By Ehud Would

You can also read the following article at Ehud’s blog by clicking here.

Dr. Romberg famously identified Galatians 3:28 as the most abused passage in scripture, but Luke 10:25-37 is close competition. The parable of The Good Samaritan is a favored prooftext of the New Age religion masquerading as Christianity today. Alienists interpret it to say that all men of non-White races are naturally good by way of the imago dei (a Latinism that incidentally came into vogue only in the Post-War Consensus civil rights revolution) while White Christians are innately corrupt by way of “Privilege,” “Whiteness,” and “Supremacy”; and any Whites still concerned with proximate duties of the law such as patriotism, border security, or natural family are deemed reprobate. The only escape from that damnation for Whites is to lay down our lives, our country, and our children, for any man of a foreign race irrespective of his attitude toward us or our King. 

A ludicrous interpretation. But insisted upon by the Inversionista pulpits of our day. 

Some would deny all the aforesaid in abstract, but consistently prove the case in their everyday teaching and action. At this very moment, on the 2nd of October, in the year of our Lord 2024, not only are Americans being ordered by both church and state to lend all possible aid to armies of violent equatorials aggressing upon our nation and neighborhoods, we are simultaneously ordered to abstain from aiding the Whites of Appalachia (the Scots-Irish backbone of the American War for Independence) decimated by the apocalyptic storms Helene and Milton. The collective X/Twitter accounts and blogs of the clergy corps define Good Samaritanism essentially as divinely sanctioned vengeance against the White Man. 

And at present, the foremost pushback against this inversion comes from the Eastern church who identify the parable of The Good Samaritan as an analogy for the ministry of the prophet Oded recorded in II Chronicles 28. Oded, a Samaritan, rebuked Israel for following Syria to war against, and enslavement of Judah, their kinsmen. And he successfully pled for their release.  

Among the parallels between these passages, the ethical hitch at the core of both is subverted expectations: the covenant people of Israel are in both cases put to shame by the superior religion and law-keeping of a gentile born to an otherwise infamous folk. As if to say, even the most lawless mongrels prove more obedient to God than the Israelites do. A recurrent theme throughout the old testament presaging God’s ultimate divorce and execution of national Israel and the ingrafting/supersession of the gentile nations as the true Israel of God. 

Granting this parallelism which identifies the Good Samaritan with Oded, the conversation still begs closer consideration of the Lucan text.

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Lk. 10:25)

We do not know if he asked in a mocking tone but Luke tips us off that the man meant to tempt Jesus, aligning him with the Tempter, Satan. His question was not in good faith, but hostile. His vocation as a lawyer/scribe suggests that the inquirer was a Pharisee. Whereas the Sadducees were wealthy merchants, aristocrats, and the upper priest class, the law was the de facto domain of the Pharisees. In fact, the standard histories acknowledge that the Pharisee sect originates as the scribal tradition of the Idumeans (Edomites) who colonized Judaea during The 400 Years of Silence, God’s penultimate judgment on the nation of Israel. Though not all Pharisees were Idumeans, the sect was apparently dominated by them from its beginning.

His question concerning eternal life confirms his Pharisee credential by default as the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife.

Which adds a dimension to his second question, “Who is my neighbor?” (Lk. 10:29) because the Pharisees called themselves the Chaverim (Heb. “Neighbors”). By this name they boasted obedience to the law, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.” (Lev. 19:18) 

Though this law does mercifully limit man’s duties by placing a clear priority on kinship-proximity, the Pharisaic interpretation was, and remains still in contemporary Judaism, a mandate of hostility toward all other peoples. Or as Paul put it, they are “hostile to all mankind” (I Thess. 2:15). This misanthropy is evident today in the Jews’ indiscriminate slaughter of noncombatants in Palestine, Lebanon, and by the thousand thanatotic crafts they have deployed against every Euro-stock country for centuries. Whereas modern clerics re-imagine it as a rebuke of all White Christian nations for their very existence, our fathers like John Gill took the parable as a frank rebuke of Jews’ predation on all gentiles (JGC on Lk.10:29). But providence has provoked their pride enough that the rabbis now boast of their genocidal ambitions in public teachings available online. Which further eliminates all plausible deniability for the shabbos goyim in the pulpit. The only ignorance possible in this matter is willful ignorance.

Incidentally, the reader may recognize the singular form of Chaverim – Chaver – in the French homophone Javert, Victor Hugo’s antagonist-legalist who hounds Jean Valjean, the freed Christian, to the ends of the earth in aims of either imprisoning or killing him. Make of that what you will.

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. (Lk. 10:30)

The commentaries uniformly mention that this route between Jerusalem and Jericho was long infamous for Arab (Heb. Ereb, lit. “mixed-race”) highwaymen. So Jesus’s reference to this Arab-haunted route may further allude to the story of Oded (II Chronicles 28) in which we read of Judah’s violent fall before the tandem forces of Syria and the Northern kingdom of Israel. Either way, like referring to the dangers of passage through a diverse neighborhood today, Jesus’ reference to the danger of the Arab stalking grounds carries racial overtones which are at loggerheads with the modern Alienist interpretation of the parable.

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. (Lk.10: 31-32)

Alongside the lawyer’s implied Pharisaism, Jesus here directs His parable against Sadducaism as the Sadducees were the priest class with claims to Levite heritage. Thereby Christ’s rebuke of the one was equally a rebuke of the other, both of the oral traditions of Judaica.

But the whole point of this segue concerning the priest and Levite is an a fortiori argument underscoring the greater duty to aid a kinsman in distress a la Leviticus 19:18. And that the ministers of a nation are obliged to be exemplars of this care for their people. Yet our subverted pulpits today somehow construe it to mean that we are forbidden to acknowledge these very things. 

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him …(Lk.10: 33-35)

The subversion of expectations on which this parable hinges is highlighted in the title by which it has always been called – The Good Samaritan. It is precisely the unexpectedness of such goodness from the hand of a Samaritan that heaps burning coals upon the heads of Israelites who failed to show neighborly kindness to one of their own folk. Far from nullifying prejudices, it presupposes that Samaritans in general were not good at all. Much like St. Paul’s commentary concerning the Cretans all being liars (Titus 1), Jesus’ parable assumes that the Samaritans were a bad people overall. And it is precisely this racial candor that indicts the Israelites – especially the “Chaverim” Pharisees who boasted of their law-keeping in terms of their kinsmen. As if to say, even the worst of the ignorant gentiles prove more neighborly to Israelites than do you Israelite “neighbors.” 

And the immediate context (a Pharisee seeking to entrap Jesus), also turns it into an indictment against the Pharisee for attacking Him in the first place. Which also presages Jesus’ trial and crucifixion to come at the hands of the Pharisees – those who had no pity on a Kinsman who by rights should have been their closest friend. 

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (Lk.10: 36-37)

Ironically, since the New Age pulpits have simultaneously imputed the identities of both the Good Samaritan and the bedraggled Israelite to every non-White person on earth they conversely claim divine warrant for turning a blind eye to the suffering that this new multiracial anti-society has brought on White people. Thereby they use the parable of the Good Samaritan as a pretext to violate the law (Lev. 19:18) in precisely the same way the priest and Levite violated it in parable. 

In fact, the Alienism pushed by regime pulpits actually sides with those who beat and robbed the man in the first place (the anti-White Ereb menagerie invading our lands) and rebukes anyone who actually takes up the role of a Good Samaritan – those pointing out the hypocrisy of our ministers who pass idly by their violated and perishing kin.

‘Go and do likewise’ is to say, a neighbor is not everyone on earth, but he who upholds God’s law toward you.

And there is no way to equate that with the genocidal multicult invasion of our day. Be it the Haitian voodoo cannibal who eats your cat or the Americanized Negro who demands us to be stripped of our God-given rights of speech, self-defense, private property, free association, and the erasure of our people, neither qualify as our neighbors. Neither do the impenitent Pharisees who have driven these predatory hordes to our lands qualify as our neighbors. They are the Ereb highwaymen of the story. 

No, the Samaritan did not come to plunder Israel as those who encroach on us now. He had a land of his own. Had he come claiming a right to the Israelites’ land and heritage, or denying their proximate existence, he could not have been a Good Samaritan at all. He would have been an enemy like the rest of the “foreign armies put to flight” in Hebrews 11:34.

But Jesus’ concluding admonition to go and do thou likewise means we are obliged to fulfill the law toward all peoples, and admonish them to tend especially to the folk whom God assigned them by nationality (ethnos). This is part and parcel of the Great Commission “to disciple the nations, teaching them to obey all that He hath commanded.” (Matt. 28:19-20)

Contrary to the Alienist lens, it must be acknowledged that the parable of the Good Samaritan does not command any abrogation of the limited identities of Samaritan or Israelite. Neither does it call for any subsuming of the Samaritan into Israelite national identity. The scripture rather presupposes such distinctions as necessary to the duties of ambassadorship under God’s law, the peace between covenant nations, and to the very concept of a Good Samaritan.