Note: This article was written in 1998 by the late Grace Halsell. Sadly it remains relevant today.
April 10, 2013 “Information Clearing House” – American Jews sympathetic to Israel dominate key positions in all areas of our government where decisions are made regarding the Middle East. This being the case, is there any hope of ever changing U.S. policy? American Presidents as well as most members of Congress support Israel — and they know why. U.S. Jews sympathetic to Israel donate lavishly to their campaign coffers.
The answer to achieving an even-handed Middle East policy might lie elsewhere — among those who support Israel but don’t really know why. This group is the vast majority of Americans. They are well-meaning, fair-minded Christians who feel bonded to Israel — and Zionism — often from atavistic feelings, in some cases dating from childhood.
I am one of those. I grew up listening to stories of a mystical, allegorical, spiritual Israel. This was before a modern political entity with the same name appeared on our maps. I attended Sunday School and watched an instructor draw down window- type shades to show maps of the Holy Land. I imbibed stories of a Good and Chosen people who fought against their Bad “unChosen” enemies.
In my early 20s, I began traveling the world, earning my living as a writer. I came to the subject of the Middle East rather late in my career. I was sadly lacking in knowledge regarding the area. About all I knew was what I had learned in Sunday School.
And typical of many U.S. Christians, I somehow considered a modern state created in 1948 as a homeland for Jews persecuted under the Nazis as a replica of the spiritual, mystical Israel I heard about as a child. When in 1979 I initially went to Jerusalem, I planned to write about the three great monotheistic religions and leave out politics. “Not write about politics?” scoffed one Palestinian, smoking a waterpipe in the Old Walled City. “We eat politics, morning, noon and night!”
As I would learn, the politics is about land, and the co-claimants to that land: the indigenous Palestinians who have lived there for 2,000 years and the Jews who started arriving in large numbers after the Second World War. By living among Israeli Jews as well as Palestinian Christians and Muslims, I saw, heard, smelled, experienced the police state tactics Israelis use against Palestinians.
My research led to a book entitled Journey to Jerusalem. My journey not only was enlightening to me as regards Israel, but also I came to a deeper, and sadder, understanding of my own country. I say sadder understanding because I began to see that, in Middle East politics, we the people are not making the decisions, but rather that supporters of Israel are doing so. And typical of most Americans, I tended to think the U.S. media was “free” to print news impartially.
‘It shouldn’t be published. It’s anti-Israel.’
In the late 1970s, when I first went to Jerusalem, I was unaware that editors could and would classify “news” depending on who was doing what to whom. On my initial visit to Israel-Palestine, I had interviewed dozens of young Palestinian men. About one in four related stories of torture.
Israeli police had come in the night, dragged them from their beds and placed hoods over their heads. Then in jails the Israelis had kept them in isolation, besieged them with loud, incessant noises, hung them upside down and had sadistically mutilated their genitals. I had not read such stories in the U.S. media. Wasn’t it news? Obviously, I naively thought, U.S. editors simply didn’t know it was happening.
On a trip to Washington, DC, I hand-delivered a letter to Frank Mankiewicz, then head of the public radio station WETA. I explained I had taped interviews with Palestinians who had been brutally tortured. And I’d make them available to him. I got no reply. I made several phone calls. Eventually I was put through to a public relations person, a Ms. Cohen, who said my letter had been lost. I wrote again. In time I began to realize what I hadn’t known: had it been Jews who were strung up and tortured, it would be news. But interviews with tortured Arabs were “lost” at WETA.
The process of getting my book Journey to Jerusalem published also was a learning experience. Bill Griffin, who signed a contract with me on behalf of MacMillan Publishing Company, was a former Roman Catholic priest. He assured me that no one other than himself would edit the book. As I researched the book, making several trips to Israel and Palestine, I met frequently with Griffin, showing him sample chapters. “Terrific,” he said of my material.
The day the book was scheduled to be published, I went to visit MacMillan’s. Checking in at a reception desk, I spotted Griffin across a room, cleaning out his desk. His secretary Margie came to greet me. In tears, she whispered for me to meet her in the ladies room. When we were alone, she confided, “He’s been fired.” She indicated it was because he had signed a contract for a book that was sympathetic to Palestinians. Griffin, she said, had no time to see me.
Later, I met with another MacMillan official, William Curry. “I was told to take your manuscript to the Israeli Embassy, to let them read it for mistakes,” he told me. “They were not pleased. They asked me, “You are not going to publish this book, are you?” I asked, “Were there mistakes?” “Not mistakes as such. But it shouldn’t be published. It’s anti-Israel.”
Somehow, despite obstacles to prevent it, the presses had started rolling. After its publication in 1980, I was invited to speak in a number of churches. Christians generally reacted with disbelief. Back then, there was little or no coverage of Israeli land confiscation, demolition of Palestinian homes, wan ton arrests and torture of Palestinian civilians.
The Same Question
Speaking of these injustices, I invariably heard the same question, “How come I didn’t know this?” Or someone might ask, “But I haven’t read about that in my newspaper.” To these church audiences, I related my own learning experience, that of seeing hordes of U.S. correspondents covering a relatively tiny state. I pointed out that I had not seen so many reporters in world capitals such as Beijing, Moscow, London, Tokyo, Paris. Why, I asked, did a small state with a 1980 population of only four million warrant more reporters than China, with a billion people?
I also linked this query with my findings that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post — and most of our nation’s print media – are owned and/or controlled by Jews supportive of Israel. It was for this reason, I deduced, that they sent so many reporters to cover Israel — and to do so largely from the Israeli point of view.
My learning experiences also included coming to realize how easily I could lose a Jewish friend if I criticized the Jewish state. I could with impunity criticize France, England, Russia, even the United States. And any aspect of life in America. But not the Jewish state. I lost more Jewish friends than one after the publication of Journey to Jerusalem — all sad losses for me and one, perhaps, saddest of all.
In the 1960s and 1970s, before going to the Middle East, I had written about the plight of blacks in a book entitled Soul Sister, and the plight of American Indians in a book entitled Bessie Yellowhair, and the problems endured by undocumented workers crossing from Mexico in The Illegals. These books had come to the attention of the “mother” of The New York Times, Mrs. Arthur Hays Sulzberger.
Her father had started the newspaper, then her husband ran it, and in the years that I knew her, her son was the publisher. She invited me to her fashionable apartment on Fifth Avenue for lunches and dinner parties. And, on many occasions, I was a weekend guest at her Greenwich, Conn., home.
She was liberal-minded and praised my efforts to speak for the underdog, even going so far in one letter to say, “You are the most remarkable woman I ever knew.” I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered — from her point of view — the “wrong” underdog.
As it happened, I was a weekend guest in her spacious Connecticut home when she read bound galleys of Journey to Jerusalem. As I was leaving, she handed the galleys back with a saddened look: “My dear, have you forgotten the Holocaust?” She felt that what happened in Nazi Germany to Jews several decades earlier should silence any criticism of the Jewish state. She could focus on a holocaust of Jews while negating a modern day holocaust of Palestinians.
I realized, quite painfully, that our friendship was ending. Iphigene Sulzberger had not only invited me to her home to meet her famous friends but, also at her suggestion, The Times had requested articles. I wrote op-ed articles on various subjects including American blacks, American Indians as well as undocumented workers. Since Mrs. Sulzberger and other Jewish officials at the Times highly praised my efforts to help these groups of oppressed peoples, the dichotomy became apparent: most “liberal” U.S. Jews stand on the side of all poor and oppressed peoples save one — the Palestinians.
How handily these liberal Jewish opinion-molders tend to diminish the Palestinians, to make them invisible, or to categorize them all as “terrorists.”
Interestingly, Iphigene Sulzberger had talked to me a great deal about her father, Adolph S. Ochs. She told me that he was not one of the early Zionists. He had not favored the creation of a Jewish state.
Yet, increasingly, American Jews have fallen victim to Zionism, a nationalistic movement that passes for many as a religion. While the ethical instructions of all great religions — including the teachings of Moses, Muhammad and Christ — stress that all human beings are equal, militant Zionists take the position that the killing of a non-Jew does not count.
Over five decades now, Zionists have killed Palestinians with impunity. And in the 1996 shelling of a U.N. base in Qana, Lebanon, the Israelis killed more than 100 civilians sheltered there. As an Israeli journalist, Arieh Shavit, explains of the massacre, “We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own.”
Israelis today, explains the anti-Zionist Jew Israel Shahak, “are not basing their religion on the ethics of justice. They do not accept the Old Testament as it is written. Rather, religious Jews turn to the Talmud. For them, the Talmudic Jewish laws become “the Bible.” And the Talmud teaches that a Jew can kill a non-Jew with impunity.
In the teachings of Christ, there was a break from such Talmudic teachings. He sought to heal the wounded, to comfort the downtrodden.
The danger, of course, for U.S. Christians is that having made an icon of Israel, we fall into a trap of condoning whatever Israel does — even wanton murder — as orchestrated by God.
Yet, I am not alone in suggesting that the churches in the United States represent the last major organized support for Palestinian rights. This imperative is due in part to our historic links to the Land of Christ and in part to the moral issues involved with having our tax dollars fund Israeli-government-approved violations of human rights.
While Israel and its dedicated U.S. Jewish supporters know they have the president and most of Congress in their hands, they worry about grassroots America — the well-meaning Christians who care for justice. Thus far, most Christians were unaware of what it was they didn’t know about Israel. They were indoctrinated by U.S. supporters of Israel in their own country and when they traveled to the Land of Christ most all did so under Israeli sponsorship. That being the case, it was unlikely a Christian ever met a Palestinian or learned what caused the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This is gradually changing, however. And this change disturbs the Israelis. As an example, delegates attending a Christian Sabeel conference in Bethlehem earlier this year said they were harassed by Israeli security at the Tel Aviv airport.
“They asked us,” said one delegate, “Why did you use a Palestinian travel agency? Why didn’t you use an Israeli agency?” The interrogation was so extensive and hostile that Sabeel leaders called a special session to brief the delegates on how to handle the harassment. Obviously, said one delegate, “The Israelis have a policy to discourage us from visiting the Holy Land except under their sponsorship. They don’t want Christians to start learning all they have never known about Israel.”
60 Minutes on the Exodus of Christian Palestinians
Jimmy Carter Unveils Truth About Israel
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
One may wonder what brings a Palestinian activist to compose such a twit? Does Ali Abunimah really care about Judaism and its reputation? And why does he believe that Zionism conspires to ‘trick’ us to ‘blame the Jews’?
I guess that Ali has yet to grasp the distinction to be made between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (culture and ideology). No surprise considering his somewhat dated vision on the issues of Zionism.
Ali should know that no one actually blames ‘the Jews’ for Israeli and Zionist crimes. Certainly, some look into Jewish ideology (Jewishness), others look into Jewish culture, a few of us are looking into some of those vile, Talmudic teachings and many of us are intrigued by the goy hatred that is deeply rooted (also) in Jewish secularism (Zionist and anti Zionist alike). Some of us are studying Jewish political exclusivity and Jewish supremacy that is inherent to Jewish left and right while a lot of us are interested in Jewish political power and the Jewish Lobby.
In case Ali failed to notice, Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’. It commits crimes in the name of the Jewish people. Its airplanes and tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. So is it not our ethical and intellectual duty to ask who are the Jews? What is Judaism and what is Jewishness? Considering the crimes committed by the Jewish State against Ali’s brothers and sisters in Palestine, it is our moral duty to question the relationships between Jews, Judaism, Jewishness and Zionism?
It is depressing, however, to find that, after more than a century of Palestinian struggle, a leading Palestinian blogger is found to be clueless about these basic and fundamental matters. Still, ignorance is no a crime – it can sometimes even be cute.
If only Twitter would only allow Ali some more characters, his message could have read:
Ali Abunimah @AliAbunimah “No matter how much Zionism does in its effort to blacken the name of Judaism, NEVER fall for its trick and blame Jews for Israel’s crimes because it may upset JVP and George Soros…”
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, Jewish Left’s spin and Sabbath Goyim’ spiel Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Dr. Jean-Loup Samaan is a researcher-lecturer of Israel-Hizballah conflict at the NATO Defence College in Rome and former policy adviser for the French Ministry of Defense and a visiting scholar for the RAND, an Israeli advocacy group. In an article, published in Jewish Al-Monitor on February 12, 2013, Samaan claimed that Hizballah’s stockpile of 40,000-80,000 rockets is the “deterrence” which is forcing Israel not to attack Hizballah as it did in Summer 2006, when Hizballah had less than 15,000 rockets. Samaan also claimed that Hizballah has since acquired 4,000 short-to mid-range Iranian missiles through Syria plus Syrian Scud-D ballistic missiles (purchased from Russia three decades ago).
“Both sides understands that a next round would be devastating and that, in the case of Israel, the threat of Hizballah’s missiles cannot be wholly eliminated, the solution has been to bargain detterence, meaning to deter the other party from attacking its homeland by pledging full-scale retaliation,” wrote Jean-Loup Samaan.
What Jean-Loup Samaan was affraid to say – that total devastation of the entire infrastructure and mass-killing of civilian population of the countries Israel has attacked (Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan and Syria), came from the teachings of Jewish Talmud. Samaan also lied that Hizballah used suicide bombers against Israelis. He did not back-up his claim. One cannot expect some Zionist propagandist to acknowledge that it were Israeli suicide bombers who killed former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Haririin February 2005. Ronen Bergman, a Zionist investigative journalist and author is on record for admitting that Hizballah leader, Sayyed Moussawi, was assassinated by Israelis. Israeli Mossad also assassinated Hizballah leader Imad Moughnieh. But Mossad agents have failed to assassinate Sheikh Nasrallah.
The Jewish army attacked and occupied South Lebanon in the 19880s, even before the establishment of armed Hizballah resistance militia. The Jewish army has fought four major wars with Lebanon and have been violating Lebanese airspace on daily basis since its defeat in 2006.
However, Samaan is not the only expert who believes Israel will think twice before attacking Hizballah. On December 16, 2010, Israeli English daily Ha’aretz had quoted Israel Occupation Force (IOF) Gen. Giora Eiland, former national security adviser to former prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, saying on Army Radio: “Israel does not know how to beat Hezbollah”.
Jeffrey Feltman (a Zionist Jew), former top State Department official and currently Ban Ki-moon’s ME hitman at United Nations, told Maura Connelly, US ambassador in Beirut, that since Israel failed to destroy Hizballah in 2006, he was planning to pin Hariri murder on Hizballah officials and get it disarmed via United Nations’ R-1757.
Both Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu have threatened Hizballah and Lebanese government that in the next war, Lebanese would not find Israelis as “civilized” as they’re during the 34-day war of 2006. During that war, Jewish army killed 1,400 Lebanese civilians including 49 Hizballah fighters while inflicting over $10 billion infrastructure damage. The Jewish army , in return, admitted losing 137 of its Jewish soldiers. Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry, claimed in an article published by Asia Times (October 12, 2006) that Israel was totally defeated by Hizballah.
Under international law, Lebanon has the right to attack Israel which is still occupying 25 square kilimeters of Lebanese territory, known as Shebaa Farms, since June 1967.
Three days ago, Hizballah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in his peech during the annual commemoration for the Resistance’s leaders, warned the Zionist regime that despite the bloody anti-resistance war in Syria – if Israel attacked Lebanon, Hizballah rockets and missile would be hitting Israel’s military and power lifelines all the way to Tel Aviv.
“In all calmness I warn the Israeli that the resistance in Lebanon will not tolerate any violations on Lebanese territory. They have an electrical plant in northern Palestine, with just a few missiles we could plunge Israel into darkness. The Israeli themselves have admitted it would take 6 months to make this plant operational again,” warned Nasrallah. His televised speech can be read here.
Jean-Loup Samaan, who is author of the NATO document ‘The day after Iran goes nuclear’ – during a lecture at Israel’s Bar-IIan University in February 2012, had advised NATO to strengthen its ties with Iran’s neighboring countries to counter Iran’s rising influence in the region. In November 2012, Samaan also attended the Herzilya Defence Conference in Israel.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
The Zionist Education Ministry has rejected the findings of a US State Department funded study, which has claimed that the textbooks taught in Gaza and the West Bank don’t teach hatred toward Jews. The Ministry has called the report “profoundly unobjective”. The American Jewish advocacy group, ADL, has called the report “distortion of facts”. The rest of the Israel Hasbara Committee members (Jewish Week, JTA, algemeiner, HuffingtonPost, JPost, NPR, The Beast, etc.), claimed the report, from “one sided” to “antisemitic”.
In fact, the report, titled ‘Victims of Our Own Narratives’ has tried to cover-up the fact that Israeli school textbooks do teach hatred toward Arabs, Muslims, Christians and all the other non-Jewish people based on Jewish holy book Talmud. This fact was admitted in 2007 by Professor Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University, after studying 124 elementary, middle- and high school textbooks on grammar and Hebrew literature, history, geography and citizenship. He wrote: “The early textbooks tended to describe acts of Arabs as hostile, deviant, cruel, immoral, unfair, with the intention to hurt Jews and to annihilate the State of Israel. Within this frame of reference, Arabs were delegitimized by the use of such labels as ‘robbers,’ ‘bloodthirsty,’ and ‘killers”. Another Israeli professor Nurit Peled-Elhanan, daughter of Israel’s 1967 War hero, Gen. Peled, had come to the same conclusion.
The report in question is based on a study of Israeli and Palestinian textbooks conducted by a team of Israeli and Palestinian researchers and led by professor Bruce Wexler, a Jewish psychiatrist at the Yale School of Medicine. Dr. Wexler and the panel of 19 academics, who surveyed over 3,100 excerpts from 168 Israeli and Palestinian textbooks – have blasted the Zionist regime and the Jewish lobby for rejecting the report “of being politically motivated”.
The report has exposed decades of Israel’s anti-Palestinian propaganda lies that Palestinian kids are brought-up on hatred toward Jews. Successive Zionist regimes have used this lie as trump card in underminding the claim that an independent Palestinian state is overdue. This is also a “biblical truth” among majority of US lawmakers.
“Both the Israeli and Palestinian communities should be commended for this important positive aspect of their books. Extreme negative characterizations of the other of his sort are present in textbooks elsewhere in the world,” claimed the report.
The study was launched in 2009 by the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, a multifaith body that aims “to prevent religion from being used as a source of conflict, and to promote mutual respect,” according to its website. It is comprised of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, the Palestinian Islamic Waqf, and the heads of Christian churches in Israel and the West Bank. The Zionist regime had boycotted the study, while Palestinian Authority officials cooperated with the study group.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
byKashif Ahmed Saturday, December 1st, 2012 Today’s extremist Jew has three very real, equally grave, concerns:
The international backlash over the fact that Israel did 9/11.
The end of Rothschild’s fractional reserve, Fiat currency scam (i.e. paper money) and economic system of usury (i.e. money lending at high interest to incur massive debts on the borrower).
The Palestinian right of return instigated from the borders of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.
The aforementioned points, coupled with Zionist Jewry’s failure to force its henchmen in the U.S. to invade Iran, and the ensuing public humiliation over being exposed as cowards for not wanting to go in themselves, led to their latest round of terror attacks against the easy target of Gaza, Palestine.
The U.S. regime’s refusal to attack Iran on Israel’s behalf, is not motivated by any sense of morality or self-respect, its just that the United States, having lost Rothschild’s war in Afghanistan, a defeat significantly worse than the one they suffered in Vietnam, lacks the manpower required to try to invade and occupy another country. For according to Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: U.S. ground troops are “broken” by a decade of fighting the Afghan Mujahedeen.
Not that the illegitimate state of Israel cares about Gentile lives, after all, they’ve sent skittish, subservient Americans off to war on a lie many times via false flag terror attacks (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, U.S.S. Liberty etc) or economic intimidation (e.g. contracting the money supply to crash the economy) and are quite prepared to cripple their weakened host to further the lunatic schemes of Jewish extremism. But this time, its Zionist Jewry’s visible reluctance to target a serious, morally-sound, well-informed adversary that’s got them on the back foot; for Rothschild knows that The Islamic Republic of Iran isn’t one to abide by their nonsense, and will retaliate with extreme prejudice at the first hint of any aggression.
Rothschild is also concerned that one wrong move may trigger an international revolt against their corrupt and parasitic system; a catalyst for anti-Semitic riots like the ones in Paris circa 1453 AD when Gentiles finally lost their patience and all sense of perspective; burning copies of The Talmud in the streets en route to another mass expulsion of Jews in Europe.
Similarly, we could see an intensified version of events that took place on August 1st -5th, 1947: when violent protests against international Jewish terrorism, rocked London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff and Leeds. These riots coincided with the arrest of Zionist bio-terrorists Menahem Arber, Mayer Rokach, Mayer Oved Ben Ami, Max Kritzman, Arieh Altman, Abraham Krinitzki and David Stern, who were caught trying to poison the Palestinian water supply with botulism.
Now you may ask: ‘But isn’t that what extremist Jewry wants; Herzellian anti-Semitism designed to scare all the Jews into a deadly embrace with Benjamin Netanyahu and his kind’? Yes and No, for the new uprising is unlikely to be defined by random, or randomly anti-Semitic, fury; but focused on the Rothschild criminal network itself, pro-Israeli usurers, bankers, plutocrats, company men and their hired henchmen: For the string pullers who tend to ride out the backlash from behind the scenes, are now well and truly in the eye of the storm.
GAZA, PALESTINE, NOVEMBER 21st, 2012:
Palestinian victims of Jewish terror attacks in Gaza.
Gaza endures another deadly invasion by the illegitimate state of Israel; a protracted onslaught which began with the murder of 12-year-old Palestinian boy Hameed Abu Daqqa in Khan Younis on November 8th; shot to death by an Israeli helicopter gunship in a craven Jewish terror attack ordered by IAF ringleader Avital Leibovich.
“We need to flatten entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing.” Gilad Sharon, son of ‘The Butcher of Beirut’ Ariel Sharon
“We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water” Eli Yishai, ‘Israeli Deputy Prime Minister’
Against all odds and under constant aerial bombardment by drones, fighter jets and missiles, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas Mujahedeen put aside their differences to put up a sterling, albeit desperate, defence of their country and even managed to launch a series of unexpected retaliatory strikes against targets in Tel Aviv as well as shooting down an IAF F-16 over the Gaza Strip. Benjamin Netanyahu’s ‘Iron Dome’ turned out to be more of a soggy Matzo, as Israel’s planned ground offensive was hastily called off, much to the relief of gutless IDF conscripts, fearful of another ‘Battle of Bint Jebiel’ (Lebanon War, 2006) or ‘Battle of Jenin’ (West Bank, 2002).
That said, to portray the sides as military equals would be absurd; for besieged, sanctioned, extremist Jew occupied Palestine going up against the criminal state of Israel is the equivalent of putting a toddler into a cage fight with an inbred pack of rabid Rottweilers. And yet pro-Israeli Jews and their Christian Zionist sidekicks celebrated the Gaza massacre in the same way as a handful of white immigrants celebrated the carnage at Sharpsville or how the Rothschild controlled, U.S. regime glorified their depraved terrorist attacks on Iranian airliner IR655 and Cuban flight 455.
An Egyptian brokered ceasefire came into effect on November 23rd but as we ought to know by now; an Israeli ‘ceasefire’ isn’t worth the paper its’ written on and only lasts about as long as it takes Zionist Jewry to solicit more handouts from the goyim and rearm.
The Gaza attack and its aftermath will be interpreted in a variety of ways depending upon whom you’re hearing it from. Personally, I wouldn’t go so far as to call the IDF retreat and ceasefire a victory, since many Palestinians were martyred in Jewish terror attacks with only a handful of Israeli reservists eliminated by the resistance. But then again, any invasion that ends with the rejection of Israel’s demands, as this did, is a defeat for the Knesset and Israeli sympathisers the world over: This latest atrocity also provided a stage for some ridiculous political theatre / regional jostling; as Anglo-American-Arab opportunists and war profiteers either regurgitated extremist Jew drivel or feigned concern for the Palestinians whilst trying to ensure the continuation of the status quo. A notable strategic development would be the Palestinian’s renewed ability to strike deep into Tel Aviv, exert greater control over the Theatre of Operations and defiantly undermine Israel’s Rothschild masters on an international level.
Now extremist Jews and their acolytes have yet to realize that bombing a disarmed, locked down population under siege isn’t war, participating in a Rothschild brokered land grab via a convoluted drôle de guerre in 1948 isn’t war, using Depleted Uranium and chemical weapons on 3-year-olds or driving bulldozers into residential properties is not war. For extremist Jewry hasn’t experienced a real, honest-to-goodness war since the glorious reign of Roman Emperor Trajan and have cleverly coerced debt ridden, economically enslaved goyim like Britain and the United States to fight their battles for them: Successfully using and abusing indoctrinated / greed driven Americans as a reasonably effective, but now visibly worn, decaying and splintered, battering ram against all who resist Judaic rule.
“Goyim (non-Jews) were born only to serve us (Jews). Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve Israel. This is why his (the Jew’s) servant gets a long life, to work well for this Jew: Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.”
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Talmudist Shas’s Council of Torah Sages
Extremist Jew squatters harass Palestinian woman.
Simply put, if Rothschild’s Israeli terror network isn’t deactivated where it is, its’ only a matter of time before they do to us all what they’ve been doing to Palestine. For lets not pretend that this is some far off plan, because its already here; imposed by venal and corrupt regimes in the West: Strip searches, once carried out at gunpoint by Jewish perverts in the West Bank, are now standard operating procedure at airports and holding cells around the world. Home invasions, arrests without charge, warrant less searches, prison without trial, secret courts, wanton police brutality, constant surveillance, slave labour, state seizure of private property, gulags, rendition / extradition: All socio-political ills symptomatic of extremist Jew run regimes, from the Rothschild controlled British Empire to the Soviet Union to the staunch Israeli ally that was Apartheid era South Africa. Now an unwelcome intrusion upon our lives thanks to our sell out governments, Talmud kissing company men, Cabbalistic Freemasons and Zionist parasites who’ve crawled out of the woodwork since Israel did 9/11.
Gaza and the West Bank are projections of the type of rule extremist Jewry wants to impose on the world; for obvious reasons, we cannot allow that to happen.
THE STATE OF SOLIDARITY
Our comrades at home are in a similar position to our allies aboard; the Palestinians understand the enemy but lack the infrastructure to effectively engage and dismantle it. Palestinian activists at home have the (rapidly deteriorating) infrastructure in place but have yet to comprehend the nature of the enemy.
“To communicate anything to a goy (Christian or Muslim) about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if they knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly.” The Talmud, Libbre David, 37 (Hesronot Shas)
I look at the grassroots struggle and see a familiar, but nonetheless encouraging, scene; I salute the ISM, BDS and all the activists for all their efforts time and time again, whether its one man standing out in the rain with a Palestinian flag or the thousands around him who’ve rallied in support of justice over tyranny. I’ll admit it was good to see those decadent, vile, out of touch Israeli apologists and their Fleet Street underlings up in arms; whining about how pro-Palestinian protesters ruined their evening’s entertainment by disrupting an Israeli dance troupe and almost made them choke on their Foie gras. And nor can we overlook those ‘Valiant and Victorious’ cyber-warriors of ‘Anonymous’ who continue to confound the ‘Villainous Vermin’ of Zionism online, taking out some IDF sites and frustrating Hasbrats all over the Internet.
But I’m also somewhat disappointed that we have yet to fulfil our promise on so many levels, disappointed that we hold aloft the same old placards and shout the same old slogans and chants; like milk bought to the boil, only to cool down once Palestine is no longer in the headlines: Stagnant, until the next major crime when the placards are dusted off for demonstrations that have yet to prevent the deaths of innocent people in Palestine and elsewhere.
Remember the case of 12-year-old Huda Darwish, blinded by an Israeli bullet?
That happened over eight years ago; Zionist Jewry still laughs about it today, and why wouldn’t they? Have the perpetrators been bought to justice, have they been incentivised in a language they understand? Have the allies taken an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, or have they simply threatened a boycott, recalled an ambassador or drafted a mild mannered letter of complaint, careful not to offend the delicate sensibilities of Israeli serial killers, rapists, usurers and thieves? Solidarity groups should not care more for the enemy, than they do for their allies because no one can afford to compartmentalize Zionist crimes and deal with each one as it comes, for the cult of extremist Jewry in itself represents the epicentre of evil.
The illegitimate state of Israel is already condemned to its Sisyphean paradigm, Zionist Jews have spent 64 years running on the hamster’s wheel to nowhere, so we must never become a reactionary component of this deranged and self-destructive regime. Their crimes should not equal our protests; our protests should prevent their crimes. For as I said in my analysis of the 2006 Lebanon War, ‘Resistance Revived: Victory In the Lebanon’, we shouldn’t ask ourselves:
“What crime is the illegitimate state of Israel going to commit next? But rather: ‘How are we prepared to counter that next inevitable act of Israeli terrorism?’
Never forget the key word: ‘Strategy’, a concept so important that Latin American paramilitaries fighting CIA backed Chabad-Lubavitch drug cartels in Columbia, are said to dedicate an entire lesson to this word alone: The team leader translates the word ‘strategy’ into a hundred different languages to drum it into his comrades and we must do likewise.
1. Know Your Enemy
If we truly knew our enemy, we would have compelled our leaders to finalize and implement policies to formally engage extremist Jewry and their henchmen in a series of open-ended, humanitarian interventions in occupied Palestine. If we understood what these criminals were all about, we would understand the futility of genteel protests and demonstrations and cease to be such ‘freiers’ (derogatory Hebrew term for gullible, straight laced saps or sticklers for the law). For if we’d studied The Talmud, the depraved ramblings of Yitzhak Shapira’s Israeli bestseller ‘The King’s Torah’ and the macabre, occultist screeds of the Cabbalist Zohar, we would, to a certain degree, know what to expect from the Anglo-American-Israeli crime gang.
“What emerged for me, from the study of The Talmud was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish thought is permeated by the sense of genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time.” Moshe Greenberg, Former Chair of the Department of Bible Studies at The Hebrew University and graduate of Habad Hasidim ‘Sefer Hatanya’ Chabad-Lubavitch Yeshiva
Some Palestinians and their partisans have been so severely conditioned to avoid being labelled anti-Semitic (even whilst they’re being bombed by the Israelis), that they tread on eggshells and don’t call a spade a spade; its always some convoluted euphuism or term that half the population barely understands.
Progressive Jewry makes a stand.
We don’t need to be Politically Correct in front of our Jew comrades, for they know the score at this late stage of the game, they know full well that we will never abandon them nor they us. Rae Abileah, Yair Hilu, Avigail Abarbanel, Gilad Atzmon, Emily Henochowicz, Alison Ramer, Lisa Adler, the good people over at B’Tselem and millions around the world don’t need to be told who we mean when we condemn those who’ve bastardised Judaism for their own ends. For we don’t abandon our allies or forget our martyrs, nor we do not forgive the mossad murderers of author Jack Bernstein or the Zionist scum who attacked Dr. Yaakov Yisrael Dehan on July 1st, 1924 in Al Quds-Jerusalem: Dr Dehan, one of the first martyrs of the Palestinian cause, was beaten to death by a gang of Zionist Jews on his way home from Al Quds Hospital. We shan’t forget Jewish defector Ben Freedman’s historic speech in 1961, warning the world about Rothschild and their plans. Each and every one of our Jew allies are well aware of the fact that victory in the war against Jewish extremism is a victory for progressive Jewry the world over; who, at long last, may be afforded an opportunity to break free from the shackles of Rothschild control.
Tell the truth
First and foremost; we must call ‘Israel’ what it is; an illegitimate, fraudulent state based upon the most demented tractates of the Jewish Talmud. A criminal regime diametrically opposed to the universal testaments of human decency, the mad beast, the enemy that cannot be appeased or reasoned with. The enemy that seeks to sink the world into a cesspit of chaos, carnage and depravity,
U.S. President Harry S. Truman, perhaps burdened with the guilt of having committed war crimes in Japan on behalf of extremist Jewry and taking Rothschild’s $2 million bribe to recognise Israel in 1948, wrote in his diary that:
“The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many people get murdered or mistreated as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog.”
For no matter how many times you’ve witnessed a crime scene, you never quite get used to the sight of butchered babies or bullet ridden toddlers being pulled out from rubble, and yet every time one looks into their faces, these martyred Palestinian babies, they look more at peace; dead and laying in state, than any Israeli looks when they’re alive and well. The fact is that these people; extremist Jews and their enablers, posses very few, if any, of the characteristics that one would attribute to our fellow human beings.
For when a cult as obscene and deranged as Zionism, has chosen to operate outside the realms of human decency, it must accept that it will be treated in one of two extreme, equally undesirable, ways: As Übermensch by their slaves when they have the upper hand, and as Untermensch by their adversaries when the tide eventually turns, e.g. The Jewish fear of being driven into the sea is an understandable phobia, for any common criminal fears their comeuppance will mirror a crime that they’ve committed in the past. And since Zionist Jews drove the Palestinians in Haifa into the Mediterranean at gunpoint in 1948, its obvious that Jewry’s haunted by the prospect of this historical boomerang coming back to smack them into oblivion.
Their murderous activities in Gaza and elsewhere are Herod-esque deeds of bloodthirsty paranoia: Apartheid walls, gun-nest settlements, dumping sewage in the streets, water theft and their well documented plans to build a race bomb (to target the genes of Arabs only) provides further evidence of how demented and far gone this inbred rabble of antediluvian psychopaths actually are.
3. Always Face Facts
The Palestinians don’t really need our solidarity or vigils as much as they need modern defence capabilities and a standing army. Palestine is an international Theatre of Operations; always was, after all, Palestine was destroyed by an international axis (i.e. Anglo-American-Jew) and will be restored via an open-ended series of internationalist, humanitarian interventions, so lets not pretend for a second that its just up to the Arabs to confront this enemy.
In many ways, it’d be better if Palestine’s false friends in the region kicked them all out, that’s right I’ll say it again; it’d be better for the Palestinian struggle if some Arab regimes (e.g. Jordan), Israeli collaborators in all but name, expelled every last Palestinian from their land; empty the refugee camps and declare it a crime to be a Palestinian. For when the stark reality of an unwritten, unspoken policy is made apparent, when the Palestinians have no where else to go, they’ll finally go where they should’ve gone all along: their homes, their motherland, their country. The alternative being that the handful of sincere Arab governments provide cover and support for their Palestinian allies to actively undermine false borders; to enact the propaganda of the deed by simply walking back home, as was the case in Syria, 2011.
For lets make it absolutely clear; that this isn’t about socialising, cultural exchanges, group hugs or afternoon tea; because I’m not eager to receive a pat on the back, or eat humous and falafel, wave my keffiyeh, dance the Dabke and call it a day. The brass tacks of the struggle should never be diffused or discarded for lesser aims, for even if I had my reservations about some of Mao Tse Tung’s political ideas, there’s no denying the commendable breviloquence, unassailable truth and sheer moral clarity of his great declaration:
“We support Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs should go back to their homeland. Right up to the present time we have had no diplomatic relations with these Israelis. The Arabs are the overwhelming majority. All Arab peoples are opposed to their fellow-Arabs being driven out of Palestine. If we don’t stand on your side we will be making a mistake. That is why we are with you.” Chairman Mao Tse Tung, 1951
GAZA, PALESTINE, NOVEMBER 30th, 2012:
The civilized world eagerly awaits Imam Mahdi (ra) on his way from Khourasan, but until that glorious day arrives; conscience driven, anti-imperialists must see to it that our comrades have a fighting chance against the hordes of Jewish extremism.
Needless to say, the cult of Zionist Jewry is bent on one of two outcomes: world domination or world destruction:
“We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under. Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.” Professor Martin Van Creveld
Every Muslim, Christian and progressive Jew in the world ought to thank Professor Van Creveld for his hubristic candour, and for letting slip the mask of civility that his fellow cult members try to keep on at all times. Now as far as world domination or world destruction goes: in order to deny them the former humanity must negate the means with which they’ll able to execute the latter, but if extremist Jewry is serious about escalating their war of extermination against the Gentile world, let them make that move: Call their bluff and force them to face the consequences & repercussions should they try to go through with it.
There’s no real victory that needs celebrating here yet, for Gaza was clearly an opening salvo, and the war goes on until Rothschild’s unconditional surrender, until the complete restoration of Palestine to her 1948 borders, repatriation of hostiles to Birobidjan and the first payments of reparations for 60 plus years of Zionist occupation.
So until then; ignore the treacherous U.N.’s empty promises, maintain your positions, go once more into the breach and etch onto your souls these simple words to live by:
Never forgive. Never forget.
Omar Al-Mashharawi, 11 months old, killed by Israeli bombardment
Rinan Arafat, 7 years old, killed by Israeli bombardment
Heba Al-Mashharawi, 19 years old, six-months pregnant, killed by Israeli missile strikes
Walid Al-Abalda, 2 years old, killed in an Israeli drone terror attack
Hanin Tafesh, 10 months old, killed by Israeli bombardment
Mohammed Sa’d Allah, 4 years old, killed by Israeli bombardment
Jumana Salamah Abu Sufian, aged 1, killed in an Israeli drone terror attack
Tamer Salamah Abu Sufian, 3 years old, killed in an Israeli drone terror attack
Eyad Abu Khusa, 18 months old, killed by Israeli missile strikes
Ranin Mohammed Jamal Al-Dalou, 5 years old, killed in an Israeli drone terror attack
Jamal Mohammed Jamal Al-Dalou, 7 year old, killed by Israeli bombardment
Yousef Mohammed Jamal Al-Dalou, 10 years old, killed in an Israeli drone terror attack
Ibrahim Mohammed Jamal Al-Dalou, aged 1, killed by Israeli bombardment
Suhaib Fo’ad Hjazi, 2 years old, killed by Israeli bombardment
Mohammed Fo’ad Hjazi, 3 years old, killed by Israeli bombardment
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
The Vatican says it the way it is, prompting wails about “anti-Semitism” and “blood libel” as if that makes it all OK
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican Council for Culture, commenting on the war between Israel and Hamas, delivered a severe attack on the Jewish people:
“I think of the ‘massacre of the innocents’. Children are dying in Gaza, their mothers’ shouts is a perennial cry, a universal cry”.
The Catholic Church high official equated Israel’s operation in Gaza against terror groups with the New Testament story of Herod’s slaughter of Jewish babies in his effort to kill Jesus.
Ravasi, who is one of the most popular Catholic cardinals and the director of the Church’s policy on culture, called Israelis baby-killers in a shameless form of anti-Semitism which subtly accuses the Jewish State of trying to murder the new Jesus, symbolized by the Palestinian people.
The Vatican official’s modern blood libel against Israel was delivered during the presentation of Pope Benedict’s new book about the life of Jesus. However, Ravasi’s theme – the Jews as Herod, who killed all the innocent babies because his heart was set on killing Jesus – was much beloved by Medieval organizers of pogroms.
The vicar-general of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, William Shomali, said on Vatican Radio that “what is happening in Gaza now is a vicious circle of violence”. The auxiliary bishop then declared that “it’s difficult to know who started it”. How difficult?
A few weeks ago, in an interview with the Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Shomali claimed that “hatred of Christians” is the Talmud itself.
“The Talmud, the holy book studied by the ultra-orthodox, more highly venerated than the Bible itself, invites religious hatred, speaks badly of Jesus, and even worse of Mary and, in general, of Christians,” the bishop said, adding that “in Israeli schools, love for the other is not taught, but rather the destruction of the other”.
Talking to the Vatican News Agency, Michel Sabbah, Patriarch Emeritus of Jerusalem, said that the Gaza Strip for many years “has been living under the weight of an absurd embargo, which makes the daily lives of a million and a half of people inumane”.
Sabbah signed the recent appeal by more than one hundred Christian leaders who have asked the international community to support the recognition of the Palestinian State as a full member of the United Nations. Among the signers is the Greek Orthodox Archbishop Atallah Hanna, a self professed anti-Semite who blessed the suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.
As yet, no condemnation has come from the Pope of the barrages of rockets fired by terror groups on southern Israeli cities before Operation Pillar of Defense. The Church authorities, and Benedict XVI himself, raised their voices in condemnation of the violence that has broken out in the Gaza Strip only after Israel began bombing the installations of the terrorist movements in that territory. Not a word was heard before that.
During the Cast Lead operation in 2009, the Vatican officials called Gaza “a concentration camp”. After the Nazi comparison did its work, the Jesus-killer motif has now returned to the Catholic Church. River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
The Psychopathology Of Being Jewish And Getting Away With It
Psychopaths do not reveal themselves until they do something which requires a conscience. They can imitate the behavior of others and for example to pretend grief at a funeral. But they reveal themselves to a camera as when President Clinton exited a funeral laughing and joking but instantaneously switched to grief mode when he saw TV cameras. Today I want to warn you about the strong strain of psychopathology in the Jewish leadership.
Psychopaths are attracted to positions of power and have a competitive advantage because they have no conscience. I will be commenting on the video below. Psychopaths reap a lot of social damage so we need to be aware of what they can do. An example of a corporation without a conscience would be Monsanto. An example of a group of people with leaders who border on psychopathology would be the Jews. The Rothschild owned Bank of England did loan the German government 350 million pounds in 1935 to buy guns and to rebuild Farben. And it was Israel that took down World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 on 9-11-2001 in order to plunge the Gentile world into war for the Jewish oligarchy. The video maker lists the key characteristics of psychopaths so we can spot them and hopefully protect ourselves.
Psychopaths do mot have empathy. That is what defines them. Empathy is the ability to feel within one’s self the emotions and feelings of others. Empathy makes us human. Psychopaths have no empathy and are therefore not fully human. Psychopaths realize at an early age they are not fully human and learn to imitate others so they can be more socially acceptable.
Being Jewish is killing 60 million Gentiles in the Soviet Union, never saying you are sorry and Getting Away With It.
Psychopaths can have no genuine remorse. Remorse is a feeling of shame for an act the person has committed they deem to be hurtful to others. Psychopaths can pretend to be sorry when they see others are angry with them over their behavior. Jewish settlers and the Israeli Defense Force have combined forces to systematically commit atrocities on the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. The Jews refuse to allow people overseas to send crayons, coloring books and musical instruments to the children of Gaza. Jewish adults armed with automatic weapons to routinely beat 5 and 6 year-old children walking to school. Some Jews object but most do not. The Jews were taught by the Talmud that it is permissible to rape a Gentile three year-old girl. It is perfectly lawful for a Jew to kill or to rob the Gentiles. That is why most Jews show no Empathy and Remorse for their egregiously bad behavior in the modern world.
Passion drives those of us who are normal. Psychopaths lack normal human passions and therefore tend to be superficial. Psychopaths only have passions for themselves. I believe this superficiality is evident in America’s Jewish controlled media and entertainment industries.
Psychopaths are grandiose. They live in a falsely constructed world in which they are both literally and figuratively gods. They have an overblown sense of entitlement. Have you noticed how many Bailouts are going to the Jewish bankers and a few Gentile traitors in Europe and America? The only reason for this nonsense is that the Jews insist we have a banking system that requires us to pay them interest on money they created out of nothing. It is as if they were gods and we were born to be sacrifice the whole of our lives to them as Debt Slaves always in bondage to the them. They show no Empathy for the 3 million Americans who died from starvation in the Great Depression. And of course they show no Remorse because they are not fully human.
Psychopaths are irresponsible because nothing is ever their fault. They are never at fault because they think they are perfect. In the Talmud if a Jew rapes a Gentile woman she is to be put to death as an adulteress. But the Jewish rapist is blameless under Jewish law.
In the psychopath’s world whatever they want now is good and whatever they do not like is bad. This leads to impulsive behavior. If someone has money and the psychopath wants it, then robbery is good and the victim is bad. This explains why Goldman Sachs behaves the way they do with no regard for either Gentiles nor long term consequences.. This makes us understand the corporations and the government releasing genetic experiments into the wild with no sound thinking. An example would be the men who crossed the genes of s spider with those of the salmon and released it into the wild knowing the native and normal salmon will be extinct within 40 years. Psychopathology in the early 19th century was called Moral Insanity, In a rational society psychopaths would not be allowed to live at the expense of others. They solve this problem by lying. Psychopaths hold their world together with lies. They lie compulsively. This is where the Jews excel. The Holohoax was a lie. 911 was a lie. Look at the Jew Arlen Specter who invented the Magic Bullet Theory of the Kennedy assassination to cover up Israel’s role in the murder of yet another American President.
Psychopaths are masters at manipulating others. They use our emotions against us. Jews do not feel guilt for the tens of millions they did kill in the Soviet Union. Nor do they feel guilty about killing 58 million people after the German Army and Navy attempted to surrender to His Majesty’s Jewish Government in March of 1939. They do not experience Empathy and Remorse because they are not fully human. Yet they can manipulate us into feeling guilty about a Holohoax that never happened even extorting taxpayer dollars from people who had nothing remotely to do with those imaginary events.
Psychopaths are anti-social. They do not care that Genetically Modified Organisms are destroying the health of tens of millions of people. They do not care that stealing 43 trillion dollars from the people of America has wreaked tremendous harm on people who have lost their jobs, their homes. their pensions and their saving. And when these psychopaths crash the dollar, the pound and the euro prices double overnight. That will destroy the countries whose people have always protected them from harm.
The majority of Jews do not care about you because are not capable of caring about you. So why do you care for those who do not care for you? Why do you still believe in their lies about the Holohoax and 911? Why do you still believe recovery is just around the corner?
River toSeaUprooted PalestinianThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Khalid Amayreh: “The Syrian regime must change, or it will be changed”
Don’t you think I am speaking about some rare cases of crazy rabbis hallucinating about ancient religious texts inside their parochial circles… These criminal rabbis are prominent and respected in their communities and have numerous followers, many with high college degrees from prestigious universities.
There is an undeclared but ferocious Jewish war against Islam going on these days. One would have to be blind and deaf to deny this brazen fact.
In occupied East Jerusalem, government-backed Messianic Jews have been attacking and desecrating Islamic and, to a lesser extent, Christian holy places.
In the last few days, millenarian Jews, protected by para-military Israel police, have been attacking and beating peaceful Muslim worshipers at the Aqsa Mosque esplanade. The Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest Islamic site in the world.
According to observers of Israeli behavior in Occupied Jerusalem, the audacity and frequency of Israeli provocations at the Islamic sanctuary increased dramatically in recent weeks.
Sheikh Ikrema Sabri, the former head of the Supreme Muslim Council, warned that Messianic Jewish groups were “hell bent on provoking bloodshed on a wide scale in Jerusalem.”
“These religious maniacs believe that by inciting violence and causing bloodshed, they would expedite the appearance of a mythical Messiah who would create a world-wide Jewish empire ruled from Jerusalem.”
The extremists, who are backed by powerful religious and manifestly fascist parties in the Israeli Knesset or Parliament, don’t deny these accusations.
Moshe Feiglin, a Nazi-like Israeli politician who believes non-Jews should be stripped of their national and political rights, including the right to vote, this week led dozens of extremists to the Aqsa Mosque esplanade where he called for the demolition of Islamic Holy places.
Feiglin, also a prominent figure in the ruling Likud party, was arrested for a few minutes and then released to make further provocative statements against Islamic shrines.
The brief arrest had nothing to do with his incitement, according to an Israeli police spokesman.
Meanwhile, Jewish religious leaders continue to make statements and religious sermons offending Islam and Christianity. Some of the rabbis have even ruled that the status of non-Jews in general is not higher than that of animals such as donkeys.
Interestingly, such brashly racist statements don’t raise many eyebrows in Israel, neither among intellectuals nor politicians and religious leaders.
Those who dare criticize the so-called “rabbinic sages” for indulging in this Talmudic hallucination don’t do so out of rejection of Halakha or Jewish religious law, which views goyem or non-Jews, as animals walking on two feet, but rather because what is being said is politically wrong as could generate hostility for Jews among Gentiles.
Jewish incitement against Islam and Muslims is by no means confined to the Palestinian arena. This week, Jewish circles posted anti-Islam posters in four subway stations in Washington D.C.
The provocative add read:
“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,” the ad reads. “Support Israel/Defeat Jihad.”
The very same add was posted in a New York subway station two weeks ago, generating disgust and anger among Muslims.
Well, Jews are urged to thoroughly and honestly read and examine their Talmud and Old Testament in order to find for themselves who is Civilized and who is savage.
Anyone, Jew or gentile, can easily quote pornographically barbaric texts from both scriptures, underscoring the utter savagery and wickedness of religious Jewish thinking.
Jews should examine their ancient and recent history before hurling epithets of savagery and terrorism at Muslims.
Indeed, any honest comparison between Islam and Judaism would put Islam on a decidedly higher moral ground. In the final analysis, those living in glass houses, don’t throw stones.
But the anti-Islam Jewish circles, who unfortunately seem to represent a majority among Jews, have little concern for truth and honesty. Their ultimate goal is to spread lies, hatred, vindictiveness and malice.
In fact, Jews, especially those supporting Zionism or Jewish Nazism, are probably the last people on earth who are qualified to lecture humanity on civility and savagery.
The Jews were probably the first people on earth to carry out an organized genocide against another people for religious reasons. The Old Testament contains detailed records of this genocide.
Some Jewish apologists might argue that is grossly unfair to blame contemporary Jews for controversial religious scriptures written more than 3000 years ago.
Well, such a defensive reflex would probably be listened to were it not for the fact that for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Jews around the world, this genocidal mindset is still relevant today as it was 3000 ago.
Don’t we see and hear numerous rabbis out there who teach, even openly, that the life of a goy (non-Jew) has no sanctity and that a Jew might murder a gentile in order to harvest his or her organ if the Jew needed one!
Don’t you think I am speaking about some rare cases of crazy rabbis hallucinating about ancient religious texts inside their parochial circles… These criminal rabbis are prominent and respected in their communities and have numerous followers, many with high college degrees from prestigious universities.
Today, Jews incite against Islam and Muslims on five continents. Their tacit message is “hate, hate, and hate.”
When you call people “savages” and “terrorists” and other names just because they are fighting for their freedom and human rights, you are effectively inciting to murder. Vilification and demonizing always precede murder. Murder, including mass murder, is the ultimate fruit of mass hatred and incitement.
Jews ought to remember in case they have forgotten that before Auschwitz and Treblinka and Bergen Belsen, and even Kristalnacht, there was a Mein Kampf, the Nuremberg laws and the anti-Jewish mass hysteria.
In light, one might ask: Is this anti-Islam mass hysteria what Jews are trying to generate and produce? Are Jews trying to affect a holocaust for Muslims in Europe, North America and Australia in order to allow Israel to build more colonies for fanatical Jews in the West Bank ?
Jews reject both Islam and Christianity. The main reason for this illogical rejection is the timeless Jewish desire to retain and maintain the dubious prerogative of the “chosen people”
But Jews can’t be more deserving of heavenly salvation than other people just because some ancient Israelites worshiped God whereas other peoples and nations were pagans and worshipped idols. The Almighty doesn’t calculate matters this way. God deals with men on an individual basis. There are “chosen” individuals, not chosen people, and it doesn’t matter what ethnicity one belongs to.
Today many Jews worship power, money and sex, while others, and they are too many, worship the new Golem of Zionism, or Israel.
In the past, Jews tried and failed to poison and murder the Prophet of Islam. They also tried to decapitate and destroy the fledgling Muslim community in Madina by joining forces with the pagans of Arabia. Today’s Jews are doing the same thing by joining ranks with hysterical Christian Zionists seeking world domination. This coalition of evil, too, will fail and Islam will triumph.
But when Islam ultimately prevailed and Muslims built a huge Muslim state based on justice and tolerance, Jews enjoyed religious, political and economic freedoms.
Jews didn’t survive all these centuries because of their power. They survived because Islam catered for them and protected them from danger, near and distant. It is sad that Jews are now expressing their gratitude to Muslims by urging and instigating Westerners in America and Europe and elsewhere to hate and kill them
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Last week, an interesting article by Daniel Gordis appeared on Tablemag.com. Gordis, a committed Zionist intellectual, is concerned about the inevitable collapse of the Jewish state and its impact on world Jewry in general and American Jews in particular.
Although it’s reassuring that Zionist scholars are now realising that that the Jewish State is on its way out, even more importantly, Gordis’ article gives us a glimpse into contemporary Jewish identity politics, Jewish culture and Zionist collective psychosis. And interestingly, Gordis reaffirms each and every critical argument I myself raise in my latest book The Wandering Who.
Gordis is tormented by polls that suggest that the centrality of Israel within Jewish American life is declining. Apparently, a recent survey suggests that 50 percent of young Jewish Americans (35 years old and younger) would not see the destruction of Israel as a ‘personal tragedy’.
In his attempt to explain such a dramatic change in Jewish Diaspora Jewish attitude, Gordis refers to Peter Beinart’s take on the subject: that young American Jews feel safe, and unlike their parents, do not fear anti-Semitism. Beinart is correct. Western Jews are no longer anxious. On the contrary, contemporary Jewish political arrogance knows no limits. AIPAC and similar Western Jewish lobbies have been openly pushing for interventionist wars for more than a decade and some influential Jews have been open in exploring different forms and aspects of Judeocentric domination of the media, banking, culture and politics. In fact it seems that many Jews are not troubled at all by a possible rise of anti Semitism and are unconcerned with any possible consequences of their own actions.
To a certain extent this sense of Jewish omnipotence may be seen as a direct continuum of Israeli strength; when young American Jews witness their American elected politicians dancing shamelessly to AIPAC’s Klezmatic noise, naturally they are filled with a sense of invincible might and it is this that is the essence of contemporary Jewish collective power – a power that can only be realised in connection with Israeli strength.
Pre Traumatic Stress Again
Gordis is there to shake Jewish Diaspora confidence by reintroducing the old tribal collective fear. He writes: “Theodor Herzl did what he did and wrote what he wrote because Jewish life in the Diaspora had become, to use Hobbes’ phrase, ‘poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’” According to Gordis, contemporary Jews are too self-possessed and feel far too safe. “What happened back then, they assert, could not happen today.” But Gordis believes they are deluded. “American Jews’ confidence resembles that of the Jews of Cordoba—who were forcibly converted, burned alive at the stake, and summarily expelled in the Spanish Inquisition.” Similarly, he asserts that, “the Jews of Berlin in 1930 also believed they had found the ultimate enlightened home, that the dark days of Europe would never return. And in the space of but a few years, German Jewry was erased.” Here, Gordis conveys a clear message – in the light of a new potential Shoa “American Jewish life as it now exists would not survive the loss of Israel.”
In The Wandering Who I explore the impact of Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Pre-TSD) and I refer in particular to that uniquely Jewish collective tendency to be culturally, spiritually and politically shaped by some phantasmic, imaginary, future, disastrous event. Jewish politics is always formed by future trauma. Accordingly, Gordis message to his fellow Jews is clear. It isn’t the Shoa of the past that should unite us, it is actually, the Shoa ahead that should reawaken our Zionist bond.
Gordis message to American Jews is clear. A strong Israel together with AIPAC’s control of American foreign policy is good for the Jews and any alternative is a recipe for disaster. “When some 400 mostly Orthodox rabbis marched on Washington in the October 1943, President Roosevelt simply refused to meet them and departed the White House via a rear door. There were no mass protests, no caravans of buses to Washington to demand help for their European kin.” Nowadays, the situation has changed dramatically. The presidency of the USA is a democratically elected position reserved for that candidate who has bought the trust of the Jewish Lobby.
“Jews today no longer think of themselves as a tiptoeing people,” says Gordis. And why should they? Thanks to Israel and its powerful lobby, they regard themselves as the most influential and powerful ethnic group on the planet. In America, AIPAC dominates foreign policy, in Britain 80% of leading party MPs are members of the powerful CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) and in France CRIF runs the show. Take it from Gordis a Zionist official mouthpiece; “Israel has changed the existential condition of Jews everywhere, even in America. Without the State of Israel, the self-confidence and sense of belonging that American Jews now take for granted would quickly disappear.” In short, Jews can run the show – but only as long as Israel is unbeatable.
And he’s not wrong. Like so many Zionists, Gordis is both honest and consistent – a quality I rarely find within the Jewish anti-Zionist discourse. Gordis openly admits that we are dealing here with a clear paradox. The sense of belonging and security that leads many American Jews to believe that they do not need the state of Israel is itself a product of that very same state of Israel. That lethal arrogance that led Zionists such as Bernard Henri Levi, or Jewish Chronicle writer David Aaronovitch to advocate interventionist global wars should be seen as the outcome of a strong Jewish State – a state that quite literally gets away with murder.
Symbolic Identifier
In The Wandering Who I suggest that Israel operates as a key Jewish symbolic identifier so that Jews construct their identity in reference to their Jewish state. This is not only true for Zionist Jews but is also the case for those so-called ‘anti Zionist Jews’ whose identity is inherently tied to their opposition to Zionism and Israel. The disappearance of Israel would leave their political identity stark naked. Gordis detects a similar pattern amongst American liberal Jews. “Though many American Jews, especially the younger among them, now believe the loss of Israel would not be tragic, Israel continues to energize them in ways that no other issue does.” Gordis continues “Israel is not just a homeland to Israelis. It is also a ‘state unto the Diaspora’; the state that, even from afar, secures the life and instils the passions of Jews all over the world.” This is true not only for Zionists, but also to those very few Jewish anti-Zionists who, by means of negation, ‘passionately’ cling to Israel.
Apocalypse Soon
Gordis seems to realise that, for Israel, the game is over, but he realises that this may also entail a collapse of Jewish power. “The loss of Israel would fundamentally alter American Jewry. It would arrest the revival of Jewish life now unfolding in parts of Europe. And Israeli Jewry would be no more. The end of Israel would, in short, end the Jewish people as we know it.”
The current ‘Jewish golden epoch’ is coming to its inevitable end. Yet, the question that remains is whether our Zionist and Israeli leaders would let our planet survive the collapse of their latest Jewish empire? Following Netanyahu, Barak and AIPAC’s relentless push for Armageddon, and bearing in mind that collective suicidal narratives such as Samson and Masada are so precious within the Zionist and Israeli discourses, we should stay on high alert. Sadly, turning our planet into dust is fully consistent with the Israeli and Zionist mission.
It is down to world leaders to dismantle Israel and its powerful Jewish lobbies wisely and carefully, accepting all the time that we are dealing with a very lethal entity. But it’s also down to each one of us to be fully attentive to Gordis’s exchange with his fellow Diaspora Jews. It’s down to us to oppose any form or symptom of Jewish power: Zionist, ‘anti’ Zionist and Sabbath Goyim alike. It is down to us to save ourselves and our universe, but also to save the Jews who are, unfortunately, once again, about to bring yet another disaster on themselves and on us all. The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, Jewish political interest, Jewish Lobby and beyond..
Recently while visiting the blog Wake Up From Your Slumber I came across the interview with E. Michael Jones that you can hear in the four videos embedded below. I had actually read Jones’ book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, a year or two back and had for a long time now been intending to post something on it. Problem is where do you begin? The book is 1200 pages long and covers some 2000 years of history. How do you condense all that down to a single blog post? But after listening to the interview below, I finally decided to give it a whirl.
Of course it always helps to know where people are coming from, so I’ll mention right off the bat that Jones is a Roman Catholic, and one of the focuses of his book, perhaps the main one, is the gradual erosion, over a number of centuries, of the Church’s power and authority in Europe, a process in which Jews, as the author shows, played very key and very active roles every step of the way (along with the help of willing Christians), and the eventual displacement of that authority by the rising tide of Jewish power. This is an extremely important area of study because for many, many centuries it was the Catholic Church that kept Jewish power in check. Today the Church no longer plays that role, leaving a void that Islam, fortunately, has stepped in to fill, and while Islam has not been able, at least thus far, to thoroughly check Jewish power as successfully as Christianity once did, it nonetheless stands as one of the only major remaining obstacles to total global domination by Jewish Zionists, which is why Christians and Muslims, now more than ever, need to unite (but I’m getting a bit off topic here).
Initially upon picking up Jones’ book, it was hard for me to wrap my mind around the word “revolutionary” insofar as his use of the term. Having grown up in the sixties, I was accustomed to thinking of revolutionaries as the good guys (think Che Guevara, etc.), and the word has always had, for me, a positive, rather than negative, connotation. But what Jones refers to is that process I described in the previous paragraph, i.e. of overthrowing the power of the Catholic Church and replacing it with Jewish power. Or, to look at it another way (since Jones is a Catholic), the overthrow of God. That’s of course one that secular-minded Westerners would probably choke on their food laughing over, but consider the term Moharebeh. A concept found in Islamic law, the word means “waging war against God.” The fact that no comparable word exists in the English language (or even a comparable idea of such) is probably testimony to the extent of the collapse of the church’s moral authority and the widespread feelings of alienation and powerlessness that permeate Western society today. No such collapse has occurred in the Muslim world, though of course the Zionists are doing their damnedest to engineer it—in Libya, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere.
So in a sense—from Jones’ standpoint, and certainly this is true in the West—the “revolution” has already occurred, and at this point what we are waging—that is to say those of us who oppose Israel and seek to restrain the power of Jewish lobbies in our respective countries—is a counterrevolution. It’s good to understand this, and to make this distinction, when considering the areas into which Jones ventures in this book.
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit has a total of 32 chapters, but in this review, I’ll focus mainly on three—the third chapter, entitled “Rome Discovers the Talmud”; Chapter number 7, “Reuchlin vs. Pfefferkorn”; and the 24th chapter, “The Second Vatican Council Begins.” Chapter 24, along with a subsequent related chapter, covers the Church’s passage of Nostra Aetate, the 1965 document that resulted in a capitulation to Jewish power and ushered in the modern era of “interfaith dialogue”—efforts that have led to little other than Christians being spat upon in Israel and their faith ridiculed in American media.
Rome Discovers the Talmud
Believe it or not, the Church first became acquainted with the contents of the Talmud way back in the year 1236. Before this, the collection of rabbinical writings was virtually unknown among Christians. Its discovery came about when a Jew named Nicholas Donin converted to Christianity and went public with what it contained. As you may imagine, Church leaders were not too thrilled. The church at this time had long operated under Sicut Judaeis non, a policy that had been articulated by Pope Gregory the Great, under which Jews were not to be harmed—but at the same time were to be given no positions of influence. The pope in power at the time Donin made his disclosures was Gregory IX. According to Jones:
He was shocked by what he discovered, but he did not abrogate Sicut Judaeis non and its prohibition against harming the Jew. What changed was his understanding of what the Jews believed and how they acted on those beliefs.
On June 9, 1239, Pope Gregory responded to Donin’s 35 petitions by dispatching him with a letter to William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris. His letter substantiates the changed perception of Jews after discovery of the Talmud. The Jews, Gregory wrote, “so we have heard, are not content with the Old Law which God gave to Moses in writing: they even ignore it completely and affirm that God gave another Law which is called ‘Talmud,’ that is ‘Teaching,’ handed down to Moses orally…In this is contained matter so abusive and so unspeakable that it arouses shame in those who mention it and horror in those who hear it.” The offenses are so great that Gregory uses the word “crime” to describe them. He also claims the Talmud is “the chief cause that holds the Jews obstinate in their perfidy.” He ordered “on the first Saturday of Lent to come, in the morning which the Jews are gathered in the synagogues, you shall, by our order seize all the books of the Jews who live in your districts and have those books carefully guarded in the possession of the Dominican and Franciscan friars.” If the friars found the books offensive, they were to burn them.
Eventually a commission was convened to study the books, its members ultimately finding them “full of innumerable errors, abuses, blasphemies and wickedness.” The panel concluded that the books “cannot be tolerated in the name of God without injury to the Christian faith.” Blasphemies against Christ in the Talmud, along with its injunctions about defrauding unsuspecting goyim, threatened “the conditions under which Jews were tolerated,” as Jones notes, and also “called for rethinking the whole social compact.” The debate raged for several years until finally, in June of 1240, a public forum, under royal auspices, was held, featuring Donin in a debate with a Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:
One Jewish commentator claims “the entire event epitomized the declining status of Jews in that century and their transformation in Christian minds into little more than embodiments of blasphemous doctrine.” The rabbi was dumbfounded that he had to defend Jewish esoteric writings in a hostile environment. Nothing like this had ever happened before. Rabbi Yehiel, lacking precedent for conducting a disputation of this sort, didn’t know how to respond. When asked whether it were true that the Talmud claimed “Jesus was condemned to an eternity in hell, immersed in ‘boiling excrement’” and Mary, his mother, was a whore, the Rabbi could only respond, yes, those passages were in the Talmud but they did not refer to “that” Jesus or “that” Mary. “Not every Louis born in France is the king of France,” Yehiel maintained, giving new meaning to the term “chutzpah.” “Has it not happened,” he continued, “that two men were born in the same city, had the same name, and died in the same manner? There are many such cases.” One Jewish historian referred to Rabbi Yehiel’s denial as the birth of Jewish humor. A Christian account of the debate, however, failed to see the humor in his statement, “Concerning this Jesus, he confessed that he was born out of adultery and that he is punished in hell in boiling excrement and that he lived at the time of Titus.” But Rabbi Yehiel said, “this Jesus is different from our Jesus. However, he is unable to say who he was, whence it is clear that he lied.”
Having exploded his own credibility, Yehiel could do little to refute Donin’s claim that the Talmud sanctioned criminal behavior, including “murder, theft, and religious intolerance.” The Talmud also “included strictures against trusting Gentiles, honoring them or even returning a lost piece of property to them.”
The result of the debate was a public burning of the Talmud in Paris, and as Jones remarks, “The Jewish religion was now clearly seen not as biblical Judaism, but rather as a heretical deviation from the Old Testament.” This is an extremely important point, because by 1962 and the convening of the Second Vatican Council, the contents of the Talmud would substantially disappear down the memory hole and Jews once again would be seen as merely carrying on the tradition of biblical Judaism.
Following the discovery of the Talmud, the Church made Jewish conversions a top priority, yet at the same time, Jews came under closer scrutiny by the Inquisition. In terms of public opinion, “they became revolutionaries, outlaws, and subversives, and by the end of the 13th century, they were universally recognized as such,” says Jones. “The expulsions that followed were the official recognition of status that had its roots in the discovery of the Talmud.” Yet in spite of this, “the Church never changed its position that no one had the right to harm the Jew,” and when Jews came under attack by angry mobs, “the popes were their first defenders.” In fact, the protection they enjoyed from the popes was often viewed critically by kings and princes, who regarded the Jews as subversives. And while there was a “crescendo of conversions,” a number of expulsions also took place. Jews were expelled from Cologne in 1424, from Speyer in 1435, from Mainz in 1438, and finally, in 1492, came the granddaddy of them all—the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella.
Reuchlin vs. Pfefferkorn
Some 270 years after Nicholas Donin, history basically repeated itself when yet another Jew, Josef Pfefferkorn, converted to Christianity and—once again—made public disclosures about the Talmud. By this time, however, as Jones relates, “times had changed” in Europe. The Reformation was in its early years, the Hussite Rebellion had occurred in Bohemia, and cracks had begun to appear in the edifice of Church authority. Furthermore, a process of “Judaizing” of the Christian faith was underway in some areas. As described by the author, “The temptation to look for heaven on earth was known as Judaizing, which took messianic inspiration from a distorted interpretation of the Old Testament.” And Christian “reformers” working to undermine Church authority—often aided and abetted by Jews (as was the case in the Hussite revolt)—saw themselves as modern embodiments of the Jews of the Old Testament. As may be expected, millennialism played a major role in their thinking (not unlike Christian Zionists of today). Heinrich Graetz, a Jewish historian quoted by Jones, puts it this way: “Whenever a party in Christendom opposes itself to the ruling church, it assumes a tinge of the Old Testament, not to say Jewish spirit.” The result being, of course, a de-emphasis on the teachings of Christ in favor of the violence and bloodshed of the Old Testament—certainly the case in the matter of the Hussite Rebellion of the early 15th century, as Jones explains:
Inspired by Israelite genocide in the Old Testament, the Hussite warriors of God earned a reputation for cruelty…Newman claims the Hussites had “personal associations with individual Jews and Jewish communities in their country.” He also claims “Jewish groups participated[ed] actively and publicly in the rise and spread of the [Hussite] movement. According to Newman, Jewish support of heretical movements, especially when they threatened to spill over into political revolutions, “run like dark threads through the history of nearly every movement of reform in European Christendom.”
This pattern, i.e. of Jews lending their support to the Christian Judaizers, was to continue over the next few centuries, and as Jones notes, “before long the trajectory was predictable”—the Judaizers would discard the teachings of Jesus in favor of the Old Testament, rising up against the established Church and urging “reform,” taking up the sword in an effort to “bring about heaven on earth.” And every step of the way the Jews were essentially playing them like a violin. Does any of this sound familiar?
Living much of his life in Cologne, Pfefferkorn (1469-1523) was a prolific writer who produced a number of books and pamphlets on Judaism, or what we might today call “Jewish identity.” Like Donin, he “knew Judaism from the inside out,” Jones tells us. In one pamphlet, Ich bin ain Buchlinn der Juden veindt ist mein namen, or The Enemy of the Jews (1509) he discussed the blasphemies against Jesus, Mary and the apostles, as well as the curses against Christians that Jews would incorporate into their daily prayers:
The Jews, said Pfefferkorn, utter “various insults and shameless words…every day against God, Mary, his most worthy mother, and the whole heavenly host.” The Jews call Jesus “mamser ben hanido,” which is to say, “one born from an unclean union.” Although Pfefferkorn doesn’t say so, “mamser” is traditionally translated “bastard.” The Jews are similarly vehement in denouncing Christ’s mother, callher her a “sono,” which Pfefferkorn translates as “a notorious sinner.” Again Pfefferkorn is discrete; the word means “whore.” Pfefferkorn says the Jews call Christian churches “mosschoff” or “beskisse,” that is [latrines or] shithouses.” Additionally, the Jews “hate the sign of the holy cross and find it quite unbearable. If they see pieces of wood or straw on the ground that are by chance arranged roughly in the shape of a cross, they push it apart with their feet that they may no longer have to look at it.” If a Jew “knowingly crosses a churchyard or listens to an organ,” he “believes that his prayers will not be heard by God for 30 days.”
Pfefferkorn converted to Christianity in 1504, along with his wife and child (whereupon he changed his first name from Josef to Johannes), and in one of his earliest writings, Der Juden Spiegel, or Mirror of the Jews, he attacked usury, confessing that prior to his conversion he had earned money from the practice. “I was born in the Jewish faith and am now, by the grace of God, a Christian,” he wrote. “If I continued to associate with Jews and continued to take usury, what would you say other than that I was in serious sin and that I never really became a Christian, and everyone would condemn me by saying that the blood and suffering of Christ had been lost on me.”
As may be expected, Pfefferkorn came under heavy attack from the Jews of his day. He was accused of criminal activity, and especially noteworthy were the charges found in a document that has been traced to a group of Jews in Regensburg: “Among its milder statements was the claim he (Pfefferkorn)was an illiterate butcher,” remarks Jones. “He was neither illiterate nor was he a butcher, an occupation morally less reprehensible than that of moneylender.”
But it wasn’t only the Jews of Pfefferkorn’s own day. Jones quotes a number of Jewish historians whose works have provided accounts of the time, among these the aforementioned Graetz—a 19th century Jew who became one of the first scholars of the modern era to write a compendious history of the Jewish people:
In his groundbreaking History of the Jews, Heinrich Graetz recites the slanders (against Pfefferkorn) faithfully and uncritically and adds a few of his own, calling Pfefferkorn “an ignorant, thoroughly vile creature,” as well as “the scum of the Jewish people,” and a “noisome insect” who was a tool of the “ignorant and fanatical Dominicans” of Cologne, a city known to be “an owls’ nest of light-shunning swaggerers, who endeavored to obscure the dawn of a bright day with the dark clouds of superstition hostile to knowledge.”
The last point is particularly important to keep in mind, for in those years of the early 16th century, “a new day of enlightened tolerance was about to dawn,” and Pfefferkorn’s Jewish contemporaries were quick to take advantage of it in their organized attacks upon him. The Hermetic texts, lost to Western culture during the Middle Ages, had been re-discovered, translated, and published—significant events, for with their appeals to alchemy and magic, the impact this corpus of writings had upon Renaissance thought and culture was considerable. Europe was about to veer in a new direction and the Church was considered an obstacle.
In part two of his Juden veindt, Pfefferkorn included a section entitled “How the Jews Ruin Land and People,” in which he described the process of usury—how it works and how it is used to impoverish the poor. “Thus the poor Christian, when he has nothing further to pawn, must run away and live out his life in poverty, which happens often and many times.” From there Pfefferkorn went on, in part three, to talk about Jews using their wealth to bribe officials as well as to “cause Christians to commit great sins”—sins in the course of which many Christians, both learned and unlearned, are “led astray” and come “to doubt their faith, as I have shown in other books of mine.”
All of this finally won the ear of the Emperor Maxmillian I, who in 1509 authorized this “anti-Semitic” troublemaker (as Pfefferkorn would no doubt be referred today) to travel throughout “the German empire” for purpose of examining Jewish writings and to “destroy all whose contents were hostile to the Bible and the Christian faith.” Subsequently, however, the emperor, bowing to Jewish pressure and bribery, reversed himself, and instead of having the books destroyed, appointed a commission to study them. Pfefferkorn won a seat on the commission, but luckily for the Jews, the panel was to also to hear testimony from Johannes Reuchlin, a man who, though ironically a Gentile, was to become their valiant ally and Pfefferkorn’s chief detractor.
Though Reuchlin is described by Jones as a “Judaizer,” he also was a highly educated man who had written a number of books, and like many of his time he was quite enamored of magic. Esteemed as a one of the great intellects of Europe, Reuchlin was a particularly avid proponent of the Jewish Caballah, and in 1506 he published De Rudiments Hebraicis, the first Hebrew grammar ever written by a non-Jew. Little wonder, then, the Jews celebrated his involvement with the commission.
Reuchlin claimed the Caballah demonstrated the validity of the Christian faith and also corresponded to the esoteric wisdom of Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Zoroaster. By locating the magical power of his system in the Hebrew language, Reuchlin hoped to evade the dichotomy the Church, following the classical tradition, had established. According to that dichotomy, a man either asked for power over nature, in which case his action was known as prayer and dependent on the permissive will of the deity; or he forced the issue by invoking evil spirits. Caballah seemed to indicate another possibility. The possibility of a middle ground between science and prayer based on the magical effects of angelic names in Hebrew seemed theologically unlikely, but that is the course Reuchlin pursued, hoping to evade the censure of those who claimed he was involved in black magic.
After skimming through the Jewish books that had been seized (it appears he never actually read all of them), Reuchlin recommended only two for destruction—Nizzachon and Toledoth Jeschu—meaning he did not find the Talmud objectionable. Pronouncing the latter “a work which is difficult to understand,” he acknowledged there were many strange ideas found therein, but held that this did not justify suppressing it. “If the Talmud were deserving of such condemnation, our ancestors of many hundred years ago, whose zeal for Christianity was much greater than ours, would have burnt it,” he assured. As for the two works which did merit extirpation in his view, Reuchlin insisted they had no standing in the Jewish community and that “even the Jews themselves regard them as apocryphal.”
But what of Jewish attitudes toward non-Jews? Reuchlin expressed the view that “whether they are inimically disposed toward us in their hearts, only God can say.” As gracious and cordial as that sounded, for the Caballah, of course, Reuchlin had nothing but highest praise, calling it “the most secret speech and words of God,” and asserting that “Jewish commentaries should not and cannot be abandoned by the Christian church, for they keep the special characteristics of the Hebrew language before our eyes.” Furthermore, he asserted that “the Bible cannot be interpreted without them.”
Thus having given the Jews a substantially clean bill of health, Reuchlin then turned his attention on their chief nemesis, insisting that Pfefferkorn’s attacks upon the Talmud were most likely motivated “for private reasons.”
In his report, Reuchlin denounced Pfefferkorn’s writings as the work of an ignorant hatemonger, thus establishing the debate’s parameters: the refined man of letters vs. the ignorant “tauf jud,” a racist slur picked up by Reuchlin’s supporters, including Erasmus of Rotterdam. Pfefferkorn called Reuchlin a Judaizer, a term then in the process of losing its opprobrium among educated humanists.
Says Jones, the debate in fact came down to a “Humanist vs. Scholastic mode,” with Pfefferkorn being staunchly defended by the Dominicans and the theology faculties at the Universities of Cologne and Louvain. In fact, every scholar appointed to the Commission, with the exception of Reuchlin himself, supported Pfefferkorn. But it was all to no avail. In the end, the Emperor decided matters in favor of the Jews.
As a result of Reuchlin’s recommendation, the emperor did not renew the mandate to confiscate the Jewish books. Reuchlin had killed the project, and Pfefferkorn was furious. Pfefferkorn correctly claimed “the Jews bribed Christians in high places…and they filled the ears of the good Emperor with false advice, so that His imperial Majesty gave orders to restore the books to the Jews”…
Having one of the most distinguished Christian scholars in Europe defend the Talmud left Jews rubbing their eyes in amazement. The Jews rushed out to buy Reuchlin’s book, and using their commercial connections, made it an instant bestseller, perhaps the first in history.
The incident paved the way for further changes in Europe, some of them huge, for as Jones notes, Reuchlin had gathered support from “virtually the entire Humanist community”—a group that included Martin Luther and Ulrich von Hutten.
The loser, of course, was the authority of the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council
In June of 1960, a French Jew by the name of Jules Isaac journeyed to Rome where he managed to win an audience with Pope John XXIII. Isaac was an historian, had served as inspector general of France’s public schools, and had written two books on Catholic attitudes toward Jews, Jesus et Israel and Genese de l’Antisemitisme, in which he argued that 1) the Catholic Church had preached an anti-Semitism for 2000 years which, 2) found its ultimate expression in the mass murder of Jews in World War II. “Father Paul De Mann from Paris and Father Gregory Baum, a Jewish convert from Canada, spread his thesis in Catholic circles,” Jones writes. “Baum called Jesus et Israel ‘a moving account of the love which Jesus had for his people, the Jews, and of the contempt which the Christians, later, harbored for them.’”
Pope John’s predecessor, Pope Pius XII, had led the church through the war years, having been nuncio to Germany during the rise of National Socialism, elevated finally to the papacy in 1939. As Jones puts it, Pius “knew the rise of Hitler in Bavaria in 1923 was predicated on the excesses of Jewish Bolshevism there and not on readings of the sermons of St. John Chrysostom or the Gospel of St. John.” But with the death of Pius in 1958, Isaac sensed a “new spirit” blowing through the Vatican and a “window of opportunity for his ideas.” Indeed there was, and attacks upon Pius, not surprisingly, ended up becoming one of the chief strategies employed by Jews in pushing their resolution through the Council.
The story of Vatican II is a complex one, but Jones tells it skillfully and in detail. Initially, at any rate, the Council’s principle aim was not addressing the issue of anti-Semitism. Rather, the key word was aggiornamento, meaning to bring the church “up to date” in its relationship with the modern world. The preliminary documents in fact were already being drawn prior to Isaac’s audience with the pope, and for the most part their objective was not so much to “baptize the Enlightenment,” as Jones puts it, but to “make Catholics aware of a threat to faith and morals coming from the West, in particular, the United States, more particularly, Hollywood.” For some in the Church, represented particularly perhaps by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, American films were “a vehicle for American mores,” which in turn were “undermining the traditional way of life” in predominantly Catholic countries. “Modern life, without doubt, multiplies invitations to evil by such distractions as beauty contests, spectacles, billboards, songs, illustrated magazines, beaches, places of vacation, promiscuity, and certain forms of sport,” one of the early documents asserted. Condemning “the cult of movie stars, naturalism, the so-called sexual education, pansexualism, and certain injurious aspects of psychoanalysis,” the document warned that if the Church lost its hold on sexual morals, it would lose control of “the ordinary way of sanctification for the majority of the human race.” Jones comments:
It didn’t take a genius to know who in America was prominent in supporting “the cult of movie stars, pansexualism and psychoanalysis.” It was the Jews.
Yet at the same time, Isaac found himself amiably received by Pope John. Their meeting took place June 13, 1960, with the pope taking the initiative by “discoursing on his devotion to the Old Testament,” and Isaac responding that such sentiments “kindled great hopes in the people of the Old Testament.” Isaac further told the pope the time had come to fulfill these hopes and expectations, a fulfillment that could only be met with the Church issuing a strong condemnation of anti-Semitism. John had been “thinking along those lines,” and the pope referred the matter to a German Jesuit by the name of Augustin Bea, who had been made a cardinal the previous year. The idea was that Bea would draft a text about Jewish-Christian relations that the Council would consider for adoption. However, as Jones relates:
The pope’s desire soon was transformed into something radically different when it made contact with the realities of 20th century Jewish interest groups and publicity organs. Before long “the people of the Old Testament” were represented by international Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Rather than formulating the Catholic position on the Jews in light of Catholic tradition, Cardinal Bea became a go-between between the Jewish organizations and the Council Fathers, who initially were also under the impression they were dealing with the “people of the Old Testament.” Because the Council Fathers were favorably impressed by Jules Isaac’s petition (as opposed to his books, which they had not read), Isaac was allowed to determine the terms of the debate, becoming the principle theorist for the Vatican’s statement on the Jews.
Though Isaac seems to have made a favorable impression overall with Church authorities, he did have his critics. Viscount Leon de Poncins was a journalist and Catholic essay writer who rose to the occasion by mounting a vigorous campaign against the resolution. Also, perhaps by virtue of being a fellow Frenchman, he seems to have had Isaac pegged to a tee. Poncins called Isaac the main promoter of a “campaign being waged against the traditional teachings of the Church,” and predicted (accurately as it turned out) that Nostra Aetate would become “a weapon designed to overthrow traditional Catholicism, which they consider the chief enemy.” Certainly his words, even then, must have had a ring of truth, but unfortunately not all heeded them. The Second Vatican Council “became a battleground over whose interpretation of the Jews was going to be normative,” as Jones puts it, or, in other words, competing visions over what actually the Jews were and are—“people of the Old Testament,” as Isaac portrayed them, or “the avant-garde of modernity and the promoters of sexual deviance as a covert form of control, as Ottaviani implicitly portrayed them”? Of course, for a good many in the Church, the “goal of condemning anti-Semitism seemed noble enough,” and regrettably “the spirit of the times precluded close theological examination of the terms of the discussion.”
The Second Vatican Council convened in October of 1962, and it came to be seen as a contest between Church liberals and conservatives, or at least that’s how it was portrayed in the media, particularly by Time Magazine and one of its reporters, Robert Blair Kaiser, whose reporting seems to have been anything but objective. The Church was out of sync with the modern world in its attitude toward the Jews, and in an effort to remedy that, the pope had “asked Cardinal Bea to prepare a schema for the Council that would revise the old Catholic story about the Jews killing Christ, and thus bringing eternal damnation on them and their children too,” Kaiser reported at one point, asserting that the New Testament’s crucifixion narrative was “a myth that had nurtured anti-Semitism for centuries.” In general, the portrayal of the Council in the media was as a struggle between “the forces of darkness and reaction”—as symbolized by Ottaviani—and “the forces of light and progress.” Among the “forces of light” were those apparently willing to throw out fundamental aspects of Church doctrine and Catholic teaching in an effort to appease the Jews—and ironically, the more they tried to appease, the more outrageous Jewish demands seem to have become.
B’nai B’rith wanted the Church to delete any language it deemed anti-Semitic from the Catholic liturgy. This was a tall order because the liturgy was based on Scripture that was, if not anti-Semitic, then certainly anti-Jewish. Virtually the entire Gospel of St. John and the Acts of the Apostles revolved around the conflict between the Jews who accepted Christ as their savior and the Jews who rejected him. Since those texts were central to any Catholic liturgy and full of invidious comparisons between the New Israel, the Catholic Church, and the Old, repudiated by Christ for its blindness and obstinacy, it was hard to see how dialogue could succeed. Unless, of course, the purpose of dialogue was something other than what it claimed to be.
Opponents of the declaration “claimed that ulterior motives had been driving the discussion from the beginning”—one ulterior motive, of course, being to deal the Catholic Church a crippling blow, a church which at the time, as Jones notes, enjoyed almost “universal esteem.” But as in previous eras of history, the Jews had no trouble finding Christians willing to join their cause. As the discussions progressed, Bea seemed to gravitate increasingly into the Jewish camp, being picked up by limousine at one point for a meeting with Jews at the Park Plaza Hotel in New York, while meanwhile in Rome, Time’s reporter, Kaiser, turned his spacious apartment into “a gathering place for conciliar progressives…those who were pushing hardest for updating everything and doing so with high hilarity.” A series of “soirees” were held in Rome, with Hollywood director Otto Preminger in attendance at one, but as Jones notes:
By this point the Jewish lobbying was beginning to cause a reaction. Pamphlets on the Jews began to appear at the Council. The Jews and the Council in the Light of Holy Scripture by Bernardus offered the most rational presentation from the official Church standpoint. Its message: Scripture states clearly that the Jews were voluntary deicides; the Fathers of the Church supported this doctrine. St. Thomas of Aquinas wrote that the attitude of the Roman Pontiffs can only be interpreted as an affirmation that the Jews partake of a world-wide plot to destroy the Church. Hence, all should be wary of the Jew and not destroy a foundational dogma of the Church.
The Council’s third session began in the fall of 1964, resulting, by November, in passage of “a document on the Jews so heavily influenced by Jewish lobbying that many thought it repudiated traditional Catholic teaching.” As Jones notes, “the Jews rejoiced, but their rejoicing was short-lived” when the schema was rejected by Pope Paul VI. The latter had become pope upon the death of John the previous year, and now he found himself faced with the “unenviable prospect” of having to mediate between warring factions within the Church. And at this point it was the conservatives, that is to say those opposing the declaration, who were gaining the upper hand. In October of 1965, Poncins showed up at the Council carrying thousands of copies of a pamphlet he had written entitled Le Problème Juif face au Concile, or “The Jewish Problem vis-à-vis the Council,” in which he committed the unpardonable, “anti-Semitic” sin of quoting directly from Jewish texts. Among those quoted were Isaac himself, who had previously attacked the Church in writing, calling its teachings:
a tradition which, moreover, is infinitely noxious and murderous, and which, as I have said and shall repeat, leads to Auschwitz—Auschwitz and other places. Some six million Jews were liquidated solely because they were Jews and thus brought shame not only upon the German people but upon the whole of Christianity, because without centuries of Christian teaching, preaching and vituperation, Hitler’s teaching, propaganda and vituperation would have been impossible.
Isaac had also labeled the Gospel of Matthew “obviously tendentious,” and accused the Church fathers of being “persecutors filled with anti-Jewish hatred.” Comments Jones:
Poncins maintained in his tract that the Schema of November of 1964 passed because the bishops were ignorant of Isaac’s true feelings toward Christianity, but, more broadly, they were ignorant of the difference between the Torah and the Talmud. The former is the Word of God; the latter is its antithesis. The Talmud, Poncins pointed out, was a post-Christian confection designed to keep Jews from converting to Christianity. After the destruction of the Temple, “The Talmud replaced the Torah as the foundation of all wisdom and the guide in every detail of daily life.” The point of the Talmud was “to consummate the definite break from triumphant Christianity.” So “The imposition of the ideals of the Talmud on the new branch of Judaism has been the calamity of the Jewish people even to this day.”…
The schema was dangerous because “it put the Church in the position of the accused, guilty of the permanent, unjustifiable and unatonable crime of anti-Semitism for two thousand years.” Beyond that, it questioned “the good faith and truthfulness of the Evangelists, of St. John and St. Matthew in particular, it discredited the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and of the great doctrinarians of the papacy by depicting them in distasteful colors; in short, it threatened to demolish the very bastions of Catholic doctrine.”
Poncins also argued against viewing modern-day Jews as “the people of the Old Testament,” demonstrating that their desire was not a Messiah, but “a terrestrial reign in which they will control the social, economic and political life of the nations…Judaism seeks to impose itself as the sole standard and to reduce the world to Jewish values.” Keep in mind, this was written in 1965. Clearly a man in many respects ahead of his time, Poncins concluded that the Jewish schema was an attack on the Church “under the banner of ecumenism,” and that in allowing Jews unprecedented access in the formulation of the document, the Church had provided them with a means of carrying a “war…into the very interior of the Church itself.”
As may be expected, given Pope Paul’s “unenviable prospects” in trying to negotiate an end to the strife, what ended up passing was a document that seemingly offered concessions to both sides.
The schema on the Jews was incorporated into a “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” known as Nostra Aetate, promulgated by the Council on October 28, 1965…On the whole, the conservatives were jubilant, and the Jews were disappointed, but the results in light of the actual document were mixed. Jews were disappointed that the charge of deicide was not rebuked. But conservatives were disappointed the text did not implicate all the Jews in deicide. In one of the cleverest lines in the document, the Council Fathers wrote, “Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. John 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion.” According to the principles of logic, that statement could be taken to assert that some Jews were responsible for Christ’s death. If we exclude from that group the Blessed Mother, the Beloved Disciple, and all of the other Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah, we come up with a statement that is largely faithful to the gospels texts.
But it didn’t end there. The Church was left divided, while “an indignant press campaign” ensued, provoking even more controversy, and Jones believes that in essence both sides ended up losing. Those who supported the document were accused of having sold out to international Jewry, while opponents were held practically “co-responsible” for the rise of Hitler. Furthermore, the disjunction between the Jews of Christ’s time, and those of today, raised a double standard on the issue of “collective responsibility”:
Jews could hold the German people accountable for Hitler’s crimes, forcing generations of German taxpayers to pay billions in reparations to Jewish organizations and the state of Israel. But Jews vehemently denied collective responsibility for the death of Christ. The Council’s schema tried to have it both ways, repudiating the claim the Romans alone were responsible for Christ’s death, but limiting Jewish guilt to Jewish leaders and their followers. As Poncins points out, in the case of Germany in the 20th century, “The whole people is considered responsible and subsequently punished for faults officials committed by its leaders, even when [those faults] are unknown to a great part of the people.” On the other hand, the Gospel accounts make clear that many Jewish people in Jerusalem were aware of what their leaders were doing and supported them in their efforts.
In addition to the above, one other factor figured prominently—most likely unanticipated saving perhaps by Poncins and a few others—namely the power of the Jewish media, for the Church ultimately lost control over the document’s interpretation. While Nostra Aetate had its share of “clever” lines, there were also passages that aided the “hijacking” of the resolution’s meaning, with Jones pointing to the following as one of the most glaring examples: “The Church…deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” Thus the document condemns anti-Semitism, but, and this became the crucial point, without defining the meaning of the term. It was “an omission of truly catastrophic proportions,” says Jones, and here we might again consider the words of Poncins:
In Jewish eyes, every measure of defense and protection against the penetration of Jewish ideas and conceptions, against anti-Christian Jewish heresies, against Jewish control of the national economy, and in general every measure of defense of national Christian traditions is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, many Jews consider that the very fact of the recognition of the existence of a Jewish question constitutes a declaration of anti-Semitism…
Jules Isaac accuses all the Fathers of the Church of anti-Semitism…He accuses them of having unleashed the savagery of the beast and of being the real people responsible for German anti-Semitism and the gas chambers at Auschwitz. He finds them even worse that Hitler and Streicher and others for their system resulted in the Jews being tortured slowly and being left to live and suffer interminably…Does the Church admit Jules Isaac’s thesis and plead guilty?
For the next four-plus decades, Nostra Aetate would be used exactly as Poncins had predicted, i.e. as “a weapon designed to overthrow traditional Catholicism,” or as another writer described it, it was “the cornerstone of the abusive relationship that has hamstrung the Catholics.” By way of example, we might point to the passion play performed at the Bavarian village of Oberammergau. The play is a huge production and has a long tradition dating back to the year 1634, but one year after the passage of Nostra Aetate, the American Jewish Congress demanded that directors of the play make changes in the script or face a boycott. In support of its efforts, the AJC marched out a bevy of celebrities including Arthur Miller, Lionel Trilling, Stanley Kunitz, Leonard Bernstein, Leslie Fiedler, Theodore Bikel, Irving Howe, and Alfred Kazin, and even several German writers, including George Steiner, Guenter Grass (yes, that Guenter Grass), Heinrich Boell, and Paul Celan. Also in support of the effort was Elie Wiesel, whose account of his Auschwitz experience in recent years has been highly challenged, but in November of 1966, Wiesel, surrounded by the other celebrities, held a news conference in New York where he asserted:
The artist cannot be silent when the arts are used to exalt hatred. If the people of Oberammergau feel that they cannot faithfully represent their vision except through an explicitly anti-Semitic text, then others have no choice but to denounce that vision and urge that all who share our view join with us in condemning the performance.
Jews even enlisted Catholic theologians in their efforts, but the greatest weapon in their arsenal was Nostra Aetate, or as one Jewish writer put it, “Oberammergau was caught between the anvil of Vatical II and the hammering criticism of Jewish groups.” Caught not so much because of what the document said, but, as Jones argues, “because the Church could never make its interpretation of its own document prevail over the interpretation which the Jews wanted to impose on it.” Not surprisingly, the Bavarians made concessions. But of course, the more ground they gave, the more the Jews demanded of them. Changes to the play were adopted in 1970, in 1980, and again in 1984. The lesson to be drawn is that “interfaith dialogue” is always a one-way street—with Jews making demands, and Christians giving in. So it has been in the past, and so it remains to this day.
***
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is a remarkable look back at the past, but it is even more than that. By understanding history, we understand the world we live in today, and Jones provides an invaluable service in helping us to understand the “revolutionary spirit” of Jewish power—how it operates, how it evolved, and how it maintains itself. Besides the three chapters I have covered here, you’ll find others, focusing on various periods of history, particularly of the last 500 years, offering insights into what at times seems like a living, breathing animus…as well as the volatile reactions that sometimes occur when that animus (the “revolutionary spirit,” as it were) comes into contact with unsuspecting Gentiles. I’m talking about events such as England’s consolidation as a Protestant, and philosemitic, power under the reigns of Cromwell and Queen Elizabeth I; the rise of Freemasonry; and the Russian revolution—all events in which, as most of us are well aware, key roles were played by Jews.
But other historical offshoots—episodes lesser-known, perhaps, but in which Jews nonetheless played equally significant roles behind the scenes—are also covered here. Jones includes a chapter on the Jewish criminal Leo Frank, who in 1913 murdered a 14-year-old girl employed as a child laborer in his factory in Atlanta. We also get the American Civil War, the civil rights movement, as well historical portraits of figures like Frederick Douglas, Marcus Garvey, and Lorraine Hansberry—with the book culminating finally in chapters on the Jewish takeover of American culture and the rise of the neoconservatives. Jones packs it with information every step of the way, and basically what he gives us is “the other side of the story,” the parts of history that somehow got left out of school textbooks (textbooks which, if we looked closely enough, we’d probably find were published by Jewish-owned publishing houses). No doubt, were it to become a bestseller, such a book would pose a public relations nightmare to Jews.
This is not to say I don’t have some criticisms. I do. Like many Christians of both the past and present, Jones takes a dim view of the ancient Gnostics, and in an early chapter of the book he discusses Irenaeus, a bishop in the early church, who in the second century condemned Gnosticism in his tract, Adversus Haereses, or “Against Heresies.” Writes Jones:
Irenaeus’ work, as its title implies, was written to combat heresy, specifically Gnosticism, but in entering that fray he had to deal with the Jews, acknowledging “from the very beginning of the Gnostic attack on Christianity,” that Gnosticism was associated with judaizing.
Far from attacking Christianity, many, if not most, Gnostics were Christians themselves. Moreover, such views would seem to overlook Gnostic groups such as the Sethians and the Marcionites, who were very much opposed to worshipping the God of the Old Testament, and who, at least in the case of the Marcionites, sought to eliminate the Old Testament entirely from the Christian canon of sacred literature. Had that happened, the course of history, needless to say, would have been quite different. The Judaizers—neither they of Pfefferkorn’s time, nor those of today—would have had a leg to stand on.
Another quibble I have with the book is the omission of a bibliography. The book is extremely well documented, with roughly 5,000 source notes, but Jones habitually refers to the numerous authors he quotes by last name only, which leaves you with the task of going back through hundreds of footnotes searching for the initial author citation and the title of the work quoted. The inclusion of a bibliography would have eliminated this problem.
All in all, however, this is an extremely important work and one that should be read any and all concerned about Jewish supremacism and the extent of Jewish power in the world today.
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is published by Fidelity Press, South Bend, Indiana. The book is available for order here.
***
A couple of other things I’ll mention quickly before cutting to the videos. Firstly, a brief elucidation regarding a “red thread” that gets mentioned during the interview but that unfortunately is never elaborated upon—on page 19, in the book’s introduction, Jones talks about a tradition recorded in the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 31b), of Jewish priests in the second-temple era supposedly determining how successful temple sacrifices had been—i.e. “successful” in terms of expiating the sins of the Jews—through observance of a scarlet thread. If the thread turned white, the sacrifice had been accepted by God and the sins expiated. “According to Schoeman, the Talmud itself ‘unwittingly confirms’ that the Temple sacrifices failed 40 years before the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d. (i.e. at the time Christ died and the veil covering the Holy of Holies was rent in two) when it “recounts that from that time on…the scarlet thread never again turned white,” writes Jones.
And finally, a new interview with Jones has just been posted at The Ugly Truth. Though quite interesting, the interview deals primarily with current events in the Middle East rather than with the book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Uprooted Palestinian 
![90ae[1]](http://rehmat1.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/90ae1.jpg)
Uprooted Palestinian 