Jump to content
The World News Media

The most DISTURBING news about the BLOOD DOCTRINE, ever


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member

I can't describe my feelings very well about something I just learned. I seriously don't know how to handle this issue.

A couple days ago, I made a post in the area of this forum about the blood doctrine. While writing that post, it reminded me that I have been holding on to a couple of questions about the ins and outs of the doctrine, more specifically about why we now accept just about 100% of the products that are made from blood. It's true that we don't accept "whole blood" transfusions, but "whole blood" transfusions are so rarely offered any more that even the word "transfusion" has come to refer to to several blood therapies that JWs regularly accept.

Anyway, it occurred to me that I should have no problem getting a couple of these specific questions answered because I know some of the people who were involved very deeply in the blood issue. About three years ago, at the end of 2013, I talked to Brother Rusk in NYC immediately after the Annual Meeting. I hadn't seen him for many years. He was also good friends with my wife and he gave our wedding talk back in the very early 1980's. When I met with Fred Rusk in his office at Brooklyn Bethel in 1979 and 1980 to talk about the wedding, my fiancee, and leaving Bethel, among other things, he very often took phone calls about the blood issue. He wouldn't send me out of his office, but would usually just say, can you wait a second, and then he would go on for up to an hour (during my work time) talking to doctors, hospital personnel, elders, circuit overseers, patients, or sometimes a brother down in the Service Department who was trying to word a letter correctly about our policy. Our policy was still fairly straightforward back then. Fractions were not a big "thing" yet, but there were still questions about what did and did not contain blood, or whether certain kinds of blood storage machines were acceptable or not (containing the patient's own blood). There were also issues regarding blood decisions that I had never thought of before, related to child custody, headship over family decisions, etc.

Brother Rusk died fairly recently, but he wasn't the one involved so much with the new "fractions" policy anyway. The person who began taking over for Brother Rusk as the Society's subject-matter-expert on blood was Gene Smalley, also from the Writing Department.

These two brothers have very different reputations. Brother Rusk was a very well-loved, peaceful man, who was nearly always soft-spoken, kind, patient and helpful. Even when taking care of a serious issue, you never saw anger. He was a cornucopia of the fruits of the spirit. Gene Smalley was almost the opposite in every way. Spiteful, hateful, bad-tempered, yelling, angry, backbiting, divisive, contentious, etc., etc. (He wasn't that way all the time of course, but often enough to gain a reputation, and more than once threatened with losing his job in Writing.) But his sweet wife Anita just died very recently (from cancer) and I thought this might be a good reason to contact him and, perhaps, if the conversation could be comfortably turned, it could be a chance to get a couple questions answered about fractions. He would know the precise answer. 

Well, I haven't called him yet. Instead, yesterday, I started asking around from friends who may have seen how he is doing recently. This includes one person who worked with him until fairly recently in Writing, and one person who was a close acquaintance of both Gene and Anita.

Here is the most disturbing thing I learned. I was told that I shouldn't ask Gene Smalley about the blood doctrine. Although still on the Writing Committee, evidently he has not believed in the Blood Doctrine since about 1992, according to one of the persons I just spoke with. Yet, he has still promoted it and given interviews about it.

I have always thought of Brother Smalley as the "father of the fractions doctrine." So he would be the perfect person to ask. But the persons I asked are both well known at Bethel, and one of them has even been mentioned in the publications as early as the 1970's. My obvious question was, "Well, if he doesn't believe in it, then why does he still defend it?" Both of the persons I asked gave me the same answer, even though I asked them separately. (Although one could have been repeating the answer they heard from the other.) The answer, paraphrased:

Even though he doesn't believe in it, he still defended it because of all the persons who have died.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 6.1k
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Boy that brings back some memories! I had more than a few exchanges with Rusky on the subject of blood, fractions, and associated biblical texts, etc. There is so much left unsaid about this issue. Ev

Rather than being disturbed by one person's belief, it might be good to remember the basics in God’s word and strengthen ourselves to obey instead of looking for reasons to justify vacillation.  

Hi JW Insider, Interesting point you have brought up regarding the blood issue and Bro Smalley.   I can see why he's "out of sorts" being in a position to defend a public policy which is quite di

Posted Images

  • Member
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Here is the most disturbing thing I learned. I was told that I shouldn't ask Gene Smalley about the blood doctrine

Shame. I'd rather hear Gene Smalley's view.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Even though he doesn't believe in it, he still defended it because of all the persons who have died.

Actually, isn't this silly logic? Like saying even though I don't believe in war, I stilll defend it because of all the people who have died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Shame. I'd rather hear Gene Smalley's view.

I'm sure there is still time.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually, isn't this silly logic? Like saying even though I don't believe in war, I stilll defend it because of all the people who have died.

Maybe. I understood it in the sense that he doesn't want to minimize a person's sacrifice, or make it seem like it was all for nothing. A "good" U.S. politician won't speak out against the war in Afghanistan if he is speaking directly to "gold-star" parents of someone who died in that war.

But this information regarding Smalley could still be wrong. Perhaps it could be based on someone misunderstanding something he said. Perhaps it was over something he said in grief or anger.

It's also possible, I'm just guessing, that he believes very strongly in the previous stricter blood doctrine and regrets how far the "slippery slope" of "fractions" has taken us away from that original stance.

And I suppose then that it's also possible (based on the mention of the year 1992), that if he really had rejected the original stricter blood doctrine, that he realized that more lives could be saved if he at least promoted a "watering down" of that doctrine by suggesting that "fractions" could be allowed.

It's also true that, in spite of his influence on the progression of this doctrine, this is merely a personal view that shouldn't matter to any of us, and it is just his own conscience speaking. We don't live by the conscience of another person: "To his own master he stands or falls." - Romans 14:4.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

.

"To his own master he stands or falls." - Romans 14:4.

I am very surprised, JW Insider that you were surprised by the information you have .... you are a very observant and thoughtful person ... but everybody has blind spots ... especially if deep love for the whole Association of the Brotherhood is concerned ..... you overlook what you ALREADY KNOW with absolute certainty ... that the original stance was correct on blood .... it don't get any simpler than "Abstain from Blood" .... it's crystal clear ... absolutely unambiguous ... and conforms 100% with the theme of the sacredness of blood that permeates the ENTIRE Bible from beginning to end...... unless ... unless ...the Society's Lawyers and Accountants are running the Society ... which they are.

Theology is now defined by Spreadsheet.

That is reality 2017 in the WTB&TS.

As the money piles up on the left side of the scales .. it is ALWAYS counterbalanced by apostasy ... BECAUSE the Governing Body cannot be fired for apostasy if they institute it ... and perhaps you have never thought of it this way ... but it is ABSOLUTELY true ... EVERY "New Light" is apostatizing from what the Governing Body promoted YESTERDAY.

If you want to know WHY people do what they do ... follow the money!

I guarantee you GB  Bro. Samuel Herd does not want to go back to mowing lawns and gardening for some woman, for $12 a day, in faded and torn work clothes !

13 Fractions Permitted .jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am very surprised, JW Insider that you were surprised by the information you have .... you are a very observant and thoughtful person ... but everybody has blind spots ... especially if deep love for the whole Association of the Brotherhood is concerned ..... you overlook what you ALREADY KNOW with absolute certainty ... that the original stance was correct on blood .... it don't get any simpler than "Abstain from Blood" .... it's crystal clear ... absolutely unambiguous ... and conforms 100% with the theme of the sacredness of blood that permeates the ENTIRE Bible from beginning to end...... unless ... unless ...the Society's Lawyers and Accountants are running the Society ... which they are.

I would not have been surprised if the Society had decided to move the entire doctrine to a "matter of conscience." I would have been surprised to see the Society go back to the original, stricter stance, even if it was clearer. My wife and I were willing to go along with the Society's "fraction" stance until nearly 2000. Actually, my wife, although agreeing that fractions were a matter of conscience, believed that she would remain true to the original stricter position as a matter of her own conscience. Of course, we discussed this before the birth of our three children (between 1986 and 1994).

My personal stance changed with respect to my children in the 1990's. For most of my life, I have held that associating with Jehovah's Witnesses requires that I be willing to accept doctrines publicly even if I disagree privately. Disagreeing publicly or personally can result in damage through causing divisions and stumbling. Of course, if someone asks directly, then I have no choice but to either explain my position or decline saying that I would rather not go into that issue right now. For most issues, this was easy. For example, I see a lot of problems remaining with our chronology doctrines, but they aren't important enough to make a fuss over. After all, a few people might have done better by going to college, choosing a more viable career, or saving up for retirement, and they might choose not to do so because of a "generation" doctrine. But that's not my business unless they ask for specific advice.

But the blood doctrine can be a matter of life and death (in this life, anyway). My wife and I decided that we can choose what we wish for our own life, and might make choices that could result in death, just so we don't create unnecessary issues for others. That's what all of us are taught, so I would not be expecting anything more of myself here than would be true of most other JWs. However, although my wife and I disagreed for a time, I decided that I would never impose my own conscience upon someone else, especially not my own children.

To me, respect for blood might mean "suicide" for myself, and this is my right. But if I truly respected blood, I would never make my own children (or grandchild) abstain from blood, assuming blood could mean an extension of their physical life. The reason is that I believe this would make me guilty of killing. In other words, I would be bloodguilty. The context of Acts 15 and 21 when compared with Galatians and 1 & 2 Corinthians is not so clear-cut that I would risk imposing death on someone. No one has given me the right to decide life and death for someone else.

Even if Acts/Galatians/Corinthians really were as clear cut as we have claimed, it would most likely be overridden by Jesus' words that we should disobey the law if it means life or healing for someone else.

(Matthew 12:1-12) . . .His disciples got hungry and started to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have YOU not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat. . . 7 However, if YOU had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones. . . .So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .

When someone else's life or health is at stake, love tells me to err on the side of mercy, not sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 3/8/2017 at 3:03 PM, JW Insider said:

Even though he doesn't believe in it, he still defended it because of all the persons who have died.

That is scary and has crossed my mind before. However, I still think that the scriptures are pretty clear when it comes to using blood. As we know blood holds special religious and spiritual significance in the Bible, in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek scriptures. It was to be poured out onto the ground and "returned to Jehovah"  only in special circumstances was it to be used any other way (painted on door posts (Egypt), and sprinkled on the altar in presenting sacrifices). What would be interesting though is to find out the reasons for WHY he apparently no longer believes in it. He must have some good arguments right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Rather than being disturbed by one person's belief, it might be good to remember the basics in God’s word and strengthen ourselves to obey instead of looking for reasons to justify vacillation.

 

God’s requirement stated Noah of whom we are all descendents

 

 (Genesis 9:3, 4) Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.

 

God’s requirement under the Law

 

(Leviticus 17:10-12) 10 “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.”

 

(1 Samuel 14:33) So it was reported to Saul: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.” At this he said: “You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone to me immediately.”

 

God’s requirement in the Christian dispensation

 

(Acts 15:20) but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

 

(Acts 15:28, 29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

 

 Beware of Pretenses:  Doing one thing and teaching another.

 

11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?

 

 

Make your own decisions on conscience matters – it is not necessary to be vocal about it

 

 (Romans 14:1-4) Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. 2 One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand.

 

We must obey the letter and the spirit behind the Christian law.

 

 We must not only abstain from blood but we must carry out our obligations to warn others about the coming destruction of the wicked.

 

(Acts 20:25-28)   25 “And now look! I know that none of you among whom I preached the Kingdom will ever see my face again. 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.

 

David was not a Christian but we can learn from him.  He was serving the same God.

 

 (1 Chronicles 11:15-19) Three of the 30 headmen went down to the rock, to David at the cave of A·dulʹlam, while a Phi·lisʹtine army was camped in the Valley of Rephʹa·im. 16 David was then in the stronghold, and a garrison of the Phi·lisʹtines was in Bethʹle·hem. 17 Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” 18 At that the three forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but David refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. 19 He said: “It is unthinkable on my part from the standpoint of my God to do this! Should I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives? For it was at the risk of their lives that they brought it.” So he refused to drink it. These are the things that his three mighty warriors did.

 

God is not going to change his personality or his requirements to match the level of difficulty we are contending with in this system, because his will is right. It is not God who is bringing the difficulty – it is Satan’s  system and our own imperfection. Jehovah will help us, and fortify us nevertheless. (Isaiah 41:10)

 

(Malachi 3:6) “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.

 

(James 1:17) 17 Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, coming down from the Father of the celestial lights, who does not vary or change like the shifting shadows.

 

(Romans 14:7, 8) . . .. 8 For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah.

 

 (Jeremiah 6:16) This is what Jehovah says: “Stand at the crossroads and see. Ask about the ancient roadways, Ask where the good way is, and walk in it, And find rest for yourselves.” But they say: “We will not walk in it.”

 

 

*** w07 3/15 p. 10 par. 1 Highlights From the Book of Jeremiah ***

6:16. Jehovah exhorts his rebellious people to pause, examine themselves, and find their way back to “the roadways” of their faithful ancestors. Should we not examine ourselves from time to time to see if we are really walking in the way Jehovah wants us to walk?

 

*** w12 11/15 pp. 6-7 “Teach Me to Do Your Will” ***

DAVID APPRECIATED THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE LAW

12 David’s appreciation for the principles reflected in the Law and his desire to live by them are also worthy of imitation. Consider what happened when David expressed his craving for “a drink of the water from the cistern of Bethlehem.” Three of David’s men forced their way into the city—then occupied by the Philistines—and brought back the water. However, “David did not consent to drink it, but poured it out to Jehovah.” Why? David explained: “It is unthinkable on my part, as regards my God, to do this! Is it the blood of these men that I should drink at the risk of their souls? For it was at the risk of their souls that they brought it.”—1 Chron. 11:15-19.

13 David knew from the Law that blood should be poured out to Jehovah and not eaten. He also understood why this should be done. David knew that “the soul of the flesh is in the blood.” However, this was water, not blood. Why did David refuse to drink it? He appreciated the principle behind the legal requirement. To David, the water was as precious as the blood of the three men. Therefore, it was unthinkable for him to drink the water. Instead of drinking it, he concluded that he should pour it out on the ground.—Lev. 17:11; Deut. 12:23, 24.

14 David tried to be completely absorbed in God’s law. He sang: “To do your will, O my God, I have delighted, and your law is within my inward parts.” (Ps. 40:8) David studied God’s law and meditated deeply on it. He trusted in the wisdom of Jehovah’s commandments. As a result, David was anxious to observe not only the letter but also the spirit of the Mosaic Law. When we study the Bible, we are wise to meditate on what we read and store it in our heart so that we can determine what pleases Jehovah in a particular case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Anna said:

What would be interesting though is to find out the reasons for WHY he apparently no longer believes in it. He must have some good arguments right?

I think Melinda is rightly concerned that this does not turn into the kind of discussion that creates doubts that we are not ready to face, and I thought about that before posting in the first place, but made a decision to go ahead based on some of the very scriptural passages Melinda quoted. If I feel up to it, I might explain tonight or tomorrow, if I get a chance.

Hard to imagine him (Gene) diverging from the Society's view in any way. He was one of those who would not have varied from Watchtower doctrine by one iota back when the chronology doctrines were being questioned by many of his department colleagues. My close friends know my own feelings about chronology and the "doubled generation," but on the blood issue, the ones I contacted only knew that I had a couple questions about fractions. (Especially cryosupernatant. Although yesterday I just got the definitive answer to that one without contacting Brother Smalley.)

If I had to offer a best guess, I'd say the problem for Brother Smalley was exactly what JTR is showing in the cartoon above  (posted 3/9/17 9:55am EST). Remember, however, that this info about someone's personal beliefs is second-hand info, somewhere between advice and gossip. Even if true at one time, it might not be true at the moment. People change. But I wouldn't have put his name here if I didn't think this was an extremely serious matter that needs an explanation. Since this is really about life and death, then I think we all deserve more transparency. (Just as I think we need more transparency on the thinking that went into the doubled generation, child abuse procedures, etc.)

But I also have the impression that this now goes well beyond fractions and reaches another level (for Gene): that no one should have ever died unnecessarily over this doctrine. I can see how doubting fractions could lead to the latter view more easily than the latter view leading to the fractions doctrine. However, when I got the final answer to cryosupernatant an entirely new and very plausible explanation of his view just occurred to me. It's a bit complex to explain, however.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'd say the problem for Brother Smalley was exactly what JTR is showing in the cartoon above 

Thought provoking though the cartoon is, it misleads in that no one takes all of the blood fractions at one time.

I still feel it is pointless and damaging to speculate on Bro Smalley's supposed view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

THE POINT IS ... ( about my cartoon) is that the ABSURD, LOONY "fractions argument" is absurd and Loony, and the product of Lawyers and Accountants  .. NOT any Theology except that of insane people who value money more than common sense.

Taking whole blood will GET YOU DISFELLOWSHIPPED, and your life will be DESTROYED.

... and the lives of your family and extended family.

Taking whole blood in 13 parts, although never done in actual practice ... COULD be done WITHOUT ANY Congregational sanctions, and your life will be approved by those who have the power to ruin it ... based on something that the Society's LAWYERS invented.

.

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
41 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Taking whole blood will GET YOU DISFELLOWSHIPPED, and your life will be DESTROYED

This is as extreme as saying the only way to demonstrate repentance over breaking God's law on the misuse of blood is to return the blood that was transfused into you.

This view exhibits the logical fallacy of causal oversimplification as does the 13 part-at-once scenario.

HOWEVER...you are entitled to your view so unambiguously expressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.