A tidbet on Jeffrey Burton Russell:
< http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/SATANISM.htm
A portion:
>> The theological dilemma was the subject of a book by a rather distinguished French theologian, Jean Turmel, who prudently concealed his identity under the pseudonym, Louis Coulange, when he published his work in an English translation, *The Life of the Devil* (New York, Knopf, 1930; the French original, which I have not seen, was later published under the title, *Histoire du diable*).
Father Turmel rightly attributes the eclipse of Satan in modern Christian sects to rejection of the belief in witchcraft and magic, and he wittily concludes that "Satan, cast out from the refuge which, formerly, he found with the possessed and the sorcerers, and the witches, is like the Son of Man, of whom the Gospel tells us that He had nowhere to lay His head."
Father Turmel traces the history of belief in the Devil from the standpoint of Roman Catholic theology. What is now the fundamental work on the subject is the series of four volumes by Professor Jeffrey Burton Russell, published by the Cornell University Press: *The Devil* (1977), *Satan* (1981), *Lucifer* (1984), and *Mephistopheles* (1987). (If you are especially interested in the meaning of the Hebrew word, STN which the Jews translated into Greek as __________, you may find one interpretation in Peggy Day's *An Adversary in Heaven*, published by the Harvard Semitic Museum.)
Professor Russell writes in a time in which the Jews have made the facts of race as unmentionable as were the facts of sex in Victorian literature, and he even takes some illustrations from their vicious fictions about a "Holocaust" and assumes, as do well-trained Americans, that God's Race are persecuted innocents, by definition incapable of the crimes they are known to have committed. This concession to the inculcated ignorance of the American public is a blemish that should not make us underestimate the authority of his historical scholarship.
He begins by identifying evil as the conscious infliction of unnecessary pain on sentient beings, including, of course, the animals to whose suffering Christians were made hard-hearted by the notion that Yahweh created soulless dumb brutes for the use of talking anthropoids.
The crucial point is that the infliction of suffering must be intentional, i.e., malicious--a point often obscured by a refusal to recognize that the suffering of beings whom we Aryans compassionately pity (e.g., a caribou pulled down by a wolfpack, a wounded wolf, a starving child in India) is simply a fact of nature, and that, if you, like sentimental "Liberals," find that fact distressing, all that you can do is lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe.
Evil, therefore, is limited to human beings, for no other species of animal inflicts unnecessary pain on the animals it kills to nourish or defend itself, or finds satisfaction in their suffering. And if Professor Russell had not been limited by the reticence imposed by our Jewish masters, he would doubtless have noted that the moral perception of evil is, for all practical purposes, limited to our race--not all persons of Aryan ancestry, but those whose genetic inheritance we, if intelligent, would strive to perpetuate.
And a bit more:
>> Evil is peculiarly and exclusively human, but what is bizarre, to our minds, at least, is a god of evil.
Although Professor Russell had to write within the limitations that the Jews impose on their subjects, two facts emerge clearly from the historical and almost philosophical discussion in his first volume.
1. No Aryan religion conceives of a god of evil. Our religions are relatively rational and polytheistic, recognizing the diversity of the forces that govern human life and are often in conflict with each other. There are gods who personify the forces of nature and, like storms and tidal waves and earthquakes, reck nothing of the convenience, safety, or wishes of human beings. There are gods who represent the tropisms that are inherent in human nature, such as sexual attraction and ambition, which are often opposed to each other. There are gods who, in their youth, exhibit children's pleasure in mischievous sport. There are gods who, like mortal kings, protect and aid their favorites, and, when angered, strike down the insolent and insubordinate. But the Aryan does not conceive of diving malice and sadism, for their gods are not unnatural. Fire is not evil when it destroys a city and perhaps accumulated and irreplaceable treasures.
2. It is astonishing, therefore, that a god of pure evil was first created by a man who seems to have been an Aryan, the prophet whose name, of obscure etymology and variously spelled in the original texts, usually appears in English as Zarathustra or in the form it was given in the time of Hellenism, Zoroaster.
So far as is known, it was he who, probably while having hallucinations excited by the sacred mushroom (Amanita muscaria), invented the grotesque conception of a world dominated by two great gods, one of good and the other of evil, whose powers are equal as they fight each other for suzerainty over the world, for they as so evenly matched that each needs the trivial help that can be given him by puny mortals. The two gods are engaged in perpetual war for possession of the universe, although Zarathustra's religion, with an almost pathological disregard of simple logic, absurdly knows that the ultimate victory of the good god is assured, no matter what happens.
----------------
There is much more on Russell and his views of evil (hahahaha"russell and his views of evil", did i say that?)...and is this "PROfessor" a relative of Charles Taze Russell? Perhaps a search will conclude this for me. (the keywords in my search: Jeffrey Burton Russell Illuminati...27 pages i think it is, as results)
I encourage most to read the entire page. It is a good "read"!
Happy Trails!
sKally
