Nazi-CIA-Palestine Pipeline

When it comes to talking about what surviving German Nazis did after WW2, the most popular topic is Leftists talking about the Nazis who became CIA assets and operatives, Renhaird Gehlen, Klaus Barbie, Paul Dickopf and the scientists involved in Paper Clip.  

The second would be Zionists talking about the Nazis who went on serve at the disposal of Anti-Zionist Arab Nationalists, Walter Rauff and Alois Brunner in Syria, the countless who were employed by Nasser in Egypt like Johann von Leers, and some were helping the Arab Liberation Army during the Israel-Palestine War in 1947-49 but they don't have their own wikipedia pages.

But the thing is these two stories are not as separate from each other as one’s binary assumptions about Cold War Era allegiances would assume. For starters many escaped capture at the end of the War via the exact same Ratlines. 

The section of the Wikipedia Page for Walter Rauff on his time in Syria is unclear about exactly where he stood in relation to the various Coups that happened in Syria. This article is more specific.

https://newlinesmag.com/essays/a-nazi-taught-interrogation-tactics-to-syrians-and-egyptians/

Walter Rauff worked for Husani al-Zarim specifically the entire time he was in Syria and according to a Sami Jumaa helped Zarim carry out the March 1949 Coup. That Coup was also backed by the CIA via Miles Copeland Jr, the December Coup is what resulted in him leaving Syria. So there is little doubt in my mind that Rauff was a CIA asset during his entire post War career, both in Syria and later in Chile working for the CIA backed Pinochet. The Syrian political party that benefited from the March Coup was the SSNP, Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the same Party that later opposed Israel during the Lebanon Civil War. 

Antisemtic Conspiracy Theorists, in addition to falling for the bad leaps in logic all Conspiracy Theorists fall for, are also in blind ignorance of the fact that the U.S. “Deep State” has never been Pro-Israel. Miles Copeland, Kemrit Roosevelt Jr and Archibald Roosevelt Jr have been open about how strongly Anti-Zionist they were.  The Dulles Brothers have spoken on it less explicitly but their close associations with St John Philby and James Forrestal show how they were never friends to Israel either. And OSS operative James Burnham wrote Anti-Israel articles for National Review.

Returning to the topic at hend, the CIA via Kermit Roosevelt also backed the Coup that put Nasser in power in Egypt in 1952. Many of those Nazi’s who Nasser employed were recommended to him by Gehlen. Nasser was already known to be a Fascist, he was a Green Shirt back in the 30s. Both Kermit Roosevelt and Miles Copeland remained close associates of Nasser for years.  And John Foster Dulles was responsible for the Eisenhower Administration's decision to save Nasser from Israel during the Suez Crisis, one of America’s most shameful sins.

There's also reports that Alois Brunner had been part of for the Gehlen Organization at some point.

Paul Dickopf was a known CIA asset and a life long friend of Franocis Genoud, a Swiss Banker who supported the Nazis before and during WW2 and spent his post war Life funding various Anti-Zionist Arab Nationalist causes.  Among them was George Habash’s Popular Front for The Liberation of Palestine which is nominally Marxist-Lennist but in my view is really a NazBol party.  But his CIA ties and Genoud’s influence in the Middle East helped him become head of Interpol in 1968 which he held till 1972.

Paul Dickopf’s Wikipedia page avoids this topic, but there are investigations that have shown him to have been involved in Munich in 1972.  Ali Hassna Salamah, the leader of Black September is also known to have been a CIA asset since 1970. 

Now a Conspiracy Theorist would conclude from these two things that Munich was a CIA op, which I have said cheekily in some tweets and youtube comments.  But my real view is that the CIA probably didn’t intentionally cause Munich but they are absolutely culpable. 

After 1967 America’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East became officially more Pro-Israel and less Neutral.  But behind the scenes I’m convinced this true Anti-Israel agenda never went away. 

Proudhon was the Ultimate War Monger

I’ve long been confused how Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one of the supposedly greatest Anarchist Philosophers, was such a huge influence on Fascism and Nazism and other Far-Right ideologies. Houston Stewart Chamberlain the true ideological founder of Nazism cited Proudhon as an influence, as did Charles Maurras in creating his Integral Nationalism and so did Geroges Sorel, the Cercle Proudhon founded by Geroges Valois and Edouard Berth in 1911 is acknowledged even by Mussolini himself as where Fascism began. And I've seen contemporary elf proclaimed Fascist on the internet continue to cite Proudhon as an intellectual ancestor.

But why?  Proudhon’s Misogyny, Racism and Antisemitism could be written off as being products of the Bigotry of his time and theoretically separable from the core of his ideology.  It’s not like the Nazis endorsed everyone who ever said anything Antisemitic, then they would have embraced Marx.  So even that isn’t enough to explain it.

Then I learned about Proudhon’s Philosophy regarding war. You might think it’s an innate strawman for a Pacifist to accuse anyone of being Pro-War in principle, that it's always really a matter of defending a given war as a necessary evil.  But no, Proudhon loved war, remember that speech from the Nazi villain in episode 4 of Hellsing Ultimate Abridged?  That’s Proudhon. Proudhon believed War was necessary for human development, that it would be a bad thing for War and Conflict to ever cease happening. 

Yet his Wikipedia page tries to tell people the opposite (as does the annoying Google AI Overview), not by quoting Proudhon directly but other people’s analysis of Proudhon.  So here is the book itself.

https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/working-translations/p-j-proudhon-war-and-peace-volume-i/

https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/working-translations/p-j-proudhon-war-and-peace-volume-ii/

It goes on and on about how War is innate to Human Nature, the exact opposite of what any self respecting Anarchist should believe.  And here is how it ends.

“It is here that war, sublime in its manifestations, universal in its idea, juridical and consequently providential in its mission, will amaze us still more by the certainty, and, if you will allow me the term, by the positivism of its teaching.”

That people are constantly pretending this is an Anti-War text is baffling. He also clearly refers to “the adversaries of Militarism” as those he’s arguing against.  Yes his love of War isn't exactly unconditional, he still believed you could wage War immorally.  But at its core he viewed War as in and of itself objectively a good thing.

Seriously, Proudhon should be a Gundam villain. 

The claim that he opposed Nationalism is entirely based on his support for Federalism (which is confusingly the antithesis of what the Federalist Part of the early United States advocated). The truth is Nationalism can be either Federalist or Centralist, Proudhonian Federalism is one of the things Maurras borrowed from Proudhon in defining his Integral Nationalism.

And the truth is his nominal status as the first Self identified Anarchist is a sham, if you read the details of his ideology you’ll see that he was always a Minarchist at best. Even his famous “Property is Theft” quote is one he went on to repeatedly qualify and walk back, including arguing that some degree of State Power needs to exist to protect Property Rights. 

All that on it's own does not quite create Fascism or Nazism, but when combined with Thomas Carlyle's Heroarchy by later Philosophers it becomes inevitable.

The mid 19th Century French Philosopher who was the real forebearer of what Breadtube Anarchists believe in was Joseph Dejacque. And yet they keep name dropping Proudhon instead because of a status he holds by mere technicality. 

Proudhon’s toxic influence on Anarchism is probably why the Manifesto of the Sixteen happened, a group of Anarchists who supported WW1 on the Allies side. Even Peter Kopropkin was in that group. The Italian Anarchists who were pro War virtually all went on to leave Anarchism and become Fascists, just like most of Italy’s Pro-War Marxists and Syndicalists. 

Fortunately most Anarchists did know better, like Emma Goldman and Italian Antifascist Enrico Malatesta.

Chronological Nativity Narrative

It continues to frustrate me how Secularists insist on seeing the two Nativity Narratives as mutually exclusive incompatible accounts even though they are not even claiming to actually depict the same events. Strictly speaking The Nativity is only in Luke. 

As a Nerd with an interest in franchises like Star Wars, Fate/Stay Night, Raildex, Haruhi and Les Habits Noirs I happen to have experience with trying to explain the most Chronological way to consume a narrative not originally told in Chronological order. And it so happens that skill can be helpful in helping people make sense of The Nativity. 

So here is my Chronological reading order.

Luke 1:5-80.

Matthew 1:18-25.

Luke 2:1-38.

Matthew Chapter 2.

Luke 2:39-52.

I have gone back and forth between different opinions on where in Luke 2 to insert Matthew 2, but I’ve settled on this simplest version for now. 

I can’t claim to know the why of all this besides how Matthew is from Joseph’s POV and Luke Mary’s (well also Zacharias and Elizabeth to a lesser extent for John’s Nativity in chapter 1).  Matthew tells stories that hinge on decisions Joseph makes, while Luke focuses on events only Mary could have the most important perspective on. 

Just as those Fictional sagas I mentioned are told out of order for a reason, I likewise think there is a reason Matthew’s Gospel was the first one written, because it’s the most geared toward a Jewish audience and Paul in Romans 1:16 and 2:9-10 said The Gospel is for The Jews first and then The Gentiles.

Women can be leaders in The Church.

The question of whether or not Women are allowed to be "Priests" or “Bishops” or “Pastors” or whatever term you prefer to use has become a hot topic again due to recent events. And I’ve been forced to realize my initial posts on that topic were among the earliest on this blog, before I understood Church Polity related disputes as well as I do now. 

My position is ultimately the same, I still reject the entire concept of Monoepiscopacy as it’s currently practiced even by other Congregationalists. But to whatever extent the New Testament does permit some Christians to be leaders among fellow believers, the distinction between Male and Female is irrelevant as demonstrated by Galatians 3. 

The office of Prophet was even in The Hebrew Bible always open to women, from Mariam to Deborah to Anna, and Joel 2 foretells that “your sons and your daughters shall prophecy” in a Prophecy quoted in Acts 2 as being fulfilled in The Church. Prophecy in The Bible is more predictive Prophecy, it is proclaiming The Word of God. At least in Low Church Protestantism the Pastors have always identified with OT Prophet over OT Priests.

The Aaronic Priesthood is now irrelevant, in The New Testament all believers are Kings and Priests and our only High Priest is Christ, ALL definitely includes the Women. 

The word “Priest” as a term for Christian leaders is not supposed to have anything to do with the Hebrew or Greek terms translated that way in modern Bibles, its etymology derives from the Greek word Presbyter usually translated Elder.

I believe talk of Elders in the Church in The New Testament is about showing respect to any fellow believer who is your Senior, not an office, 1 Timothy 5 explicitly includes women in that.  So a conservative Episcopal Polity supporter will just insist that passage is about all seniors but others still ordain an office, that is simply selective reasoning. 

Bishop is a translation of Episcopas, a word that means “overseer” or “presider” and also has a verb form used in 1 Peter 5:2 which along with Acts 20:17-28 shows us that for both Peter and Paul all Elders were Overseers. 

Phoebe is a female Deacon in Romans 16:1, a word that just means servant but in Episcopal Polity denominations becomes the rank below Priest and is by these Conservatives treated just as only for women.

Romans 16 also refers to Tryphena and Tryphosa, a pair of female missionaries.  

Priscila also clearly always seems to have seniority over her husband Aquilla. 

Colossians 4:15 refers to Nympha, a leader of a local Church which the KJV changes to Nymphas and tries to make seem like a male but all scholars agree the Greek Text is referring to a Woman. 

Women were the first Eyewitnesses to The Resurrection and thus the first Apostles.

Against all that greater testimony of Scripture these Conservative cling to the “women shouldn’t speak in Church” passage from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the “a woman shouldn't teach a man” passage in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Read in context 1 Corinthians 14 is clearly Paul quoting someone else to then immediately rebuke them in verse 36 “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”.  Other passages in the same Epistle clearly refer to women speaking in Church. 

I honestly haven’t made up my mind how to explain 1 Timothy 2:12, I’ve seen different approaches. What I do know is that later in the same Epistle Women are permitted to be Elders. This one verse alone can not override everything else.  And that’s without me even getting into how this is the most disputed of all Paul’s Epistles.  I believe Paul wrote it and that there is an explanation, I just haven’t made up my mind what that is. 

The Temple was on The Temple Mount, I simply haven’t made up my mind where.

The most extreme alternate theories for The Temple’s location are those that remove it from The Temple Mount entirely, I currently see no validity to doing that. But every YouTube video or documentary defending the traditional mainstream view is only dealing with those extreme alternatives, they don’t have much interest in debating where on The Temple Mount.

The well known alternative theories for on The Temple Mount are based on it being either further North or further South. The Dome of The Spirits view and the Al-Kas Fountain view are both ones I’ve entertained in the past.  But today the convictions I’ve developed regarding Dominus Flevit as the site of both the Red Heifer offerings and The Crucifixion/Resurrection tell me that the Dome of The Rock is on the right Latitude.

My main issue with The Dome of The Rock however is the titular Rock, there is no Biblical Basis for The Holy of Holies being built on a Rock, certainly not one as not flat and unsound to build on as that Rock. Indeed, that Rock has just about the exact opposite qualities I would expect a “Foundation Stone” to have. 

Indeed the only Biblical basis for the concept of a sacred Foundation Stone is Isaiah 28:16 which is quoted a couple times in The New Testament, Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6 but they leave out the word foundation.  These verses however refer to Zion not The Temple Mount, Zion is synonymous with The City of David.  The current mainstream archaeological view on where Zion was is south of the Temple Mount, exactly the place the most well known alternative theory is trying to place The Temple. There is also a long history of giving the name of Zion to the Western Hill south of the Zion Gate where the Church of the Dormition is. I however firmly believe Zion, The City of David is Bethlehem. The New Testament verses identify that Foundation Stone as in fact a title of The Messiah like the Stone of Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14, that does not contradict there being a real geographical feature Isaiah had in mind but it still could prove futile to look for one. 

However the idea of a Foundation Stone on The Temple Mount does start to develop in post AD 70 Rabbinic Literature.  But it’s complicated.  The Wikipedia page for Foundation Stone quotes midrash Tanhuma (t. Yoma 2:12; y. Yoma 5:3; b. Yoma 54b; PdRK 26:4; Lev. R. 20:4.).

"As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,

so is the land of Israel the navel of the world...

situated in the centre of the world,

and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,

and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,

and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,

and the ark in the centre of the holy place,

and the Foundation Stone before the holy place,

because from it the world was founded."

Based on what it usually means to be “before” something in the Biblical Hebrew mind this would be placing The Foundation Stone East of The Holy Place. But it’s possible that by this time the use of “before” was already looser. After all Hadrian had already rebuilt Jerusalem in such a way that the main entrance to The Temple Mount was now entering from The West. 

But on the subject of that emphasis on centerness, it should be noted that the exact center of The Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, is not the Dome of The Rock but the Dome of the Chain east of The Dome of The Rock. 

The Hasmonean and Herodian expansions of The Temple Complex were to the West, South and North but never moved the Eastern Wall further East. So the original center of the area would have been East of The Dome of The Chain. In Ezekiel 40-48 The Brazen Altar is meant to be the Center of The Temple Complex, it’s likely both Solomon and Zerubabel’s designs were smaller scale versions of that basic idea but then Herod wanted to make it so The Holy of Holies was The Center. 

The 12th Century Islamic author al-Idrisi referred to The Dome of The Chain as The Holy of Holies. Some believe a form of The Dome of The Chain might predate the Islamic Conquest entirely (Archnet: Qubba al-Silsila).

So one of the theories I’m considering is that The Dome of The Chain marks The Holy of Holies, or perhaps more specifically it’s Hexagonal inner arcade.  

Now let’s turn to the account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim from AD 333. 

 https://andrewjacobs.org/translations/bordeaux.html

If the "Pierced Stone” in that account is the Foundation Stone, even then it should be noted that the Statues of Hadrian are by it not on it.  Jerome in his Commentary on The Bible for Matthew 24:15 said the Mounted Statue of Hadrian was over the site of The Holy of Holies. 

But part of me still thinks the Chamber where Solomon wrote about Wisdom in that account is the Well of Souls and thus the Dome of The Rock’s Foundation Stone is its roof. 

Bordeaux Pilgrim also refers to a visible Blood Stain that they identify as when Zacheriah was killed in The Temple, but I highly doubt the Blood from that incident wasn't cleaned up right away.  Since the Second Temple never had the Ark this could be the spot where The Ark was supposed to be and that Blood is the Blood all those dead Goats sprinkled there every Yom Kippur for centuries. 

Update: Another possible interpretation of the Geography would be one that placed the Brazen Alter where the Dome of the Chain is and does extent The Temple into the current Dome of The Rock building but not as far west as the titular Rock itself.  But I still lean towards what I argued above.

Some Traditional Biblical Geography identifications can’t both be correct.

The people who think none of the Mainstream Traditional locations for Biblical Sites are true and want to argue for some alt theory for every single one are kind of silly, I say that as someone who used to be pretty close to being like that. 

However those who think Tradition is wrong on absolutely none of them also inevitably face problems.

The design of The Tabernacle and Temple were both based on the idea that the Sanctuary should eb facing West and entered from The East. This is distinct from a lot of ancient culture, the Mesopotamians and Greeks and Romans all tended to prefer the exact opposite.  This fact is important to what will be discussed going forward. 

Two current traditional locations that can’t both be true are The Temple being where The Dome of The Rock is and The Golden Gate’s current location. Because the Eastern Gate is obviously self evidently supposed to be lined up with The Temple. 

I’ve seen exactly one attempt to deconstruct that notion, and that was someone arguing those who think the Eastern Gate has to be lined up with The Temple are confusing it with the Nicanor Gate which was a Gate in The Temple itself. But that’s besides the point, the point is all these Gates should be lined up, it doesn’t matter if no single verse of scripture explicitly says that, that is simply how Ancient cities were designed. There were times like on Yom Kippur when people would have to walk from outside the city entirely directly into The Temple, The High Priest into the Holy of Holies itself, and that path not being a straight line would have been very inconvenient. 

And even to my modern eyes used to more complex modern city layouts it still feels wrong when I look at modern Jerusalem from the east and the big fancy gate on its Eastern Wall isn’t lined up with the Most Sacred Holy Place.  If I saw a JRPG city laid out like this I’d call it bad design. 

The Eastern Wall of Second Temple Jerusalem had already been completely destroyed in AD 70 as documented by Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter I where only the Western Wall was left.

If it’s The Golden Gate that is currently in the wrong place the change probably began with Hadrian’s rebuilding of Jerusalem as a Aelia Capitolina, any further construction done later by the Byzantines, Muslims or Ottomans were building on that blueprint.  Hadrian’s major Temples on The Temple Mount aren’t believed to have been lined up with this Gate either, but it is lined up with The Church of The Holy Sepulcher where Hadrian had built a Temple to Aphrodite. 

But what’s most important here is that Roman City and Temple design would not have been primarily based on facing West and entering from The East but rather if anything the opposite. If the current layout of The Temple Mount is still primarily based on how Hadrian redesigned it as I suspect then that fits as the main stairs to access it are approaching The Dome of The Rock from The West, the Ablution Gate and Cotton Merchants Gate.

But also if Hadrian’s Jupiter Temple Complex on The Temple Mount was following a similar pattern to the one he also had built at Baalbek (they are believed to have had the same architect) then based on how they lined up the main ceremonial entrance would have been from the North traveling southward. So the East Gate leading to a spot north of everything makes sense in that context. 

I have not 100% made up my mind yet. But these reasons are causing me to reverse my past position that it’s The Temple location that needs to be changed. 

Rabbi Yonatan Adler’s argument that the site of the Red Heifer sacrifice, which had to be directly East of The Temple at a spot where you could see directly into The Temple, was a location now in the courtyard of the modern Dominus Flevit Church, begins with the assumption that The Temple was where The Dome of The Rock currently is, but there were other details he was also looking for based on what The Mishna and Talmud say about where the Second Temple period Red Heifer sacrifices were made and he found them here.  If he made the investigation based on a different Temple location I have my doubts the other details would have lined up nearly as well. 

Wikipedia cites Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 15 Chapter 11 Section 7 as saying the Eastern Gate was in the North Eastern Extremity of the Inner Sacred Court.  But what the text actually says is a lot less clear.  

"There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings. It is also reported,494 that during the time that the temple was building, it did not rain in the daytime, but that the showers fell in the nights, so that the work was not hindered. And this our fathers have delivered to us; nor is it incredible, if any one have regard to the manifestations of God. And thus was performed the work of the rebuilding of the temple."

He's alluding to some sort of underground passage from the Antonia Fortress to near the East Gate of The Temple itself.  So I don't think this is much of a clue to where any of the Gates actually were. 

I no longer support the supposed Simon Ossuary found at Dominus Flevit being Peter

To be clear, I still believe Peter was never actually in Rome, or at least not in the way traditionally thought.  And I still believe the First Century Ossuaries found at Dominus Flevit were Early Christians and that this Simon is likely one of the Simons mentioned in The New Testament.

First of all I believe even if Peter’s remains wound up in this style of Ossuary the name of Cepha or Petros would also be on, that isn’t just presented as Nick Name in The Bible but a full on new Name. 

Second, I do not believe Peter’s Father was actually named Jonah.  Sometimes in The Bible a “Son of” designation is poetic rather than literal. The only time Simon Peter is called Simon son of Jonas is in John 21 in the same narrative where Jesus prophesies Peter’s fate saying he’ll be taken to a place he didn’t want to go, like what happened to the Prophet Jonah. 

If the alternate reading of the name on this Ossuary as “Simon Bar Zilla” is correct, that could perhaps most likely refer to Simon Zealots who I do not believe was called that because he was a member of the Zealot sect.  But another candidate could be Simon The Leper (Jar Maker in the Peshita) who lived in Bethany and seems to be part of the same household as Mary, Martha and Lazarus, some even argue he’s the same person as Lazarus.  Or Simon of Cyrene.  I rule out the half brother of Jesus only because his patronym would have been Bar Yosef or Ben Yosef. 

One current theory I have on Peter's fate is that he was among the Jews who were burned at the stake in Antioch in AD 67 after being falsely blamed for a plot to burn the city down as recounted by Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter 3. So perhaps his burial place should be looked for there. But there probably wasn't a grave or tomb in that scenario since only ashes were left.