nd White Paper which sealed the borders of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate to Jews seeking to flee from the Nazi barbarians. FDR supported the British White Paper betrayal of the League of Nation Balfour Declaration Palestine Mandate of 1922 when the US closed its borders as well to all European Jews seeking refuge from the Nazi barbarians. Neither Churchill nor FDR consented to bomb the rail lines leading to the Death Camps, despite this Nazi abomination clearly known and exposed by 1942.

         President Truman, to his great credit, the first country to recognize the independent Jewish state in 1948. Eight years following Israeli Independence England and France engaged a military alliance with Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion. England and France sought to seize the Suez Canal away from Nasser after the Egyptian President nationalized the Suez Canal as a means to pay off the huge expense required to build the Aswan Dam/Nasser Lake.

         England and France mutually faced the collapse of their respective empires. Both Algeria and Vietnam demanded their National Independence and freedom from their French aristocratic feudal over-lords. The loss of the crown of the British empire – India & Pakistan directly threatened the First World Great Power status of England post WWII. Hence both London and France consoled the collapse of their respective world empires by dreaming of stealing the Suez Canal away from Nasser’s Egypt.

         Incompetent France and England both failed to seize the Suez Canal, despite tiny Israel’s success at capturing the whole of the Sinai desert from the Egyptian Army. What a disgrace! President IKE compounded this 2nd tier status of both England and France in the Middle East by insisting that Israel return the captured Sinai and England and France peddle their papers elsewhere. Israel obeyed the command of President IKE – the post WWII Super-Power of the Planet Earth.

         The USSR successfully competed with the dominance of the US when it acquired nuclear capabilities in August 1949. Both President IKE and Secretary Stalin directly rejected the notion that England and France could seize the Suez Canal. Such a radical action would have dramatically changed the balance of power in the Middle East, wherein England and France would sit as equals to the US and USSR. President IKE forcibly declared: “HELL NO!”

         The French turn to betray Israel came just prior to the outbreak of the June War of 1967. President Nasser swore that in this war the Arabs would complete the Nazi Shoah and throw the Jews into the Sea. Tel Aviv took Nasser serious and ordered the digging of mass graves. The June War of ’67 turned out to become the 2nd Israeli War of Independence! Charles De Gaulle like PM Chamberlain before him betrayed the French alliance with Israel, by declaring French neutrality just prior to the outbreak of hostilities. London and Paris gambled that Nassers’ horse would win the Derby Race. Ooops.

         During the June War President LBJ – tied down in Vietnam. LBJ too broke faith with President IKE just like he might have involvement with the Kennedy assassination! President IKE demanded that Israel return the Sinai back to Egypt in return for both Stalin and himself slapping London and Paris as second rate powers in the Middle East. LBJ permitted England and France to become the chief authors of UN Security Council Chapter VI Resolution 242. A UN Chapter VII Resolution resulted in the Korean War. UN 242, despite being merely a Chapter VI “suggestion” has evolved unto a “Pie in the Sky” ONLY two-state solution dictate! This Resolution constitutes revisionist history which pretends that Israel lost the June 1967 War; that Israel merely illegally occupies Samaria and Gaza! This UN propaganda stinks as bad as the UN joining Hamas in the Oct7th 2023 pogrom invasion of Israel; and the ICC declaration which assumes that Israeli leaders bear the Shoah guilt of genocide!

         LBJ elevated England and France back to a first tier status in determining the balance of power in the Middle East by allowing the European disgraceful lie that pretends that Arabs did not lose the June 1967 War. That England and France as first tier Great Powers have the right to dictate to Israel the terms of UN peace, known collectively as UN Resolution 242. Where does the USS Liberty fit into this equation of betrayal?

         Prior to the June 1967 War the US in no shape manner or form qualified as a major ally of the Jewish state. Post the ’67 War with the coward betrayal by De Gaul, only then did the US become the key major power ally of the Jewish state. The USS Liberty served the purpose as a spy ship. It had acquired key information of Israeli strategic tank formations positioned within the Sinai desert. It attempted to communicate these critical Israeli tank formations using a code that the Mossad knew that the Soviets had broken and deciphered. Israel could ill afford to permit the Egyptians to gain this critical information. Therefore the IDF bombed the USS Liberty spy shit into submission.

         Loading...

      2. Mosckerr, you’ve hit on something most people either never learned or conveniently forget — the way historical memory is shaped not by facts, but by political utility. The Iran hostage crisis is permanently embedded in the American consciousness as proof of Iranian villainy, yet the USS Liberty attack — a friendly nation’s jets and gunboats killing and maiming U.S. sailors — is an historical ghost for most Americans. One is immortalized in outrage; the other is quietly archived, sanitized, or excused because it would fracture a strategic alliance.

         That’s the real tell: moral outrage in U.S. foreign policy is rarely about the act itself, but about who commits it and whether the narrative helps or harms the agenda. We condemn one regime for decades, while whitewashing or outright ignoring blood spilled by “friends.” And in the background, alliances shift — not on moral consistency, but on geopolitical leverage, intelligence control, and who’s holding the keys to the balance of power at that moment.

         History is littered with these selective memories — moments where the principle should have been clear but the response was calculated. The danger isn’t just in forgetting; it’s in building a worldview on curated outrage while the inconvenient truths are left to gather dust in the classified files.

         Loading...

      3. DISGRACEFUL. The story of a Jewish convert to the Catholic Church during the Xtian Shoah pogroms.
         Ehrenberg lived during a time when antisemitism was prevalent in many parts of Europe, including Germany. This period saw the rise of nationalist movements and ideologies that often scapegoated Jews for various societal issues. The rise of the Nazi Party in the 1930s brought about extreme antisemitic policies, culminating in the Shoah.

         This environment profoundly affected Jewish intellectuals and communities, including Ehrenberg. As an assimilated Jewish intellectual who converted to Catholicism, Ehrenberg likely encountered antisemitism firsthand, which directly influenced his perspectives and writings. His experiences provide an assimilationist traitors’ counter-narrative to the prevailing antisemitic attitudes of his time. Hans Ehrenberg converted to Xtianity in 1926.

         His conversion was significant in the context of the rise of Hitler to power. Especially as it reflected the complex interplay between his former Jewish heritage and his active engagement with Xtian theological dogma. Ehrenberg’s experiences and perspectives as a Jewish convert to Catholic Xtianity contributed to his philosophical and theological explorations, particularly regarding the relationship between Judaism and Xtianity.

         Ehrenberg’s views as a Xtian convert regarding the Talmud and Judaism reflect the broader tensions between Judaism and Xtianity during this time of Xtian pogroms. After converting to Xtianity in 1926, Ehrenberg felt a need to reconcile his Jewish heritage with his new faith. This often led earlier Jewish converts to adopt openly hostile & critical views of their former faith which prioritized the righteous pursuit of justice as faith and fear of Heaven. His hostility did not limit itself to only the Talmud. His coward racial hatred included the Hebrew T’NaCH as the foundation of Jewish common law legalism. The Talmud which asserted a central to Jewish law and tradition following its publication in about 450CE. Ehrenberg joined their ranks of the many other assimilated “Reform Jews” who grew to despise the Torah obligation to pursue judicial justice among the Jewish people.

         A Jewish Xtian convert caused the Church of Rome in 1242 to burn all the hand written Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. This stark precedent aroused the Nazi book burnings in the 1930s. Ehrenberg’s work often exposed his hostile relationship between Judaism and Xtianity. His reflections on the Shoah and the Church’s evil responses directly influenced his views on interfaith denunciations which sought to invalidate any need for church to acknowledgment its Av tuma past war crimes and guilt against Humanity.

         Many Jewish intellectuals and other leaders during and after the Shoah expressed their deep absolute revulsion and anger at the Catholic Church’s immoral indifference to the plight of Jews. Particularly the cowardly and utterly immoral crimes committed under Pope Pius XII, who betrayed “its” sub-human moral authority to speak out against the atrocities committed by both the Nazis and the Allies.

         Jewish intellectuals and leaders denounced Pius XII for not speaking out forcefully against the Nazi regime or the Allied White Paper and US closing its borders to Jewish refugees, and refusal to bomb the rail-lines leading to the Death Camps. This “sentiment”, widespread among Jewish communities and intellectuals during and after the war. Ehrenberg did not denounce the guilt of the Xtian church. But he did denounce the Talmud in his writings, reflecting his negative perspective on its impact upon shaping the cultures and customs observed by the chosen Cohen people.

         Ehrenberg criticized the Talmud as a source of legalism and as a barrier to understanding the essence of faith. He viewed it as contributing to a rigid interpretation of Judaism that he believed violated the Gospel Good News doctrine. In his works, he often and repeatedly articulated his negative views on the differences between Jewish and Xtian thought, often positioning the Talmud in a despicable light. His ignorance of T’NaCH and Talmud as common law which rejects Roman statute law exposes his racial bias coupled with his total ignorance of what separates and distinguishes Jewish common law ruled by lateral courtrooms from vertical State bribed and employed Judges and prosecuting attorneys whose job served to defend and maintain the statute laws imposed by the State and their bureaucrats. This total failure to discern between the Jewish concept of faith – which revolves around judicial fair compensation for damages inflicted – with the Xtian notion of faith, which employs theology and creeds to define a Top-down dictate how the faithful sheep MUST believe in God.

         Loading...

      4. Mosckerr, Ehrenberg’s story is a sharp reminder of how identity, faith, and historical currents collide — and how some collisions leave scars that echo for generations. His conversion wasn’t just a private matter of belief; it was a public shift at a time when Europe was sliding into industrialized hate, and such shifts often came at the cost of one’s own roots.

         The fact that he denounced the Talmud while sparing the Church its own reckoning is telling — not just as a personal contradiction, but as part of a wider pattern. History has no shortage of figures who, in seeking acceptance in a dominant system, adopt the host’s prejudices wholesale. It’s a survival tactic for some, an ideological turn for others — but it always comes with the cost of reinforcing the very narratives used to marginalize their own origins.

         And the parallels you draw — from the 1242 Paris burnings to Nazi book burnings — aren’t coincidence. Once the precedent is set that a body of thought can be erased for being inconvenient to the ruling power, the tools and the justification are already in place for the next purge. That cycle doesn’t end because of “progress”; it ends only when power is held to account equally, whether it’s Rome in the Middle Ages, Berlin in the 1930s, or any modern institution that cloaks itself in moral authority while dodging its own indictments.

         In the end, the real measure isn’t whether Ehrenberg found peace with his faith. It’s whether he — or the Church he joined — ever faced the weight of what was denied, burned, or silenced along the way. On that count, history’s verdict is still waiting.

         Loading...