Kay Wilson Exposed: Part II

*The author would like to thank his colleagues from "The Judean Hammer", Nathaniel Feingold and Moshe Schwartz for their comprehensive research which contributed greatly to this second article. Few people understand the issue better than they do, as well as the tremendous danger that the "hard targets" pose to the spiritual integrity of the Jewish people. Furthermore, even fewer are willing to address such provocative issues which render one pariah in mainstream circles.

“Kay Wilson was stabbed!!!!”

The refrain of neurotic, mainstream, Jewish hasbara (public relations) clowns whenever one questions Israeli activist Kay Wilson about her documented messianic past, prior to the attack on her life seven years ago by Arabs. Certainly, a powerful emotional argument, since the incident involved the murder of her missionary friend, Kristine Luken, and Wilson sustained her own brutal injuries with a machete. Her story is the stuff of nightmares. Arab barbarism personified.

The problem is that many people are attacked horribly, both good people and bad people. Tyrants have been torn apart by mobs, and the Turks would have eviscerated Vlad Tepes long ago, if they had gotten a hold of him properly. Very often the madmen of ISIS butcher other equally terrible people who find themselves in their cross-hairs. In the Muslim world, Sunnis and Shiites murder and maim one another all the time.

All incidents must be viewed through a prism. Stabbings are terrible and we are emotionally horrified when we consider how we may feel if something happened like that to us or our loved ones. But not all targets are equal. Sometimes bad people get assaulted. And if a missionary is assaulted, according to classical Torah law, we don’t pity them because a missionary is a spiritual predator of Jews. Even if barbaric Arabs caused the horror. So the authentic Jewish position would be not to mourn the murder of a missionary or the attack on one, despite the barbaric nature of the act. This is Judaism if we are being honest, since missionaries are enemies of the Jewish people. See what our classical Jewish thinkers had to say on such matters.

People are sometimes assaulted terribly. Good people and some of the worst people. Being stabbed doesn’t validate one’s worldview or ideology, or give a person an exemption for such beliefs. To be stabbed must be one of the most horrible, traumatic, experiences. None of us should know of it. I have friends who were stabbed. On several occasions years ago, I was ALMOST stabbed, during a street altercation with an anti-Semite. (How is your eye, buddy?) For that matter, I have been almost bashed in the skull Ala Abraham and Glen (a “The Walking Dead” reference) almost shot, and almost run over by a car. Would my views and opinions have more validity if such things occurred, were I too survive?

No. The truth is dependent on facts, not whether I survive violence or experience it. Facts are determined by weighing the evidence. People process things differently. Some people are honest. Many are less so. The question remains: was Kay Wilson a messianic. At the time of the incident, the media widely reported that she was. Screenshots attest to this. Messianic media and mainstream papers like JPost and Haaretz. They have never been sued for libel to my knowledge. Nor has Kay Wilson publicly stood up and demanded that they remove it.

Testimonies: Compiled by Nathaniel Feingold: 

• "Susan Wilson... joined the messianic Christian Mission to Jews (CMJ)" (Jewish Chronicle)

• "Kay Susan Wilson... her friend a co-worker at a Christian ministry... both worked for CMJ UK, a Christian ministry..." (CNN)

• "Wilson was a senior tour guide with Shoresh Study Tours of Israel... CMJ guides "are committed Christians"... Shoresh Tours, a CMJ company that organizes tours to Israel. Kaye Wilson, who is the senior tour guide for Shoresh..." (San Antonio Express News)

• "Kay Wilson, a tour guide who worked part time for Shoresh Tours, a Messianic tour company" (For Zion's Sake Ministries)

• Kay "Kishkush" Wilson (also identified as Kaye Wilson, Kay Susan Wilson, and Susan Wilson in some articles) is identified in these screenshots of articles by Haaretz and messianic sites Israel Today, Caspari Center Media Review, the Joshua Fund, Messianic Times, and others as:

• "a Messianic Jewish tour guide" (Haaretz)

• "a Messianic Jew" (Haaretz)

• "a Messianic sister" (Israel Today magazine)

• "an Israeli Messianic believer in Yeshua (Jesus)" (Israel Today)

• "an Israeli Messianic Jewess born in the UK" (Israel Today)

• "belongs to a Messianic Jewish congregation" (Caspari Center Media Review quoting Israel HaYom)

• "an Israeli believer in Jesus" (The Joshua Fund)

• "Messianic Jewish tour guide" (Messianic Times)

• "a Jewish believer" (Carrubbers Christian Centre)

• "a marvelous teacher with a great love for her adopted homeland and her fellow Jews. And of her Lord and savior." (Daniel Muth, who comments that his tour was guided by Kay in 2008)

At the time of the incident she was employed for years by Shoresh tours which is under the umbrella of Christ Church, an open missionary organization. Contrary to the false claims of Wilson's ignorant defenders, throughout the years, Shoresh Tours has consistently stated that all their tour guides are believers in Jesus. Of course they do, as an arm of Christ Church!

In a recent article for The Judean Hammer blog, I noted the following:

“If the notorious street missionary and apostate Jew, Jakob Damkani (yemach shmo vzichro) survived a murderous attack from knife wielding Arabs, would he have the same religious supporters defending him today? Would his crude aggressive style and overt missionizing earn him Jewish enemies or would he garner their sympathy if he survived? After all, how does one differentiate between acts of Arab terror? Is it the victim's demeanor? Style? Hobbies and interests? Perhaps one's accent and country of origin are factors when considering which victim is more charming or sympathetic? Does it help when one denies one's past, despite the evidence? Could Damkani theoretically become a spokesperson for "Stand With Us" or speak on behalf of Israel at the UN? Food for thought, for those rare individuals who think for themselves.”

A fair honest question, which deserves a candid answer. I do not expect an honest answer from Kay Wilson or her army of deluded defenders. So, what are we to do seven years later. Ignore it as the hasbara machine has, and allow a former messianic, and possibly current, to act as an advocate for Israel? What kind of madmen have we become? Before the advent of social media, such a person would never speak for mainstream Jews without a very public expression of admitting one’s past and a genuine teshuvah. The problem is that Wilson has never done this, and when the few Jews who care question her, we get attacked. In any event, she needs to be vetted, and if she comes out as a genuine penitent, no one would be more welcome in my home.

But the process must occur and it hasn’t. And even if she answers the most glaring problem, there are still questions. Why does Wilson retain a friendship with David Pillegi of the notorious missionary organization, Christ Church? Normal Jews would avoid such an odious person like the plague. Let the vetting begin. And to those who prefer the limp-wristed diplomatic approach with dishonest people, proceed as you will by yourself. Don’t expect us to goosestep in line. At “The Judean Hammer”, we do things differently.

We have not yet begun to fight.

Concluding Remarks-"Hasbara" Personified: 

Until Jews start to advocate for Israel from a dignified Torah position, and stop elevating flawed Jews and gentiles who distort Judaism and Torah values, we will continue to regress as a nation. And contrary to popular thought, our standing will erode as well. One fights lies with unbridled truth, not by recruiting faux-Indians and faux-ideologies, or people with messianic pasts who lack the integrity to admit their mistakes. Let the hasbara queens yammer to themselves in their echo chambers. They can shop in the shuk and eat shwarma, as they are wont to do. "Zionist things" to do. Sensible Jews should avoid such unscrupulous tokens like a virus.

Unprincipled "hasbara" clown & GoFundMe hustler Ryan Mervin Bellerose with Kay Wilson. The bottom-feeding, racist,  Bellerose is also friends with notorious CUFI missionary Dumisani Washington, as well as Jewish enablers of  missionaries in Israel like David Haivri Axelrod, Yisrael Medad, and so many others. An admitted token by many of his own supporters, he nevertheless interferes in Jewish matters with his trademark arrogance and patented idiocy.  Fortunately, this keyboard warrior is largely recognized by sensible Jews as an arrogant man-child. But in many ways, he personifies the problem of contemporary hasbara. 

Unprincipled Hasbarites: Part I (slideshow)

A visual look at one of the more odious "hasbara" tokens on the scene today. Meet an unsavory man who "GoFundsMe" his life under the pretext of a supposed upcoming treatise on "indigenous rights", and has the gall to lecture Jews (he isn't even Jewish) on Torah, Judaism, and identity. A man who threw his former patron and friend under the bus because she dared retain a friendship with someone he disagreed with. A man who has no principles, panders to every side, and even associates himself with missionaries like the notorious Dumisani Washington. I am not calling him a missionary. But he is certainly friends with missionaries and those Jews who enable them. Meet Bnai Brith's online activist, Ryan Mervin Bellerose.

Oh, lest I forget. He's a self-hating bigot who hates and denigrates white people, and rails against "Jews acting white". The irony is that most of his support comes from Ashkenazi, "white", Jews who parrot his nonsense. Bored people with too much time on their hands. Furthermore, he also resents Jews of color, because they have something he lacks. Dark skin. Meet the race obsessed Ryan Bellerose.

#DivineRightsNotIndigenousRights
#ICriedToFacebookBecauseSomeoneExposedMyHypocrisy
#TorahRising

We Are Not Indigenous

Featured in "The Jewish Press"

“When G-d began to create heaven and earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

“Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. the Canaanites were then the land. The L-rd appeared to Abram and said, “I will assign this land to your offspring”. And he built an altar there to the L-rd who had appeared to him.” (Genesis 12:6-7) - JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh

When it comes to serious Jewish matters, I have zero patience for stupidity. When “hasbara” (public relation) champions celebrate nonsense to curry favor with any group of non-Jews feigning friendship, it strikes a visceral cord. The Jewish failure to act logically and behave with self-respect is an affront to Torah. We cannot defeat the Arabs if we cannot understand what it is to be Jewish, or to appreciate what our correct reason for being is based upon.

The Indigenous Rights Movement

One of the more troubling fads of late is the hasbara version of the “indigenous rights” movement, which posits that Eretz Yisrael belongs to us Jews because we are somehow indigenous to the region. (What region, you may ask? The Levant? The Fertile Crescent?) Jews did not arrive at this novel notion by themselves, since those advocating for indigenous “rights” are generally activists and leftists who hate Jews and eagerly defend Arabs as supposed victims of Jewish aggression and Zionist imperialism. To date, the majority of such groups side with the Arabs. Only recently, have we seen the phenomenon where a handful of lone individuals representing “indigenous peoples” aligned themselves with popular hasbara movements.

Contrary to the assertions of many popular online “hasbara” champions, we Jews are NOT “indigenous” to Eretz Yisrael. An honest analysis of the term (always defined by those advocating for such a concept) reveals that to the extent that a definition of “indigenous” could theoretically apply to Jews, it could surely also apply towards other groups, including Arabs.

What is indigenous? The problem with defining the term is that those who advocate for indigenous rights created the definitions. They set down the definitions as divine revelations whose tenets are infallible. They tell us what indigenous means as it relates to their personal beliefs. Many Native Americans (indeed most) who advocate for “Palestinians” will interpret it one way to include Arabs. One particular prominent pro-Israel and “indigenous rights” activist, Ryan Bellerose, a self-identified Metis from Paddle Prairie Settlement in Canada, maintains the opposite. He asserts that Jews are indigenous, while Arabs are not. In any event, in his article, “Israel Palestine: Who’s indigenous?” Ryan sets down his accepted criteria for being an indigenous people:

“To begin, let us acknowledge that there is no rule that a land can have only one indigenous people; it is not a zero sum game in which one group must be considered indigenous so that therefore another is not. However, there is a very clear guideline to being an indigenous people. It is somewhat complex but can be boiled down to the checklist below, as developed by anthropologist José R. Martínez-Cobo (former special rapporteur of the Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for the United Nations).”

Further on, Mr. Bellerose continues:

“Martinez-Cobo’s research suggests that indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

·        Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them

·        Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands

·        Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.)

·        Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language)

·        Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world

·        Religion that places importance on spiritual ties to the ancestral lands

·        Blood quantum – that is, the amount of blood you carry of a specific people to identify as that people. The concept was developed by colonialists in order to eventually breed out native peoples.”

Frankly, I am not interested in this general discussion since I cannot concern myself with the issues of the “indigenous peoples” of the world. Furthermore, the pseudo-academic ramblings of some leftist sociologist who writes statements for the United Nations has no bearing on my beliefs. Nor are they relevant to Jewish concerns. From a Torah perspective, the Arabs have no rights to Eretz Yisrael, nor do any non-Jews, even among the most noble and righteous of them. Mr. Bellerose is willing to grant Arabs “rights of longstanding presence.” I am not. Because the Rambam and the classical rishonim and acharonim say differently.

Fortunately, such concepts are both irrelevant and unnecessary for Jews who follow Torah. Eretz Yisrael belongs to us Jews exclusively, for one simple reason: G-d gave it to us. From a Torah perspective, the false claims of other groups who argue likewise are irrelevant, since their ideologies arose long after G-d revealed Divine truths at Mount Sinai.

Yet the indigenous rights movement as it relates to Jews is not only foolish, it is dangerous, since even the most well intended advocates harbor un-Jewish notions far removed from Torah values. They have become spokespersons for Jewish values, when their ideas are antithetical to Torah. They would like to see indigenous rights applied to other groups in Israel, not just Jews. From the Torah perspective, this is entirely incompatible with Halacha. Whether advocating for a purely secular Israel, or a pluralistic Israel allowing equal rights to all faith communities, none of these are in accordance with Halacha.

On a more troubling note, some of these indigenous rights activists have alliances and friendships with missionary groups and prominent messianic personalities. On their trips to Israel and across the U.S., they often meet and greet these individuals, and in doing so, betray that they are not people who have our best interest at heart. They are not a monolithic entity, yet it is fair to say that these activists all have their own agendas. Many sensible Jews support their campaigns, and the dangerous claim that our right to Eretz Yisrael is, at the very least, partially due to indigenous rights.

Racial Nonsense

“Indigenous rights” is a multicultural strain of thinking that ironically many normal Jews who usually reject such notions accept without question. They accept the definitions of indigenous activists, which always remain vague enough to avoid scrutiny, and are imbued with the kinds of racist, blood-based theories that would be rejected outright if suggested by any mainstream group. Anyone who cites “blood quantum” in any context, other than to provide a blood transfusion should trouble us. Such ideas certainly have no basis in Torah. Yet in this case, since a handful of activists are willing to apply this exotic term to Jews, many hasbara types enjoy the prospect of appearing native.

Historical Difficulties

“Most writers on American Indian subjects are bothered by changing intellectual trends and fashions, which dictate new mythologies. Anglo-Americans, above all, have been troubled by guilt feelings, morality, and hypocrisy, whether direct or in reverse. Any ideology tends to obscure perspectives and reality.” (Comanches: History of A People, Fehrenbach, T.R. Preface xiv)

“Every, as the lords of the conquered Mexica admitted to Cortez, it was the way of life for men to seize new lands with shield and spear. The Amerindian world of North America was rent with ancient festering hatreds. (ibid. 25)

Consider the situation with Amerindians in North America. Contrary to the tenets of politically correct history, the notion of indigenous rights as it is often applied to them is historically problematic. Never one to take unbridled political correctness sitting down, I reject the contemporary portrayal of all “native Americans” as peaceful environmentalists. Savagery was not the sole domain of “the white man,” since long before there were white men on the continent, Native Americans butchered one another. The archeological records attest to this fact; they expelled and killed one another.

As an example, one can look at the histories of the migration of Native American whose peoples originated in Asia and migrated towards North America. Given the origins of their people, the following questions are surely reasonable:

Ø  Did such people abandon their indigenous status to their original lands when they migrated? Did they retain indigenous statuses in both regions?

Ø  What is the indigenous natures of tribes who displaced and exterminated other tribes from different regions during the many brutal campaigns of warfare that tribal people’s engaged in with other Native Americans?

Ø  In the case of American Indians who earned indigenous claims through blood and warfare towards other tribes, might Europeans who came to North America not make the same claims? Those who came later simply bested those who lacked better weapons and resources. (I state simply in the interest of theoretical discussion, without opining on nuances of the morality of the overall conflict.)

Those activists who argue for Jewish indigenous rights ignore the historical record conveyed in the Torah of indigenous “First Nation” people who fell under our sword. Non-believers may question the authenticity of the biblical account, but even a bible denier cannot reject the historical record. They were here first. Most honest Native Americans see parallels with Jews who entered “Canaan” with colonizing Europeans, who “stole land” from the Indians.

From a Jewish perspective, the notion of a blood-based identity is an affront to Judaism, which accepts the genuine convert. Our connection to Torah is based upon adherence to the law rather than imagined notion of race. In a sense, the Jewish desire to argue “indigenous rights” is a reaction formation to absurd Arab assertions that they are the descendants of Canaanites.

G-d gave us the land of Israel, despite the presence of “indigenous” peoples who were there long before us. It did not matter, since The Almighty created everything. Upon entering the land, our mandate was clear. Clean the land of the “indigenous” inhabitants.

I understand that many secular Jews are uncomfortable with religious claims that contradict their worldview. I disagree with them, but I understand where they are coming from. In the absence of Torah knowledge, religious claims are meaningless. What I cannot fathom is that so many religious Jews latch on to un-Jewish theories to justify our Divine inheritance. I do not require an indigenous claim. I have the same claim that motivated the great Joshua to conquer Eretz Yisrael from the pagan Canaanites who were already residing there when we Jews first arrived.

We Jews are not Philistines, Canaanites, nor Jebusites. We were the conquerors of the former on a Divine mission. Indeed, our failure to purge Eretz Yisrael of these indigenous types is something the Torah repeatedly warned about, and is the direct cause of the land vomiting us out. Divine rights are the only arguments that have any meaning to me as a religious Jew.

A self-respecting Jew need never be ashamed to speak the truth of Tanach, which records our only true claim to Israel. Balfour Declarations and U.N. votes are of zero worth for the Torah Jew. A disconnected Jew may be ashamed of the religious claim. A genuine tragedy, since it is the only moral claim we Jews can hang our hats on. In the absence of that, we are merely one more example of colonizers who claimed a plot of land.

Indigenous Definitions

Perhaps the greatest response to Ryan Bellerose relates to the dilemma he raises at the conclusion of his article, “Israel Palestine: Who’s Indigenous?”:

“Now you might ask, why is this important? It is important to indigenous people because we cannot allow the argument that conquerors can become indigenous. If we, as other indigenous people, allow that argument to be made, then we are delegitimizing our own rights.

If conquerors can become indigenous, then the white Europeans who came to my indigenous lands in North America could now claim to be indigenous. The white Europeans who went to Australia and New Zealand could now claim to be indigenous. If we, even once, allow that argument to be made, indigenous rights are suddenly devalued and meaningless. This is somewhat peculiar, as those who are arguing for Palestinian “indigenous rights” are usually those who have little grasp of the history, and no understanding of the truth behind indigenous rights.”

Those Troublesome Canaanites
Therein is our Jewish answer. Based upon our biblical claims, we Jews cannot be indigenous, since we conquered the Canaanites. According to Bellerose’s definition, our Jewish biblical account renders us as conquerors. As such, those who believe in Torah cannot subscribe to his theories. Advocates for indigenous Jews can never answer these questions. What do we do with the Canaanites? Perhaps a better question is, what did we do, or what should we have done to the Canaanites?

The great biblical and talmudic commentator Rashi destroys the “indigenous rights argument” with his commentary on the first verse in the Book of Genesis. He cites Rabbi Yitzchak who questioned why the Torah began in this manner detailing creation rather than from the first mitzvah. This would make sense since the Torah essentially deals with Halacha. He answers that the Torah began with creation so that the nations in the future when they pointed out our conquest of the 7 Nations, the Jewish people could answer that the whole world belongs to Hashem. He can give it to whichever people He desires. At the time, he saw fit to give it to the Canaanites, and then he removed it from their control and gave it to us.

Case closed. The indigenous argument loses.

From a Torah perspective, the notion that we Jews have a claim to Eretz Yisrael based upon “indigenous rights” is absurd. We are not "indigenous" to Israel. Indigenous is a nonsense term which race obsessed multiculturalists use. Israel belongs to the Jewish nation, because G-d gave it to us. We conquered the Canaanites, and now it is ours. Our claim to Eretz Yisrael is Divine inheritance. Indigenous claims amount to pseudo-science, which in turn, would grant indigenous rights to practically every other minority group living in Israel today. In fact, this is the intention of many who advocate for such a concept.

Fellow Jews: leave the indigenous argument where it belongs. In the halls of the U.N. G-d gave us the land of Israel and that is enough.