I

‘ve been thinking about it for a long time. Specifically, the Bible comes up more because of it because it’s the original question that impacts just about everyone on planet earth. Was it morally justified for the Israelites to take the promised lands from the Canaanites? What provocation could there possibly have been for a God of any kind to justify the mass slaughter of men, women, and children just because a God said so? There were other gods; clearly, this one was very jealous and wanted no other gods to be worshipped in any way possible. When the Israelites did, they were punished harshly, often with death by stoning. We are talking about a very violent episode that built much of our views on modern politics, is the creation of the country of Israel justified against the Palestinians, and why does Israel have such a right to exist at such significant cost to human life and effort? It really is “THE” question of our times because its answer then resonates with the founding of America and the general presumption of global politics in all latitudes of concern or longitude of displacement. These are big questions, perhaps not as big as why no nation on earth has claimed Antarctica for themselves. But this one is at the core of the most human discussion. Was it genocide for the Israelites to run the Canaanites from their land with such a bloody conquest? After all, weren’t the Canaanites just minding their own business, much the way the Indians of North America were? 

These are big questions, and I speak about the Bible more now than ever because we are literally in a kind of Armageddon presently, so a gut check of all our assumptions is necessary for context. I am prepared to argue in favor of the Israelites, no matter how much carnage and destruction they may have caused in the process. But that is a topic of its own for likely many other articles. But for this investigation, another more important matter came up, the definition of genocide as defined by five specific traits that everyone mutually agrees on. And those five traits were flushed out well in a new book I read called The Destruction of the Canaanites for all the reasons I mentioned.   It turned out to be a very thoughtful book by Charlie Trimm, God, Genocide, and Biblical Interpretation. Upon reading the book, I couldn’t help but realize that much of the world was applying methods of genocide against America to this very moment in time, and nobody was all that worried about it. We know that there are people in China, Iran, Muslim extremists, and the World Economic Forum who intend to use some form of genocide to eradicate America from the face of the earth, in many cases, for revenge for what the Israelites did in the land of Canaan. So we either find the action morally justifiable or condemn it and join Baalim’s global worshippers for our own survival. Realizing this, I have been using the Bible as the foundation of what comes next because, essentially, the entire western world has been built upon the premise of the Israelites destroying the whole land of Canaan just because God promised them that they could have it, after freeing them from enslavement by the Egyptians. How could one side be justified as morally correct when the other side would call it genocide and then spend the rest of history trying to commit revenge for the original action?

So we are being attacked with the intent of genocide right now, even by members of our own country as defined by the mutually agreed definitions. And they are committing that genocide out of moral outrage from the original sin of Israel destroying the land of Canaan, then using that justification for all the destruction of western culture to this very day. So what are those definitions? Well, here they are for your own analysis. And it will become clear what kind of strategy is being played out against the United States to this present moment. Here are the five definitions outlined in the excellent book, The Destruction of the Canaanites:

1. Killing members of the group; (obviously, this is self-explanatory.)
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (it could be said that the policy of forced imprisonment, such as what we see from January 6^th, and the general intentions of cancel culture are meant to inflict mental harm on the target of their opposition.) 
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (any advocate of a culture of divorce, open borders for the specific purpose of drugs meant to poison the mind of their terrorism target, and purposeful destruction of the country’s currency—such has been the explicit goal of American policy coming from the Federal Reserve.)
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group; (isn’t this what abortion is all about? And the new addition of Covid vaccines and the blatant reports of sterilization as a side effect in some of the drug users. In general, any use of drugs untested over time to impose a mass effect not advertised in the short run, with the long-run goal of impacting birth rates negatively.)
5. Forcibly transferring children from a group to another group; (this is what public education is all about. Create a system financially that forces a mother and father to both work outside the home, leaving the creation of the family unprotected. Then to submit their children to a government school for their training. And as we have seen from the political left, public schools assume that all children belong to everybody. And the parents were too busy to pay attention or argue the fact. They have a house payment that is way outside the scope of one parent providing income while the other raises the children traditionally.) 

These are all examples of genocide, and all of them, except for the first one, is happening to us daily in America. And because nobody has defined it as such, nobody has been talking about it. People might feel the effects, but they don’t have the definitions to understand the attack. I would argue that genocide is perfectly OK if the target is evil. And the other side clearly believes that America is evil because of it’s support of Isreal, for instance, and our foundation on biblical concepts of Christianity. But the whole debate comes full circle to the justification of a rule of law. The Canaanites were worshipers of the old religion of astrology and the gods of old, while the Ten Commandments that Moses brought down out of Mt. Sinai were something different, something of thought and human assertiveness. And once that rule of law was submitted to the world, western civilization was created over the next 3000 years, and more, and the concept of free people became an option. And that is what all the fighting is all about. And to continue the process of human enslavement to the same old gods of pre-history, and up until the destruction of the Canaanites by the Israelites, the forces of what we’d call evil are intent on our own destruction, for their very preservation. Well, that is for the rule of law to sort out; the Canaanites were breaking the rules of law established by the Ten Commandments. Instead, they were worshiping the whimsical forces of universal laws and the moods of nature in a passive way, even if it involves human sacrifice to those forces. We are talking about human law founded by God to perpetuate all civilization forward, and we are defending that premise with violence if need be. Genocide happens as a result from of any of the participants.   Yet only one side is right in performing the genocide. And knowing that there is no question that it is happening to us in America right now, and the means of delivering that genocide is to deny that it’s happening at all by the enemies of existence, the mandate to defend ourselves from the act of genocide is the crises of our times which demands our attention.

Rich Hoffman