Freedom, Liberty, and the Resentment of Law

Table of Contents

1. Preface
2. Testimony
3. Individualism
4. Libertarianism
5. Capitalism vs. Communism
6. Nationalism
7. Democracy
8. Usury and Finance
9. The Talmud
10. Judaism Continued
11. Western Judeo-Christian

Preface

 I have been told before that I am someone that is incapable of changing my mind in the face of information, but this is simply untrue. While laying out this preface, I find myself reflecting on my own journey of beliefs and values. I remember my younger years, resenting rules as old-fashioned and living life without any real meaning or structure. This led to strong feelings of apathy which then led to some horrible, life-altering mistakes as well as a terrible bout of depression and even suicidality. But it was in the midst of this darkness that I re-kindled a sense of Christian meaning that my parents and family were trying to teach me the entire time. I returned to the church, amended some fractured relationships, and finally began to recognize the deep importance of these values and family itself.

 Throughout this post, I will share the insights I gained about forgiveness of previous resentments, especially to parents that may have been viewed as tyrants. I hope to convince others not to make the same mistakes I made and be able to understand the importance of a strict and consistent set of rules from personal/family life all the way up to national laws. As God's children, we are meant to follow His perfect ruleset, as outlined in the Mosaic Law. In my pursuit of truth, I have delved deep into the history of these rules and how they have been perverted many times throughout history to the chagrin of the peoples and nations who did so, especially the Jewish rabbis from the moment that Moses brought the tablets down from Mt. Sinai. Learning this history also gave great insights into why Jesus was so heavy-handed and ruthless in condemning their false teaching and how this false teaching still continues today.

 In our modern Western society, the idea of "freedom" has been distorted from the original Christian meaning. The entirely Biblical idea that humans are to be treated equally under the law and not to be judged by anything but their actions and the content of their character has been taken for granted, then twisted into the idea that people aren't even to be able to be judged by their actions and content of their character. This twisting is based on nothing but a reaction to blind resentment of God's law as "intolerant" rather than truly freeing, or the selfish desire to avoid controversy and conflict. The truth is, not all conflict is inherently bad. Even most of the so-called, tolerant and inclusive liberals and libertarians have a near-violent abhorrence for ideas of authority and rule of law and will come up with erroneous terms meant to degrade the meaning of words; Fascist, nationalist, anti-semitic, Islamaphobic, and homophobic, to name a few. This direct inversion of truth has also led to science being completely corrupted by the same ideology. The Scientific Method, a tool by Francis Bacon once revered for its ability to uncover the truth of God's creation as an act of worship, is now being eroded through willful ignorance and an ungrateful attitude toward its pioneers. This has resulted in unreliable results and a failure to test biblical laws scientifically, despite their undeniable importance to a moral and functional society.

 As we explore the history of the Scientific Method, God's law given to Moses, the Talmud, how the New Covenant under Christ condemns false teaching and applies this old law, the reasons behind Talmudic Judaism's expulsion from over 100 countries over the course of 800 years, and the role of modern banking in finance, it becomes clear that there is an urgent need to recognize the origins of the basic values we hold dear and return to a realistic view of them, untainted by modern American propaganda. Our society is at a crossroads, and I believe we must be vigilant in order to not fall into the same pitfalls as ancient Babylon, Rome, and Greece, all of whom perverted God's laws and messages to such an extent, they became unrecognizable.

 This post is both a historical recording of the evolution of my faith and political views. It is also an invitation to engage in a reasoned defense (1 Peter 3:15) of our beliefs and to question the inverted, Americanized ideas of freedom and liberty (Romans 6:22-23) that have taken such an inherent hold in even the most secular minds of our nation that even they refuse to proclaim the origins being rooted in religious values. It is my hope that by reading this post, you will gain a renewed appreciation for the beauty and truth that is found within the biblical laws (Romans 7:12-25) and find the strength to stand up and even fight for what is right, even in the face of adversity. The same way that the good men who came before us fought to pave the way for the success our nation has had.

Testimony

 Living in a Christian home as a pastor's kid, you would assume that my beliefs always lined up pretty significantly with that of the non-denominational Church I grew up in. You know, the standard stereotypical misinterpretations of kid's content like Pokemon being demonic because of having evolution in it? No, the way that these values were presented to me as a kid was through many rules and bans that were never clearly explained. Rules and regulations without explanation significantly increase the chances of resentment and blind rebellion. As such, I made the mistake of blindly rebelling against these values and falling prey to the demonic and selfish idea that the freedom to please myself at the expense of my own future and the disappointment of my family should be prioritized above all else. After all, our culture absolutely loves to make sure that a pure individualist mentality is pressed into everyone's head from birth to death at every point possible, to the point where people believe any form of socially collectivist mentality is downright evil without even being able to rationalize why.

 My dad was pious about his beliefs and was attempting to lay them out within the household, but it was way too forced with little explanation. I remember being bribed to read Psalms and write little sticky notes summarizing each verse. A bribe isn't a way to get someone genuinely invested in something, though. The answer to pretty much any rule imposed was "because I said so" which drowned out the good intentions severely. It got so bad that I even began to stop respecting rules that were explained or should have even been obvious to me.

 Understandably, this issue was compounded by the house becoming more divided around age 16-17. My dad left the church and my parents got divorced a few years later but the signs were showing much before that. This then ruined my respect for the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family. I stopped going to church out of shame for not wanting to be associated with my dad's status as one of the lead pastors there being gone. As my identity was not really tied to God at all at the time and my family felt broken, I fell into a very deep depression that started with feelings of apathy. Apathy is something that people should recognize and extinguish extremely quickly if they fear falling into depression at some point in their lives. It is an attitude very hard to recognize in the moment because the attitude itself almost prevents itself from being discovered and perpetuates itself. Apathy always grows into something much worse, especially in darker times. I believe people can be functionally apathetic during good times, but will completely break down when times get hard. This is precisely what happened to me. I was declined by the colleges I wanted to go to for game programming, working a dead-end job at a grocery store for a few years that drained me of all care for myself and even others at the time. This is where it got so bad that I really started considering the idea that my life wasn't worth living anymore.

 I'm not going to say that my thought process was wrong during that time either. The only logical conclusion of a secular individualist mindset with no future to hold onto is death. Only with a foundation in religious values and morals can one climb their way out of that situation without resorting to experimental and absurdly over-prescribed antidepressants, which usually end up being detrimental in the long term anyway. This is where I thank God that my interest in psychology was sparked by being recommended some lectures from the University of Toronto by Dr. Jordan Peterson on YouTube. Albeit still individualist to an extreme degree, his lectures on psychology regarding the importance of meaning were completely spot on. His biblical series got me going back to church and being more involved with my family, including my dad who I hadn't talked to in a long time out of resentment. I still remember walking into church and forcing myself to sit in the front row after those years of distancing myself out of shame not wanting to be associated with any of the drama. The senior pastor who was one of my dad's best friends had my phone number and texted me after the service telling me that he was so happy to see me back. The relief of hearing that nearly brought me to tears and kept me coming back. That was the first time I had felt anything remotely close to Christ's forgiveness in my life but was nothing compared to the forgiveness I felt after rededicating my life to Him soon after.

 I continued going on my own for a while and eventually, my mom and grandparents followed along from the other churches they had been attending, which had to be hard for them as well considering they also had that history of grief tied to that specific church. The love and loyalty they showed to me even after how much I had cut them out of my life was yet another example of that unconditional love only explained through the love of God. I am deeply grateful to them and I thank God that they didn't stop loving me even with how much I let them down and abused their help without even thanking them. I deserved nothing from them just as I deserved no forgiveness from Christ for the terrible things I have done. I made more mistakes especially in the dating realm to try and fill more emptiness of areas I hadn't dedicated to God with just a "gotta get a girlfriend to be happy" mindset. I sort of wish my family had seen the ungodliness in these girls and just been straight with me about them, to be honest. But I can't blame them for my mistakes as it was my own blindness to the idea that a wife should have the same values as you do, not just the same interests. It took until age 24 to fully recognize the depth of Christ's forgiveness and seek to start a more serious relationship with God and the importance of at least applying some of the values He teaches to my own life.

 Now I am happily married to a woman I deeply love and respect and have made some of the best friends I've ever had at a Life Group from the church. The difference that accountable real friends make that will call you out on things and protect you from yourself while believing the same values are important on a cosmic level is insane. I hope and pray whoever is reading this can at least get some kind of advice out of this testimony. I encourage the reader to consider surrendering to God rather than putting Him at a distance. He is real and you have let Him down with your actions in life no matter the high view you hold of yourself or the good things you have done compared to the bad things. Jesus' sacrifice can cover any of that up and willingly following God's laws through the forgiveness of Christ is a complete life-changer.

Individualism

 As most Americans are now, I was completely convinced that pure individualism is the only thing that can ever preserve the rights of the individual. After all, they both have "individual" in the name, right? We are told that any form of collectivism or populism is completely evil at every turn, especially in the conservative portion of the population. This idea is pounded into our heads so consistently throughout every aspect of life to the point that we can never even consider the idea that a conservative populism can exist. We are automatically conditioned to believe that any conservative populism is rooted in white supremacy. Not often enough do American Christians remember the many teachings in the Bible about how Christians are all a part of the same Body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 tells us exactly the mindset we should have when it comes to populism and individualism. Just as the meme above says, both are argued for in the Bible meaning both must be important. Too often Christians hold two conflicting viewpoints and argue with each other over them when both positions are greatly supported in the Bible. If both positions are greatly supported, the correct position is that both positions are correct and coexist together.

 The best example that explains this idea of both existing together is Romans 12:4-5 which says "For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another". Paul couldn't have explained the idea that we are unique individuals that are part of the collective Body of Christ better. This is the philosophy the United States should have been striving to preserve from the start. It used to both recognize the rights of individuals while imparting laws that keep the society united and walking towards the same goal. It has since lost any idea of social good law and order for the sake of this fake idea that the freedom of the entire population to be as dysfunctional and as evil as possible is the "sovereign right of the individual". Any nation that has taken this route has fallen very quickly. Many of the collective ideas that the Bible has to offer can easily apply to a nation provided that they are not divided.

 I believe this rise in individualism is not organic and is instead driven intentionally by both Marxist and Capitalist ideologues at the top of media, entertainment, and government. It is hard to hide the extremely abusive inequality that results from having a purely capitalist-oriented society where large companies are in bed with government regulators at the expense of the consumer. The traditional recognizer of these abuses was the Church where people have religious ties with each other and are united by a higher power than just the government. This danger to the ruling elite in the historical past was the primary reason that one of Marxism's main goals is to destroy the church. Trotsky and Lenin were absurdly driven by the idea that Christianity must be eradicated from a population in order to gain full control over it. A fully materialistic mindset that is no more innocent of greed than capitalism. They knew the Bible already contained answers on the morality of pure individualist free-market capitalism and especially the debt-based lending economy that must power one. So Marist Socialism became the secular answer where the state is god and the people are stripped of all individualism that exists. Humans are labeled as identical pawns of the state that can all serve the same purpose.

 The ideas that should be driving the nation are the ideas that God gifts each human with unique and useful gifts that are to be used to further the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 2:19-22). Each human no matter the race, IQ, or skill set deserves to be treated with dignity. Each human is to be judged based on their ideas, decisions, and actions, not their wealth, ethnicity, or usefulness to manual labor. This consistent view of individual human rights is what led to the eradication of physical slavery in the West and should have been the consistent viewpoint that was kept when private-national-bank-driven debt slavery entered the country. These ideas have been greatly abandoned through the injection of pure individualism into our culture through things such as radical civil rights movements especially over the course of the 20th century through the eradication of Nationalism outright after severe post-war propagandization of two World Wars. We like to tell ourselves the USSR lost the war alongside Germany, but the absurdly secular, anti-religious, collectivist ideologies of the USSR plague our nation today while the more nationalist, religious socialist movements have been condemned as genocidal mania despite being entirely economical and having nothing to do with race at all. Whose ideas are allowed to be taught at the academic institutions of our nation while others are radically censored and labeled extremist? Almost everyone who's gone through an economy or history class at a college has read Marx's work at some point or another despite his ideologies in implementation leading to the direct economic failure and starvation of hundreds of millions of people.

 All of the latter sections of this article have some basis in this fundamental ordering of the world. This specific view of humans is probably the most corrupted view that America has at this point and it is what I believe to be the root cause of nearly all of our societal issues. I have blamed media, entertainment, and academia for this problem up until this point but the cowardice of the church to teach on these issues is also just as much to blame for the rise in secular Marxism in our country. Jesus preached an extremely collectivist ideology that directly opposed the Jewish racial supremacy teachings of the Talmudic Rabbis of the time. The Bible has a unifying message that actually furthers the building of the Kingdom of God and offers salvation to people. If anyone is to be preaching a collectivist message, it should be the church. God designed humans to be tribal and collectivized and that is the reason the Word of God speaks on it so often. We all belong to Him and are made to follow Him. This should be our nation's credo, not anything close to the anti-religious extremism of the USSR or the pure individualist messaging of the American libertarians.

Libertarianism

 My basis of Biblical theology was extremely Americanized, so I obviously held very Libertarian viewpoints politically. How I would best describe the idea I had is that freedom and liberty mean freedom from all authority over my life. This was backed biblically for me by the freedom from the law verses you see Paul write about often in his letters. When a viewpoint is so engrained into your head, you begin to read anything that is tangentially applicable to said viewpoint in an affirming way to that viewpoint. I correctly believed that every issue drummed up by the media was just a distraction to get the two political parties to fight with each other over nothing. However, I thought that the correct solution to that was to say that both sides are incorrect about the side they are holding.

 How does this make any sense at all? How can an issue be drummed up and have two people arguing yet both sides are completely incorrect? Let's use the example of gender for a minute. Science holds true that there are two biological genders. We know people ebb and flow within the two mentally sometimes through mannerisms or interests, but the biological binary still remains. So one side decides to drum up that both sexes are equal to each other and are interchangeable thus eroding their scientific meaning to our society that is built on traditional male/female relations as well as family. The libertarian take is to ignore the issue entirely and claim it's just a waste of time to argue about it. Is it though?

 The only way to quell the argument safely without any negative side-effects to society is by recognizing one side is rooted in truth and one side is rooted in a complete falsity. Both cannot be allowed to be true as they contradict and do have a significant impact on society. Simply ignoring the issue and saying "Let them say that who cares, it's a waste of time arguing about it anyways" ignores the fact that this issue was carefully fabricated. It was designed in a way that simply ignoring it entirely and accepting the faux challenge to the obviously true scientific precedence as simply a distraction, erodes the truth behind the already existing standard. A much more reasonable take is to recognize that the issue is fabricated and just stick with what we had before the issue was raised, rather than allow the fabricators to dismantle a core fact essential to the way society is built while also allowing them to have both sides fight each other aimlessly. Therefore, a good rule of thumb is that when the two political parties drum up a distraction controversy, side with the tried and true standard of what our society believed before and focus on what they are distracting from.

 Let's take gay marriage as another example. The take I used to follow was "Who cares? The government shouldn't be in the business of which genders can be getting married. It's not their job to legislate morality". This take is very odd, especially for someone who believes in morality not being relative. How can one believe in universal morality yet claim that the government should not legislate it? We have a book of unamendable universal moral truths right in front of us in the Bible. These moral laws are what built up our entire legal system stemming from English Common Law in England even before the US was founded. If the government's job is not to legislate and enforce moral laws, then why do we even enforce theft, murder, perjury, assault, slander, libel, and even rape? I have been called insane for asking nihilistic people to make a reasoned defense for why rape is bad without resorting to saying "because it obviously is" or "because our society agreed it is". If it was so obvious, why did it take until Western Christendom to legislate these things into a solid legal system? Why is it still only in certain countries that these laws are followed and even exist to this day?

 Now that we have hopefully established that the government should have a role in enforcing moral laws to maintain a functional and healthy society, what makes homosexuality any more detrimental than slander or libel? People claim that it's simply confined to the privacy of their bedrooms and they are consenting adults so it doesn't affect anyone else at all. I thought this as well before I was presented with several studies that show countless numbers of horrible side-effects on society spread uniquely from this behavior.

• 50% of foster parent abuse in a general population survey and 34% of abuse as determined by the Illinois DCFS was homosexual.
  -P Cameron (Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, Lincoln, NE)
• 70% of homosexuals admit to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.
  -Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.
• 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.
  -Rueda, E. The Homosexual Network. Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53.
• Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.
  -Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

The list goes on... Science has undeniably backed up the natural consequences of sinful behavior that the Bible has laid out yet modern science only seeks to disprove these hypotheses in the name of "freedom" to no avail. This isn't only relegated to homosexuality either, but nearly every Mosaic law laid out in the Bible.

 Each time that one of these laws is brought up to the chopping block, the claim is that they are intolerant of the sovereign and sacred "individual". What is an "individual" really in a society of over 300 million people? Are we really delusional enough to believe that allowing adults to be complete degenerates "in the privacy of their own home" will never leak out of their homes? Humans don't simply live out their lives like isolated mountain men with no families. Humans have friends, connections, kids, and families. They go outside and interact with other people. The radical progressive wing will always suggest eroding these laws under the false assumption of isolation. Conservatives are often very keen to play the same game. You can see this game being played at a grand scale over the course of the last century like this:

• Progressives will aim to remove a set, known, and true moral law for the sake of "freedom".
• Conservatives will oppose it.
• Progressives will name-call and denigrate the conservatives as being old-fashioned "fascists" who want to control every aspect of people's lives.
• Conservatives will cave in, little by little until they finally fully embrace the same idea out of complete blind fear of the names they are being called.

 An example of this playing out would be the transgender ideology issue. Progressives will work to make it socially acceptable amongst adults until Conservatives agree. All the way up until the point where all Conservatives have to fall back on is "What about the children?". Ron Desantis passed a law making it illegal to teach this transgender garbage to children from K-4th grade. Why stop there? Why stop at even 18? What moral difference does this behavior magically obtain after an age-limit is reached? There is none. It's all about fear of being called an authoritarian. This is no doubt because our culture has been drastically conditioned to blindly fear any and all authoritarianism, especially in the wake of the 20th century. God-forbid we have any laws against things that are scientifically proven to destroy societies at the expense of the "sacred, holy, and sovereign individual's" God-given right to be a completely destructive and negative force on society. We would never want to be so authoritarian as to prevent someone from exercising their right to do the moral equivalent of lighting a rubber tire on fire in someone else's basement and pumping the fumes through their home ducting.

 I believe the reason for this willful ignorance and destruction of society in the name of freedom stems from a firm rejection of religious moral values from people that hold similar views to what I held to my parents for so long. They automatically reject the rules because they don't sound fair and have never been told or shown why the rules exist in the first place. Reading through Leviticus and then cross-referencing the moral law with known scientific information relevant to each law has led me to believe that God left signs and warnings in nature that punish us naturally for these things when we decide to break them. You can see the reaping of our punishment happening in the state of modern society today, just as it happened in Greece, Rome, and Babylon. Our country is in the same state that the Weimar Republic was in morally. We're on our way economically as well with the state of our financial system based on unsustainable and unrealistic debt running on worthless paper currency backed by absolutely nothing but being the world's reserve currency.

Capitalism vs. Communism

 My original opinions for most of my life were that free market capitalism under the idea of private national banks controlling the currency was the best alternative to any economic system in existence. An imperfect but just way of controlling things without forced redistribution of wealth. However, both capitalism and communism at their core are in extreme opposition to biblical teaching.

 Communism involves the secularization and elevation of the government to an all-powerful granter of rights as well as the equalization of all different kinds of people. Basically forcing people into slave labor while dictating the jobs that everyone has and then redistributing the wealth mostly up to the government in charge. It also removes the individual's rights entirely and the idea of an individual having agency is completely removed for the goals of the collective. This means that it is not legal to own any private property, which means that the traditional family structure must be removed entirely and children must even be collectivized rather than belonging to a specific father and mother.

 Capitalism suffers many of the same immoralities. As communism likely wouldn't have any room for entertainment or excess productivity, capitalism takes the other extreme. If there is a market for it, then a business has the right to fill it no matter what it is. Pornography, addictive social media, drugs, anything goes so long as there's a buyer. The idea follows similarly to the Americanized idea of freedom where we are free to do anything we want and it's up to the individuals of the society to be selfless, upstanding, moral people for society to function. This also leaves open the idea of a market with shares for a shareholder economy. Now communists would say that most of the money in society goes to the big business oligopolies and that leads to extreme injustice and abuse of the average citizen, while this is mostly correct. What they fail to address is that at least the corrupt businesses usually have to build something of value to sell to get people to buy it. While investment firms, market manipulators, and money manipulators make orders of magnitude more money compared to businesses while producing nothing of value whatsoever to society. What is more immoral, the predatory interest that is charged to an everyday citizen to participate in the economy at all for a necessary-for-life purchase? Or is Jeff Bezos producing the ability to get basically any commodity that exists to your doorstep in less than 2 days?

 Moneylending at interest through a debt-based economy using cash that doesn't even exist is much more corrupt and damaging to society. These same people are also usually the core involved in buying up massive amounts of property in order to lend it out to average citizens thus preventing the average citizen from owning their own land. This is starting to sound a lot like communism. Free market capitalism is definitely a better solution than communism in the end, mostly due to how long it fends off starvation and promotes innovation. I do think that humanity can do better using Biblical bans on usury and making any business that does not benefit society morally completely illegal. Imagine the state of the US if usury was banned, money was based on goods and services of the united states citizen, and pornography, recreational hard drugs, and addictive social media were made outright illegal or significantly regulated. Tack on some more incentives to do productive things like starting a family and having children and we start to see a much more thriving and fulfilled country that is much more aligned with what God intended.

Nationalism

 This is probably the most consistent viewpoint of mine that has remained relatively unchanged for my entire life. I would describe myself as always being a nationalist as I have always believed that nations should continue to exist and serve their own citizens first, then cooperate with other nations peacefully and diplomatically second. Nationalism has become a word that is almost shuddered at when considered. We use terms like fascist or nazi to describe nationalists nowadays as if they are epithets to be thrown around willy-nilly without any real meaning other than to discredit an idea blindly. This is partly because our post-WWII society is conditioned to see the word nationalism and immediately think of the word "racist" or "Holocaust". I have yet to see many politicians defend the term or even self-identify with it which is partially why I have lost hope in our political system.

 I believe our democracy has failed worst in representing the nation. A nation's government should be for the nation's people first. For example, say an Italian immigrant comes here and becomes a legal citizen. If that Italian is not willing to completely renounce all ties and loyalties to the Italian government, they should be prevented from ever being allowed to represent the US in a government position. Every US politician should have their loyalties to the US and the US alone. Treason carries the death penalty for a reason. Representing United States citizens and having loyalties to anyone more than them is nothing less than treasonous. Now ask yourself how many meaningless wars we have fought entirely on Israel's command because of how many politicians we have who blindly follow their every word. I don't think our allies are entitled to any help from us until our Nation is both self-sufficient and producing goods in excess that we can afford to lose.

 These ideas are often defended by non-Christian morally devoid people who hold racial supremacist viewpoints such as the idea that white people are superior to all other races. So you can begin to see why the proponents of globalism can stain the viewpoints of nationalism, especially considering the Allied view of the Axis powers during WWII. It's now considered immoral to view your nation (even regardless of race) in high regard. It is even taught in Christian circles that being loyal to a nation is idolizing it above God so we should just let our nation crumble as all nations have in the past. It's very difficult for me to even play devil's advocate on that point of view considering it's so patently self-destructive and insane so I won't even try. It's essentially just a very misguided elevation of God's sovereignty to the level of "anything we do doesn't matter even if it is good". Essentially a boiled-down strawman for Calvinism. As if God's sovereignty completely excuses our obligation to do good things such as evangelism and defend the righteous. God has always been a defender of the idea of nations and you can see this through His deliverance of Israel in the Old Testament as well as the moral/judicial laws given to them. If you love these laws and believe they are still good and can apply today as well, then you should also be a nationalist to some degree.

 God's outline for nations has always outlined a governing authority that is appointed by God (submissive to God's leadership), rewards good, and punishes evil. The greatest example of this is given in Romans 13. It lines up with how the authorities were appointed in the Old Testament as well. It also most importantly lines up with God's statement that all authority has been (past-tense) given to Jesus Christ over all of this earth and in heaven. Leaders of nations on this earth should also therefore be submitting to God and not attempting to subvert or enable the breaking of God's law (rewarding evil and punishing good). Any leader that is appointed by man rather than God and especially a leader that rejects God entirely should be staunchly opposed or replaced. The idea that Christians are to just blindly submit to all governing authorities unless they are telling you to break a law of God is a falsity that is paved on a road of good intentions. I understand the sentiment behind that and the reading of Romans 13 in a way that Christians should be good citizens. However, the idea that Christians cannot oppose and/or break laws set by any leader on earth no matter their morality is not what Paul meant by any means. To think this would stray into very dangerous territory about the meaninglessness of our actions. If no government is to ever be resisted and overthrown, how do we expect evil leaders to ever go away? Last time I checked, no evil leader on earth in the last 2000 years has ever been just miraculously overthrown via fire and brimstone or flooding by an explicit act of God from heaven. Without anyone to remove evil from power, evil will prevail, it's that simple. Yes, God is sovereign, but just as that does not mean we can just sit idly while God evangelizes for us, that does not mean we just sit idly by while evil takes over and corrupts an entire land. Without another human force, no human force is going to be magically removed from power short of a miracle that we have zero examples of short of Old Testament history. Even then, many of the miraculous overthrowings of the Old Testament were explicitly humans being empowered by God to remove the evil force from power.

 That is not to say that Christians are to just go around executing governing authorities or something like that either. That is wrong and would be taking control in the wrong way. It also wouldn't be modeling Jesus at all. To righteously resist the governing authorities of the day to send messages would certainly fall into the category of what Jesus was doing, though. Jesus was nearly arrested and killed on multiple occasions that would seem justified before the authorities of the day. The Sanhedrin and Pharisees are also undeniably able to be considered governing authorities with their power/influence and they were resisted and rebuked to an even higher level than Rome was.

 A government should exist to serve and protect the people within their nation above all else. There's a good reason that treason laws carry a death penalty in every country. Disloyalty of a government to its people or worse, to God, is a crime that should be punished. I would think most people can agree with that both Christian and secular. Just needs to be applied consistently and fairly to everyone in leadership positions or authority.

Democracy

 The pervasive influence of individualism and libertarianism as mentioned above has led to the idea that pure democracy is the best way to order a society. We know that humans are fallible, self-obsessed, and generally don't put others before themselves at all. Now, what on earth would make us think that allowing a majority of the population to control what is moral and immoral is any better than having an authoritarian government oppress the citizens outright? We're incapable of even electing people that can read a very simple document word for word and enforce it impartially. The issue the Founders were trying to solve was solved under the assumption that the population kept on having the interest of the nation and its people at heart through a moral framework that was consistent. It also operated under the assumption that every position of public office was an unpaid act of servitude to the people, not a financially stable career path.

 The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of people from overreach and be basically impossible to amend yet here we are in the midst of some of the worst overreach imaginable. What went wrong? The second amendment allows us the right to bear arms to fight back against a tyrannical government. However, our population has this idea that self-defense is only okay in the event of a personal life-threatening home invasion. The idea the entire nation could do with some self-defending has completely slipped people's minds. The reason for this comes back around to individualism. The idea is that if it's not directly affecting me right this second, it's not worth fighting for. Sounds extremely selfish when worded the way it actually is rationalized, doesn't it? What if the government slowly and systematically worked inch by inch to take away your rights until finally, you had nothing left without even noticing anything is gone? That is exactly what is happening now through our democratic process. The founders made it so hard to do anything that this is the only way anything can happen, the side effect is that people don't notice how terrible the policy is until years down the line when they've forgotten what caused it.

 I would much rather opt for an authoritarian government based on biblical principles. If misused, it would be absurdly obvious and spark real resistance and restoration in the population much quicker before the country is entirely ruined. Right now, we have an emasculated population where the simple idea of storming the capitol and targeting the people responsible for the problems entirely unarmed is considered the most dangerous and terrifying terrorist attack known to man. While rioting and burning down innocent civilians' small businesses is considered a reasonable revolution. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the best way to go is to assassinate a bunch of politicians and violently take over the country. I think that the ideal way to go is to get a coalition of intelligent God-fearing men who care about the well-being of the nation and society to enter politics as essential dictators and radically change everything from within. This was the goal that Trump had with his "Drain the Swamp" mentality before he did absolutely nothing. When a democracy votes for foreign nations to exploit and abuse the citizens of our nation, we say "Wow what a great democracy we live in. I'm so glad I have a say.". But when an authoritarian state stands for its nation and its people and refuses to allow itself to be exploited and abused by foreign influence, we say "Wow what an abusive and terrible state to live in with no freedom.". Our country is basically already an authoritarian state with two parties that basically eclipse each other in beliefs and neither has the interest of the citizens at heart either way. Why not just go all the way and get a strong godly, Biblical nationalist in essentially complete power beholden to the Bible as the constitution, bill of rights, and law?

Usury and Finance

 Usury is defined as the lending of money at interest. I had never really thought about this concept and had taken it for granted up until recently. The justification for it always was Ben Shapiro's free market idea of a bank. That a bank would never predatorily lend to the poor as it would be a terrible business decision. Obviously, banks have to lend real money that has been deposited into them and choose their lendees wisely. If they couldn't guarantee a return on investment, then it isn't worth their time. However, this is not at all how it works. I learned that banks are actually able to lend money they don't even have, get bailed out of bad decisions, request more money be printed by the Fed at a whim if they run low, and repossess real tangible assets from people who cannot pay back a loan.

 Usury has been dominated historically by a singular group of ideologues. A group of ideologues driven, unsurprisingly, by the idea that everyone else exists to serve them. Our entire financial system operates completely under the assumption that usury is necessary for the world to work. On the contrary, countries that banned usury and expelled the ideologies that proliferated it from their countries entered some of the most insane levels of growth and success we've seen in human history. This is because debt-based economies often lead to some of the most ridiculously dystopian levels of wealth inequality. If this wealth inequality was based on just rewarding the hard-working and innovative, that would be one thing, but as usury defines itself, it requires no innovation, no labor, and no production of any goods.

 How can an economy function without money lending? One might ask. This belief is rooted in the idea that lending money at interest can generate the necessary financial resources to stimulate growth and development. Without usury, businesses could face significant obstacles in acquiring the capital needed to invest in new projects, expand their operations, or innovate. Consequently, this lack of investment could stunt economic growth and potentially lead to stagnation. Moreover, money lending allows consumers to access credit, which enables them to purchase goods and services they might not be able to afford otherwise. This, in turn, boosts demand and drives economic activity. Additionally, usury plays a crucial role in fostering financial inclusion, providing opportunities for individuals and businesses with limited resources to participate in the economy. In light of these factors, one could argue that the absence of money lending might severely restrict the overall functioning of an economy, limiting its ability to grow and prosper.

 This entire premise operates under the idea that usury is simply moneylending. One can never actually defend the predatory compounding interest of a loan without justifying that "the lender has to be rewarded for his investment somehow". Why should a lender be guaranteed a ridiculously high return on investment for something that takes essentially zero risk? A bank does not have to even have the money they lend out, to begin with, and if you fail to pay the loan back in any way, all of your personal belongings now belong to the bank. So they lend you money they don't even have on the agreement that in the event you cannot pay them back in real money you earned working and participating in the economy, they get whatever previous fruits of your labor you earned along with the tangible item you purchased using the loan. As a Christian, where are the ethics in this? I see no risk with infinite reward, essentially theft.

 The largest argument mentioned earlier is not in regards to personal loans for items such as homes, but businesses being able to take a loan and be invested in. Usury does not require the banning of investment. If you have ever seen the show Shark Tank and understand how an investment works, a guaranteed return on investment is not guaranteed and they are often buying a stake in someone's business meaning that the investor now has a stake in making sure that business succeeds. This structure is mutually beneficial and encourages the cooperation of the investors and the businesses rather than pure loan sharks giving out a usurious compounded interest loan that invests in both the businesses' failure and success at the same time. The idea that individuals taking out interest loans on personal belongings drives economic activity also doesn't make sense either. How does fake unearned money circulating through an economy benefit said economy at all other than creating inflation? We see the effects of this debt-based system even today as our entire country runs on the idea of loans and finance rather than self-sufficiency and productivity.

 The financial system exists purely on the given assumption that it must exist. The perpetuated idea that without our debt-based, fiat system, the economy wouldn't work at all. This lack of convincing reasoning as well as examples of thriving countries that ditched debt-based systems in favor of proof-of-work-based public national banking has led me to realize just why the Bible bans this practice outright. Once again, the failure to implement God's law into our country has resulted in an unsustainable and unrealistic economic situation that, short of a radical revolution, will not stand on its own much longer just like Weimar Germany in the early 20th century.

The Talmud

 Now that we have discussed our unsustainable and abusive financial system, Nationalism, Democracy, and how our government seems to not represent our own nation, let us take a dive into what our government does seem to be dominated by and influenced by in the direction it is going with the people it defends most.

 If you are anything like me, you probably thought that the dominant book of Judaism was the Torah and that it upholds the law of Moses handed down from Mt. Sinai as most US Christian denominations teach. However, all sects of Judaism (with the single exception of the unpopular and persecuted Karaites) view the Torah as simply an outdated outline of parables and fictional stories that hold a special meaning. They view the old teachings as symbolic with no historical accuracy and are often relying on atheistic modern scientific religious theories over their own history. Most followers of Judaism follow a collection of rabbinical opinions and teachings known as the Oral Tradition also known as The Talmud. The Talmud is a collection of oral teachings that they believe was an amended extra set that was given to special rabbis after Moses brought the tablets down. It was taught strictly orally in the circles of Pharisees and religious scholars for hundreds and hundreds of years as early as the golden calf was created in Exodus. This oral teaching continued to grow and be expanded on all the way through the Israelites' capture by many pagan cultures. As we know, the pagan cultures back then were proponents of some of the most repugnant, disgusting, and immoral activities since Sodom and Gomorrah. Now imagine the country we live in right now. Imagine where Christianity would be if there was no ancient written word and just an oral tradition with a giant game of telephone between generations of rabbis. The Jews of the time in Babylon implemented many of the Babylonians' paganistic practices into the oral tradition and these amendments and heresies continued to get worse and worse all the way up until modern times including the time when Jesus came (more commonly referred to as the Mishnah or Oral Torah back then as it had not yet been written down). The Pharisees and Rabbis of both modern and ancient times will still refer to the Talmud as "Torah" and so from this point on, I will use these terms interchangeably and only refer to the true original unchanged version of God's perfect written law to Moses as the Law of Moses.

 While Jesus was going through the temples rebuking these Rabbis throughout the New Testament, this is the teaching they were claiming was the Law of Moses. These rabbinical amendments claimed that gentiles were totally fine to exploit and plunder for money, or even outright kill for unjust and unequal reasons under the law. Topped off with a large portion of racial supremacy as a result of these teachings. Talmudic Jews believed and still do believe today that gentiles are equivalent to animals morally and that they are God's chosen people based on race alone. This false oral tradition is precisely what Jesus came to end (most significantly rebuked directly in Mark 7). You can start to get a really good understanding of why Jesus seemed to show very little grace to the false teachers of His time in the synagogues and even claimed that they serve their father Satan instead of God the Father [John 8:44]. This set of beliefs has zero alliance with Christianity and Christians who show favoritism or special alliance with this religion that perverts the Law of Moses are quite literally choosing to ally with people who blaspheme Jesus even worse than the Muslims do. Here is a compiled list of just a few of the many reprehensible rabbinical teachings including full context links to the Talmud's recording of them.

Morality/Racial Supremacy

• Gentile who studies the Torah deserves death. (Sanhedrin 59a)
• A Jew does not have to pay a gentile (Cuthean) worker's wages owed but the other way around is required. (Sanhedrin 57a)
• When a Jew murders a gentile, there is no death penalty while the other way around incurs the death penalty. (Sanhedrin 57a)
• When a Jew steals from a gentile, no crime has been committed. (Sanhedrin 57a) & (Baba Mezi'a 24a)
• A Jew has higher legal status than a gentile because if a Jew's ox gores a gentile's ox, no harm has been done, but the other way around has no exemption even if they are considered "his neighbor". This cheating of money is justified through the logic that "God has exposed their (gentile) money to Israel". (Baba Kamma 38a)
• If a gentile strikes a Jew, it is the same as striking God himself and the gentile must be put to death. You can also see in the rabbinical defense of this one how the Jews interpret God's law to only apply to them rather than all mankind, the same way that modern heretical progressive Christians claim God's law only applies to old Israelites: "one who smiteth man [i.e. an Israelite] attacketh the Holy One.". (Sanhedrin 58b)
• If money is found that belongs to a gentile and a Jew picks it up, it now belongs to the Jew, but if a gentile finds money that belongs to a Jew, it is theft. (Baba Mezi'a 24a)
• If a Jew is found guilty of crimes done to a gentile, he may use subterfuges (lies) to skirt responsibility for the actions done. (Baba Kamma 113a)
• A gentile child is "fatherless" and their flesh is equal to the flesh of asses and whose issue is the issue of horses. Equating them to the legal equivalence of animals. (Yebamoth 98a)
• You can't trust a gentile to sell you any type of animal because gentiles are filthy and there is an extremely high chance they may have had sex with it. This entire section basically operates under the assumption that gentiles are to be treated under the assumption they all participate in bestiality. ('Abodah Zarah 22b-23b)
• A gentile daughter is automatically born into a state of filth and marriage is completely prevented with them. ('Abodah Zarah 36b)
• A fetus is only "mere liquid" until the 40th day of pregnancy so abortion is no harm, especially in the case of a gentile impregnating a Jewish woman. (Yebamoth 69b)

Hatred Towards Christ

• If anyone teaches anything that contradicts the Torah (Including Talmud, remember?), they are to be put to death. (Sanhedrin 90a)
• Those who read any uncanonical books or teachings will have no portion in God's Kingdom. (Sanhedrin 90a)
• Jesus is boiling in hot excrement in hell. (Gittin 57a)
• Jesus was hanged and stoned to death for practicing sorcery and luring Jews into apostasy. (Sanhedrin 43a)

 How else could Christianity in America have ended up siding with a religion that hates them to the point of death other than intentional influence and false teaching? I see no reason to believe that this is the result of an accident and I am completely convinced that the same ideology that convinced Caesar to crucify Christ exists today to undermine Christ's Kingdom. I also believe that this same ideology that holds positions of power in media and education has warped historical persecution in their favor to act as if anyone who opposes them just hates them for racial reasons. I despise all racial supremacy as Christ did, so I, therefore, must despise the Jewish religion and all Jews that follow it holding the Jewish supremacy it teaches to heart.

 Have you seen the hilarious attempts of Islam to copy the religious Talmudic Jews by co-opting a slur to try and paint anyone who opposes their religion as "less-than"? Islamaphobia is the term that got me down this train of thinking, to begin with. Our culture has basically convinced the world that the only reason to oppose Islam is just rooted in "Islamaphobia". It is more obvious that this label is stupid compared to "Antisemitic" because Islam is distinctly a belief system, not a race. I think the religious Talmudic Jews have it quite easy when it comes to painting people as racists because many people are too lazy to say they oppose "Religious Talmudic Jews" and opt to just shorten it to "The Jews" which can easily be intentionally misinterpreted into racial hatred. I even find myself saying "The Jews" by mistake on a regular basis because it's just automatic and easier to say without thinking about it. Imagine if Christians were both a race and a religion so anyone who came up to me and was claiming Christianity is evil, I just responded by calling them a racist. It is an extremely lazy way to defend a point of view, but it is necessary for them because they believe that Gentiles shouldn't even be allowed to read the Talmud or hear a Jewish person talk about it.

 Now that we have some good background information on the beliefs of the Jewish religion, is it hard to tell why their religion has been expelled from over 100 countries in the past several centuries? I like to think of it this way: If I have had 100 girlfriends and they've all broken up with me, it's time to stop blaming the women and start looking into what is wrong with me.

Judaism Continued

 It is often said, "Predjudices are what fools use for reason." However, is it really prejudiced to accurately judge a system of beliefs based on the very beliefs and actions themselves? Is it possible to consider that many of the ideas that are smeared as intolerant bigotry these days are actually not even rooted in blind intolerance at all? As we have explored in the previous sections on authority, homosexuality, morality, and overtly violent religions such as Judaism and Islam, does intolerance of these behaviors and beliefs really warrant calling someone an extremist? If it is okay to hate white supremacy, which nearly everyone agrees upon, then why is it not okay to hate Talmudic Judaism or extremist Jihadi Islam? These are not wide swaths of average citizens and these are not races, they are a set of morally reprehensible ideas just the same as white supremacy. Are labels such as Islamophobia, homophobia, and antisemitic just meaningless slurs meant to discredit anyone who dares criticize the dominant structure of "tolerance of everything"?

 This intentional mischaracterization and aversion to any discussion of the topic of Judaism and the disgusting effects it has on society have been a counterfeit wall of immunity protecting it from criticism ever since the end of World War I. World War II was an even bigger excuse to protect these outright evil values from criticism as well. Notice how the moment you read my comments regarding the Talmud or saw the meme above the section on it, you most likely deep in the back of your mind started subconsciously or even consciously labeling me and my writing as bigoted antisemitism, despite me never even coming close to claiming that people should blindly hate all Jews for being racially Jewish. This is an entirely conditioned response that I am also guilty of having as I was raised to blindly hold the superior and holy Jew on some special pedestal as God's Chosen People. Despite the New Testament apostles and Jesus himself overtly breaking this idea down as well as even condemning this belief as heretical, I was conditioned my whole life through both religion and Holocaust history to never even think about criticizing this religion that hates me and everything I stand for.

 This view of Judaism should come as no surprise because people who either follow this religion directly or view it in high regard dominate every aspect of Western finance, business, media, entertainment, news, and higher education (including, and especially law/history). So when a religion that overtly views and teaches that every non-member is a subhuman and a servant worth no more than cattle has the largest influence in a nation, it is hard to deny the obvious reason that most Americans view Israel as our greatest ally despite it being filled with people who harbor a deep hatred for Christians both openly and behind closed doors. Judaism teaches that a gentile is never to read into the Talmud and that a Jew should never even discuss the Talmud with a gentile otherwise they are guilty of a crime punishable by death. This is precisely why there are countless videos of Ben Shapiro debating people on Christianity, but zero videos of him discussing Talmudic beliefs with anyone. The same goes for Dennis Praeger. They have no issues discussing how Christians should view the Old Testament, the crucifixion of Christ, and how Christians should view Jewish belief as a loyal and fellow believer in the same God. However, they will never discuss their actual beliefs that they discuss with their rabbis at synagogue when it comes to the Talmud, also known as the oral tradition. The Talmud commands that if gentiles pry into a discussion of Talmudic belief, a Jew is compelled to lie to them about their beliefs as well which makes this an extremely complicated issue to identify and root out extremists.

 We, therefore, must assume that those who are intelligent and very well-versed in Talmudic tradition most likely follow these reprehensible beliefs of supremacy. Why is it so crazy to think that fellow believers of this tradition do not ever work towards the interests of each other intentionally or unintentionally? It is only natural that it would happen. Take this thought experiment. Would you think highly of Israel for making sure the Jewish people are prioritized above everyone else and banding together as a nation-state to defend itself from oppressors? If so, why would you think lower of Christian Americans for wanting the exact same thing for America? This idea has been clearly pushed on our Nation for some reason. Elevating non-citizens as taking priority above citizens. Elevating secular degeneracy above Christian values. The idea of the Christian church banding together to protect the sanctity of Christ elicits fear in people who hate Christ. Which religion hates Christ more than any other religion on planet Earth while also having massively disproportional sway in political discourse, history, cultural values, media, entertainment, and finance? Is it any surprise that the prioritization of the individual over the collective has been pressed on our culture in purely a secular way? Such ideologies as Marxism are the only acceptable alternative collectivist mindsets as it entirely erodes the rights of the individual entirely.

 This dichotomy of acceptable opinion can be represented by the following two options:

1. Christianity is only acceptable when it promotes and enables the degeneracy and sin of everyone because it's the tolerant and kind thing to do in a completely individualist way.
2. Marxism is the only acceptable alternative to that because it denies religious moral values entirely and makes individuals collectivist slaves to the state rather than Christ in an entirely collectivist way.

 I can think of a country that balanced the idea of the sovereign rights of the individual while also keeping the country on the same path through collectivist and religious morality to the immense success and flourishing of the country within only a few years. But we will expand further on this in another section.

Western Judeo Christian

 Now that we understand the precursor information on what Talmudic Judaism really is in contrast to Christianity, we can now hopefully understand the above image more clearly. I fully adhered to the misconception portion of this image for most of my life before recognizing the reality. I would argue that a majority of Christians especially in the United States would ascribe to the misconception as well purely out of propaganda. One of my good friends goes to church that constantly cites Numbers 24 out of context as an excuse to ally themselves with the modern nation of Israel. His church is an extreme example as they take this deliberate misreading of Numbers to the logical conclusion of stating that a Jewish convert to Christianity is worth 1000 gentile conversions which is essentially no different than the absurdly evil Jewish-supremacist ideology espoused within the Talmud itself. I personally am not sure where this misconception originated from but based on the information I have, I can only speculate... We need to be actually reading our Bibles on a regular basis and putting more intentional study into the Word of God rather than just taking every idea put into our heads by the culture at face value. That shouldn't be controversial to say to a born-again Christian in the face of this culture. We need to understand that ideas like progressivism and democratic talking points aren't the only places we have attacks from the enemy infiltrating.

 We as Americans are very accustomed to hearing the terms "Western" values or "Judeo-Christian" values. Where did these terms come from and what do they even mean? Historically, what did all of Europe have in common with each other? It definitely wasn't identical shades of skin, some ethnic culture, or even mode of government to each other. It was Christianity. The belief in Christ alone. Where did we lose that terminology of just simply Christian? Why does Judeo have to be lumped in despite their actual values not even lining up with the Torah at all at this point? It is an intentional change to include them in the terminology. The term Christian excludes Jewish people that have not accepted Christ so we must now use "Judeo-Christian". The term White European excludes Jewish people on the basis of race/ethnicity, so we must now use "Western". The previously more correct terms have been essentially banned as too exclusive (the latter, slightly more understandably so), but Christianity should be the fabric that holds "the West" together. We tend to think that the only thing that matters is just that other countries follow the same style of government as us and all of a sudden they are in with us and can be called "The West". No, whether we group ourselves in with other nations or not should be based on the only relevant discriminant on earth: Whether you are a follower of Christ or not. These intentionally loose terms are way more inclusive than they should be and we should honestly be correcting them when they are used too blanketly to lump two diametrically opposed groups together.

 Christians share more commonalities with Islam than with modern Talmudic Judaism. Yet, we would not use the term "Christio-Islamic" to describe our nations or alliances with most Middle Eastern countries. New terms have been coined to simplify and implicitly justify Israel as our ally. These phrases are used frequently to subtly defend Israel's activities, such as surveillance on us, influence in our elections, and infiltration of our government via Mossad. These actions should, understandably, provoke anger among Americans. We already exhibit collective outrage towards countries like China when they engage in similar behavior. Why, then, should the response differ when Israel is the perpetrator? Is it because they are considered a "liberal democracy", while China is viewed as a communist dictatorship? How much ignorance can Americans afford on this topic before the situation becomes irreparably worse?

 The common arguments I hear toward prioritizing the modern state of Israel (which, let me remind you, has existed for under a century at this point) consist of citations from Numbers and Revelation more than anything. There are also arguments to be made about how Christ lived His life by associating with people of less desirable status. All of these arguments, like most, are based on some semblance of truth, but with a majority of misconceptions or even intentional lies mixed in.

 The first point regarding Numbers can be corrected by just simply reading the surrounding chapters in context to see what Balak and Balaam are receiving from God and for what reason. I actually am a fan of this portion because it does still have relevance to our lives today similar to how the Law of Moses does as well. We read the interchange between God, Balaam, and Balak the same way we would read the Law of Moses. Even in both of the ways Christians interpret how the Old Testament should apply to us, neither of those interpretations can logically be used to back up magical support of the evil and heretical modern state of Israel on a biblical basis. The first mode of interpretation that I am not a fan of personally is that the Old Testament regarding Israel doesn't have much to do with us at all as it was a different covenant and can't really inform us on the way we are to interact with God today. This interpretation excuses us from almost every law laid down as "they only applied to the old Israelites, not us". If we apply that same logic of interpretation, then the call to Balaam's prophetic word to the camping tribes of old Israel can just be interpreted as a word directly to the old tribes of Israel and has nothing to do with us. The second mode of interpretation that I am more in favor of would translate the camping Israel into "the children of God" meaning those that are in the favor of God at the time. This would mean that Israel in this context is applicable to us in modern life as Christians because those who have given their lives to Jesus are the Children of God now. Paul calls us to observe the law out of sheer gratitude and happiness for what Christ has done for us, but the law was "given to just Israel". No, it was given to and held by Israel, until Christ made it apply to the world, not just Israel. There is no favoritism or racial collectivism in Christ, only followers of Christ and children of God throughout all nations. Either way, reading this "Israel" as being synonymous with the 75-year-old modern state of Israel occupied with people who outwardly hate Christ, outlaw the Gospel, and reject God on every level possible is an extremely dishonest interpretation of God's Word. It only explicitly states Israel in the Good News translation (seen here) anyways, and says "you" being the camping Israelite people Balaam is directly speaking to in the prophecy in every other translation. (See KJV, ESV, and NIV).

 There are only a few places in Revelation that could be misinterpreted as reasons to defend the modern state of Israel, but none of them are really that compelling. All of these places must involve some semblance of large speculation as well coming from the assumption that the modern state of Israel is in the good graces of God right now (which would be a stretch considering they blaspheme Christ even worse than Islamic countries as I said before). They all operate under the heretical prosperity Gospel belief that you can judge whether a country is favorable by God based on their relative world power or success. The idea is that a country is successful because God favors them and unsuccessful because God hates them. The problem is, that this completely forgets how Rome oppressed the Jews for hundreds of years before Christ and they were complete pagans. Revelation 7 mentions the sealing of 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel (which are so bred out at this point, this can apply to literally any living human on Earth by now racially). New Jerusalem and the final battle possibly taking place in the same land modern Israel occupies is mentioned as well but, again, to read this as a need to support modern Jerusalem in order to be on God's "good side" or something during end times is a complete stretch. We are in God's good favor when we delight in abiding by His law out of gratitude for our salvation in Christ and nothing we do outside of that changes our position with God. I would argue that supporting a nation that deeply hates and rejects Jesus would be akin to supporting the Satanic Temple in the United States, to be honest.

 In conclusion, there's zero biblical support for the idea that the modern state of Israel should be allied with a Christian nation on a theological basis. They blatantly view Christianity in a heretical and hateful way as defined by their own religious texts. They have pushed for outlawing the Gospel within Israel itself. They spit on Christians in the streets. They run DNA tests to be able to become a citizen within their nation. Israel should be viewed by Christians the same way they view Islamic nations, a nation of lost people in need of the Gospel and saving grace of God. Paul puts this view into excellent words in Romans 9, we should have "great sorrow and unceasing anguish in our hearts" for the modern state of Israel and any other nation that is so far apart from God that they unapologetically rejoice in the execution of their own Messiah.