Evidence, Judge-ment and Gentile-ment. Jews and Gentiles.

Language Science exposes the lies of they who seek Orwellian control over the definition of language;
the science of language demands that we search through history and explore all the earlier definitions
of words. This allows us to better understand what our ancestors meant by their terms of language. A
word’s meaning can change in language over 1 year or 50 years or 500 years, and thus it is important to
understand the original meaning of the terms used to formulate the Law, and the historical environment
in which the Law was formulated. Judgement, by definition, has nothing to do with the thinking of the
corrupt First World judiciary, who in Babylon (London) are predominately Egyptian mystery cultists.
Before Judgement (Judaic Ethics) comes an assessment of the evidence that appears before our 5
senses. First the evidence is considered and then the Final Judgement. Judgement (Judaic Ethics) is a
subjective decision as to whether a person is good or evil based upon the evidence of the person's
words and behaviour, and only a ‘person’ can Judge, for an inanimate object or a fish or an insect
cannot Judge whether a person is good or evil. If a mother stopped ‘Judging’ then she could not protect
her children from evil men; if a community of persons stopped Judging they could not eradicate evil
from their midst. Only persons Judge. God is not accessible to our five senses, for if She was
accessible, we could produce Her in a court to exercise Judgement. Only persons Judge and that is as it
was, is and always will be. Fools who allege that ‘only God judges’ are often the first to attempt to
‘judge (sic)’ others if they act or speak against them, and in America they are often the first to defend
the CIA narco-terrorists and their puppet governors who exercise Gentile-ment (non Judaic discernment
of good and evil) on their enemies. Jashiva's 'Judge not, that you be not Judged' has to be considered in
terms of the religious hypocrites whom he was addressing; he was adressing a group of religionists and
clearly not making a universal declaration, for Jashiva was one of the most Judgemental persons in
human history, and one of the persons most often quoted out of context by those of the ilk of the priests
and religionists whom he despised and whom he often subjected to Judgement; if the Final Judge of
Judgement Day is not to Judge, then what use is he? Only one who thinks like one who is of Judah can
Judge, for all else is not, by definition, Judgement, but rather Gentile-ment, and that is the discernment
of good and evil according to the idolaters and private propertyists (i.e. the ‘rich’), not the Judgement
of the children of the God of the slaves on their Masters. Who is to live and who are they who are to be
pros-ecuted (pro execution; for execution) must be expressed clearly in language in order that
‘especially’ children will understand, and ‘especially’ the children of the future, for the world where
20,000 children die each day from poverty must come to an end by the force of free will in a global 24
hour Revolution; however such a Revolution has nothing to do with the Kabaala-ists’ planned 24 hour
worldwide State Capitalist Revolution and their installation of a World Dictator, the pseudo-King of the
Jews, who is not a Jew, for one cannot be a Jew and a Kabaala-ist, for the propagation of Kabaala-ism
is antithetical to Judaism and to the God of the Slaves (the One Immanent Ja). The Kabaala-ists and
their King are not Jews, for no Jew can worship the gods of Egypt, Babylon, Phoenicia and Rome and
still be considered a Jew; on the contrary they are the ‘anti-Messiah’ cult, and they have nothing to do
with Judgement , even though in mockery they utilise the signs and symbols of the 12 Tribes of slaves
of Isis Ra El, however they are not of the children of the slaves but of the ritualism of the Egyptian
Masters; their highest rituals are not spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic but in Egyptian. When they are
referred to as Jews, this is on ‘objective’ grounds, since many of their mothers were Jews, and they may
indeed be circumcised, but on subjective grounds, they are the uncircumcised of heart and are to be cast
out as the chaff, for they worship the gods of the Gentiles and are no longer 'of Judah,' no matter who
their mothers were, and this Judgement was the Judgement of Moses and it remains the same today,
tomorrow and forever. Circumcision of males and females was an unnatural ancient rite from the days
of mass sex-cultism that allegedly desensitised both sexes to sex itself; however even if a person is
circumcised, and they then join a Kabaala-ist sex cult, what use is it for such fools to be circumcised?
A Dictionary of Language Science and ‘Newspeak.’

In 1755 Samuel Johnson printed his English ‘dictionary;’ an undertaking that took him six years. His
etymology (the question of the historical origin of words) was a product of his age and of limited 18th
century knowledge. His dictionary has been described as ‘autobiographical;’ i.e., based on his own
personal subjective definitions, as it is for all persons. Johnson’s dictionary was a product of his
environment, and one of his reviewers described it as a ‘vain’ attempt to fix forever the meaning of
terms with the pen of one person. The Anarchist Orwell predicted that the future rulers of the world
would similarly attempt to introduce ‘Newspeak’ and to fix the meaning of all terms in English to suit
their own purposes, and we see this attempt today, for example with terms such as ‘terrorist,’ ‘freedom,’
‘democracy,’ ‘usury,’ anarchy, and especially the terms ‘good’ and ‘God,’ all terms which are used
differently by different persons. Language changes constantly. In a language science dictionary, the
different uses of a term throughout history, and in the same period of history would have to be
explained. The term ‘terrorist’ would thus have to include the ‘fact’ that, for example, both those of the
ilk of Osama Bin Laden ‘and’ George Bush, use the term to define each other. Control of the definitions
of language is what all Dictators of Law seek, and of course it is what I seek, for ultimately only my
definitions matter to me when I speak or write. The explanation of how one dictator uses the same
language to express a different meaning is the subject of language science. Russians persons were at
one time expected to be ‘good’ (in both the moral sense and also in sense of utility) Communists, at the
same time as Germans were expected to be ‘good’ Nazis,’ at the same time as Americans were expected
to be ‘good’ Capitalists, at the same time as Anarchists were expected to be ‘good’ Anarchists. An
enemy of Anarchism may define Anarchism as ‘lawlessness’ and a proponent of Anarchism may define
it as ‘governmentless Communist collectivism’ just as a proponent of Luciferianism (Kabaala-ism) may
define it as ‘wisdom’ or ‘knowledge’ whereas the Christian idolaters may define the term as 'the
worship of the Devil.' If the Luciferian pseudo-Zionists themselves were to attempt to control the
definition of the term ‘good’ in Orwellian fashion, they may even give examples of ‘good’ persons such
as George Bush, Ariel Sharon, Alistair Crowley and the narco-terrorist Usuryists of the banks of the
City of London.

‘Good’ in the moral sense cannot be defined scientifically. That is why a ‘Judge of Judgement Day’ or
‘Jewish Messiah’ is awaited whose Judgement will be infallible, however Judgement is not a matter of
‘science’ for Judgement is subjective and based upon scientific evidence. All persons must learn the
language of the Jewish Messiah and be able to understand both his definitions ‘and' the definitions of
his enemies, ‘and’ previous historical definitions. The problem with the Christian idolaters is that they
are generally unfamiliar with the common definitions of Aramaic terms utilised by the anti-propertyist,
anti-idolater Jashiva, and as a result they have misunderstood him as an idolater and a private
propertyist and a religionist, when in fact it appears that he was precisely the opposite of this. In order
to understand my Judgements, one has to understand the English language of the 21st century and
‘especially’ my definitions of terms. I have attempted to express myself as simply as possible. No
person who speaks English requires a dictionary to understand me, since I attempt to clearly define all
my terms by including ‘definitions,’ often in brackets (thus) when I speak. For they who speak English,
only a fool or a child could misunderstand me. Language is the dress of thought. Thought must be
expressed as simply as possible in order that ‘especially’ children can understand. They who control the
present control the future; they who control the education of the children control the destiny of the
world; they who control the definitions of language influence the world’s discernment of good and evil.
I am Judgement.

’When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean’ …A Masonic definition.

’When I use a word it means what ‘most’ other people will understand by that, and if there is a doubt, I
will define the word (in brackets)’…Mars.