States Vs Kingdoms

Of all the historical acts of infamy, the Holocaust gets the overwhelming press.  With that, one might think that an observation might have been made: where Jews depended on "the State" for safety, they were deported to camps and the deaths.  Where they depended on Kings, they survived.  And it did not matter if the Kingdom was allied with the Nazis, they survived.

Let's look at two.  The Nazis overran Denmark, but their King did not flee, and virtually all of the Jews in Denmark survived the war.  The few who were rounded up managed to survive the camps.  Bulgaria allied itself with the Nazis, but the King, Czar Boris III, simply refused Nazi demands that the Jews be transported away.

In Holland, the Queen left and the Jews died.  All of the other states, which had no monarch, the Jews died.  Even in the UK, when they abandoned the Channel Islands to the Nazis, 100% of the Jews were transported to their deaths.  (OK, there were on three Jews, but it was UK territory and they did get 100% of the Jews.)

thetimesco.uk

Get a map and a history book.  If you depend on the state, you are sunk.  If you depend on a king, you have a chance.  The read 1 Samuel 8 (and then 1 Samuel 12 for emphasis) and see while God does not even want us to have a King, at least he tolerates that.  But the State. No.

A King takes his subjects personally.  A state may be made up of people, but it can never care personally.  Keep that in mind if you ever decide to depend on a State.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.