Semitic Controversies

Jews and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 19:36:00 +0000

As a continuation of my series of articles looking into what I have termed the 'jewish achievement' lists: I have investigated the winners of the United States National Medal of Technology and Innovation. This medal; created in 1980 with the first medals being awarded in 1985, is governed by US Department of Commerce with the nominations being passed through a technical evaluation committee and a FBI security check before the final selections are made by the current US Secretary of Commerce. (1)

Now obviously this makes the appointment subject to potential political involvement (2) although I must confess that with this particular award I cannot see any pattern to the awards in terms of politics. Now before I go onto the results of my investigation into the winners of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation: I will note that I have deliberately left out organizations; both corporate and academic, which have been awarded the medal as they are almost impossible to assign a national origin to.

In addition I have categorized the winners of the medal by their biological origin as opposed to their country of origin. The reasons for this I have covered in detail elsewhere, (3) but to briefly summarize: as 'jewish achievement' lists invariably use the widest possible definition of jewishness (i.e. any jewish ancestry, having converted to Judaism or even having a common jewish surname) then I have sought to replicate that by utilizing the fact that jews regard themselves as a biological group. In order to group the maximum number of winners as jewish, while comparing them to the number of winners from other biological groups to ensure that the comparative elements are calculated on a parallel definition enabling conclusions to reasonably be drawn.

By my count up to 2010 (4) the medal has been awarded to 171 individuals.

This breaks down as follows:

Jewish Winners: 21

European Winners: 137

Indian Winners: 7

Other Winners: 6

Expressed as percentages these are:

Percentage of Jewish Winners: 12.3 percent

Percentage of European Winners: 80.1 percent

Percentage of Indian Winners: 4.1 percent

Percentage of Other Winners: 3.5 percent

Now in the above statistics it is clear that those of European origin are disproportionately represented to the point where the number of winners that come from this biological group are nearly eight times the number of winners from the next largest biological group (the jews). This group is in turn three to four times the number of winners from the other two groupings that I have used (the Indians and then everyone else [i.e. 'Other Winners']).

Some might argue that fully four-fifths of winners being of European biological origin suggests political bias or is explained by the requirement that the individuals have American citizenship. To answer this we need but simply understand that the prize was first awarded in 1985 at which time any discrimination; such as there was, against the jews by the American establishment had long since been dropped. (5) This means that the jews should have no barriers to their recognition, but yet relatively few (only 21) have been recognised in a time when jews have been disproportionately represented among American research academics. This means that we cannot admit the argument that the jews have performed so poorly in comparison to their advantageous position because of 'discrimination': thus the reason has to be sought elsewhere (however locating it is not the focus of this article).

Indeed the lack of discrimination is indicated in the fact that more blacks have won the National Medal of Technology and Innovation than have won a Nobel Prize (if you exclude 'peace prize' winners) as well as the fact that there are seven Indian winners.

Clearly then jewish under-performance and European over-performance cannot be explained away in terms of negative and positive discrimination so thus the statistics must stand for all to see.

References

(1) See http://www.uspto.gov/about/nmti/index.jsp#heading-1 [Last Accessed: 08/06/2013]

(2) Covered in relation to the Nobel Prizes in the following article: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/01/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus.html

(3) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus.html and http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-jewish-achievement-lists-are.html

(4) The data on winners is only available up to 2010. See http://www.uspto.gov/about/nmti/recipients/index.jsp [Last Accessed: 08/06/2013]

(5) Lucy Dawidowicz, 1982, 'On Equal Terms: Jews in America 1881-1981', 1^st Edition, Holt, Reinhart and Winston: New York, pp. 162-164

Note on a Syrian Chronicle from 754 to 813 A.D.

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 15:40:00 +0000

I do not normally write very short articles about small notices of jews in semi-anonymous chronicles here (often ascribed in this instance to Michael the Syrian), but I thought to make an exception in this case because it gives the reader a sense of the power of the jews in the lands of Islam during the early years of Islamic imperialism at the expense of all and sundry.

To wit the chronicle fragment relates that:

'And in the year, a thousand and eighty-three he deposed `Abbas [from G'zirtho] and in his place appointed Musa the son of Mus`ab, a Jew. Similarly [in Chalkis also] he appointed [a man] whom they call Musa the son of Sulaiman, both of them fierce and [unjust] men. [And he gathered all the money] of the world into the treasury, until no drachma or [denarius] was to be found [except with the merchants.]' (1)

The above likely means very little to my readers so let me explain a little.

The above is in relation to the appointment as governor of al-Jazirah, which consists of most of what is now Iraq and parts of Syria and Iran. The two warring parties are al-Abbas (an Arab) and Musa ibn Mus'ab (a jew).

Al-Abbas had been appointed to the governorship by the Abbasid caliph (i.e. the Islamic version of the Pope) al-Mansur aka Abu Jafar and then deposed by Musa ibn Mus'ab who was then himself deposed the next year. Although we should note that Musa ibn Mus'ab was much in favour with the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur as he ended his days as the Caliph's governor of Egypt. (2)

The reason for Musa ibn Mus'ab's deposition is made clear by the chronicle fragment in that this jew; who ruled Al-Jazirah in the name of Islam, was avaricious beyond belief and simply taxed his subjects to death leading to a revolt against him which threw off his yoke. It is also important to note that the jews; the chronicles reference to 'the merchants', did not suffer; or suffered proportionately less, than the other people of al-Jazirah under the Judeo-Islamic yoke of Musa.

What this fragment from the chronicle makes very clear once again is that the jews were very powerful in the Islamic world; as they were in the Christian world at about the same time, for similar reasons in that they were disproportionately represented among the Middle Class (i.e. the merchants in medieval Christian and Islamic society) and as such held the pursue strings which they could use to protect themselves from the religious and secular rulers of both societies.

It adds but another small piece of the puzzle in relating what I have come to the term the Islamo-jewish alliance against the West till the seventeenth/eighteenth century when the jews began to ally more with philosophic rationalists and Protestant Christian clerics in Europe in preference to the declining power of Islam and the burgeoning power of the West.

References

(1) E. Brooks, 1901, 'A Syriac fragment: Chronicle 754-813 AD', Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 54, p. 221

(2) Al-Tabari, Hugh Kennedy (Ed. And Trans.), 1990, 'Al-Mansur and al-Mahdi', 1^st Edition, State University Press of New York: Albany, p. 71, n. 192

Ghewond on the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:49:00 +0000

Ghewond's Chronicle; or his history depending how you wish to describe it, is our sole surviving eighth century Armenian description of the Arab conquests against the Byzantine Empire among others. It is important precisely because it is our sole surviving source on this angle of the Islamic war of expansion against the Eastern Roman Empire (by then rechristened as the Byzantine Empire). Ghewond's text is often used extensively by scholars in relation to Byzantine, Armenian and Arab affairs at the time. (1)

It contains a single reference to the jews, but the reference is a most important one given the problem presented by radical Islam in the world today and the fact that modern jews frequently style themselves and their ancestors as being unyielding foes of it.

To wit:

'Once Heraclius' son [Constantine III, 613-641] had come to rule in his father's stead, the Lord awakened the spirits of malevolent men so that through them the blood of Christians would be shed in vengeance, because we had sinned before the Lord God. [The Arabs] began to form brigades and mass troops against Constantine's realm, against Judaea and Asorestan, having for support the command of their law-giver, that sower of darnel, to "Go against the countries and put them under your rule, for the plenty of the world has been given to us for our enjoyment. Eat the meat of the select ones of the countries, and drink the blood of the mighty." The Jews were their supporters and leaders, having gone to the camp at Madiam and told them: "God promised Abraham that He would deliver up the inhabitants of the world in service [to him]; and we are his heirs and sons of the patriarch. Because of our wickedness, God became disgusted with us and lifted the scepter of kingship from us, subjecting us to the servitude of slavery. But you, too, are children of Abraham and sons of the patriarch. Arise with us and save us from service to the emperor of the Byzantines, and together we shall hold our realm." [The Arabs] were encouraged further hearing this, and went against Judaea.' (2)

The important point in the above is the role of the jews in Ghewond's account in that the Arabs were preparing to attack the Byzantine empire regardless of jewish involvement, but this attack could have come at any point in the future. It would not necessarily come about for a generation perhaps longer, but for the intervention of the jews who whispered in the ears of the followers of Mohammed that the jews of the Byzantine empire would rise up to fight with the Muslims.

In return for the support of their kin as a fifth column inside the Byzantine Empire: the jews demanded that they be given a major hand in governing the resulting Islamic empire by dint of the fact of Ghewond phrase 'together we shall hold our realm' and his reference to the jews as 'leaders'. In other words in Ghewond's chronicle we see indications of the formation of an Islamo-jewish alliance against the Christian East in order that together they should rule the Christians. (3)

It is important to remember that Ghewond clearly tells us that this plot against the Christian East was not just restricted to jews in Islamic lands, but rather part of a plot by the jews in both Islamic lands as well as the lands ruled by the Byzantine Empire. This then allows us to begin to put to bed the lie that the jews were persecuted beyond reason in the lands of Islam and that the rise of Islam was abhorrent to jew and Christians alike.

In fact it was a case of the jews being allied with the Muslims to subjugate and massacre the Christians!

References

(1) For example see Anne Elizabeth Redgate, 2007, 'Morale, cohesion and power in the first centuries of Amatuni Hamshen', pp. 3-18 in Hovann Simonian, 2007, 'The Hemshin: History, Society and Identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey', 1^st Edition, Routledge: New York

(2) Ghewond 1 (I have used Robert Bedrosian's translation as it is the only complete one that I could find. This is available at the following address: http://rbedrosian.com/ghew1.htm.)

(3) For background see Ira Lapidus, 2002, 'A History of Islamic Societies', 2^nd Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 33-34

The Myth of the 'Good Jew'

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:15:00 +0000

Some time ago I remember reading a translated letter-cum-article from the Third Reich which was hosted by Randall Bytwerk’s ‘German Propaganda Archive’ at Calvin College. The thing that caught my eye about it was really the subject that it partially addressed: the idea that there is such a thing as a ‘good jew’. (1)

To put this in a more understandable way: when you are talking to individuals or groups about the perfidy and crimes of the jews as a group. Then you almost invariably are told by one or more individuals that they know of ‘good jew’ who meets all their personal criteria of a praiseworthy individual.

This individual can be conservative, opposed to immigration, opposed to Israel, for European nationalism and so on or they can a socially-minded jew, opposed to Zionism, active in the fight against the Israel Lobby and so on.

This ‘good jew’; so you are invariably told, is an ‘exception to the rule’ and is an example which jews could follow to become creditable individuals as a group and disproves that all jews are necessarily evil creatures. You are also told that this ‘good jew’; and the presumed existence of those like them, is why they cannot credit the jews; as a group, as being the enemy, because there will always be jews who do credible things and oppose the negative trends that emanate among their own people before being dispersed among the gentiles.

The interesting thing about this claimed 'good jew' is that they are amorphous in so far as they have no definite form in that they can quickly change characteristics when the individual describing them changes their preferences or is in different company.

In one particular setting when the individual concerned seeks to defend jews from being regarded as unscrupulous and greedy bankers then their 'good jew'; who remember is supposed to be a real person, may take on the qualities of the philanthropic capitalist concerned with social justice and sustainable development. A jew like the public image that George Soros tries to present to the world.

In another setting that same individual seeking to defend the jews from being regarded as liberal-supporting homo-enabling gun-grabbing Democratic Party flunkies will style their 'good jew' as being a radically reactionary Republican who is a fanatical NRA member, regards homosexuality as unnatural and thinks that Ronald Reagan was a socialist.

If we understand that this 'good jew' has characteristics that can be quickly assigned and then then removed as the situation warrants then we can begin to see that the jew concerned is not an actual person per se, but rather an archetype. The dual point of that archetype is simply utilitarian in that it; in the first instance, is meant to steer conversation away from politically incorrect or potentially explosive topics such as the jews, their affiliations and/or their influence. The second is that it is meant to act as a defensive shield for the individual concerned when and if they are accused or believe that they are thought to held opinions which could in a certain light be perceived as 'anti-Semitic' which is; of course, frequently subject to (usually fairly extreme) social sanction.

In essence the 'good jew' is simply an amorphous projection on the part of the individual who is using them and they do not actually in and of themselves exist. It is but an inversion of what scholars call 'the other'; i.e. the 'enemy', in that the enemy of a given ideological system or religion is dehumanized and is completely androgyne and formless in that they have no concrete characteristics other than their distinct lack of them. (2)

Rather than this concept of 'the other' being applied to an individual or group's perceived enemy in this case it is actually being applied to an individual or group's perceived friend. The meaning of that is quite simple in that it is an irrational abstract creation to serve a utilitarian purpose; as I have described above, which still acts as a lightening rod to shift blame but rather than do it directly onto a perceived enemy it is does it by suggested that the perceived enemy of an individual or group is contradicted by the presence of an equally androgyne and formless creature in the mythic 'good' individual from that 'other'.

So it could be a good jew, a Christian Freemason, a philanthropic Satanist and so on. The concept revolves around the fact that the 'good' or 'evil' 'other'; if you will, doesn't have any fixed characteristics and thus deflects blame in differing ways making them utilitarian to an individual within social groups which have; as part of their group norms, the belief that an 'evil other' is in some way responsible or to blame that 'other' themselves as they aren't blaming or using an existent individual and thus cannot be contradicted unless closely questioned (which is very unlikely in most social situations).

This then means that suggesting there is a 'good jew' is a meaningless thing to do and to demonstrate this to those who doubt this then I would suggest asking yourself the following two simple questions.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a 'good Nazi'?

If one indeed existed would that then mean that all Nazis were good or at least neutral?

In both instances I think we can reasonably suggest that many readers will respond by saying that there is no such thing as a good Nazi and that even if there were then this wouldn't mean that all Nazis were good or neutral.

So then ask yourself why then would a 'good jew' contradict the rule; if they indeed existed, as if they do then so do 'good Nazis': do they not?

References

(1) http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/schotte.htm

(2) For a brief overview of how this categorization works please see: Roisin Healy, 2001, 'Anti-Jesuitism in Imperial Germany: The Jesuit as Androgyne', pp. 153-155 in Helmut Walser Smith, 2001, (Ed.), 'Protestants, Catholics and Jews in Germany 1800-1914', 1^st Edition, Berg: New York

Jews in the News

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:46:00 +0000

(Week Ending: 02/06/2013)

[Part 2]

Continuing where we left off yesterday we have been treated to another dose of 'Samson Option' style madness by Israel with the news that the Russians have at least partially delivered President Assad's order of anti-ship missiles with accompanying mobile launchers with demands coming in from Bibi Netanyahu's political allies that he stop practicing his kosher yodeling on the Golan Heights and order Israeli attacks on the Russians who are such insolent swine that they have honoured a trade agreement with a government that Yahweh's tribe of itinerant Messiahs officially disapprove of.

It is however worth noting that the Israel Lobby is being remarkably quiet about the Western powers arming of the revolutionary armed forces of Kashrut; formerly known as Beirut (popularly known as the 'Free Syrian Army'), and when jews stop claiming credit for something they perceive to be potentially controversial then you can usually make a safe bet that they are waist-deep in some inflammatory behaviour that if discovered would set a good part of the geographic locale; or at least a passing Sheikh's hairdo, on fire.

I guess on that score you could compare jews to the 'Doodlebugs' (German V1 rockets) during the 'second Blitz' in that you knew you were fine while you heard the engine going, but as soon as it is stopped you ducked for cover because you knew something was going to go 'Boom!'

Staying with another Britain-related article; albeit tangentially, we have been graced with the news this week that the incompetent bumblers known to anyone who reads the British papers as the security firm G4S. Fresh from miserably failing their contractual obligations in relation to the London 2012 Olympics have found their true calling in life: assisting Israel in terrorizing the Palestinians.

Their employees probably couldn't spot an Al-Qaeda operative who was lecturing all and sundry in the locale about the virtues of human combustion aided with a few pounds of high explosive, but hey what does it matter to G4S?

It is just easy money...

Speaking of easy money: Germany has criminally and rather stupidly agreed to pay 'Holocaust survivors'... sorry let me correct that... the 'Claims Conference' that 'represents them' some 800 million dollars.

There are two things that immediately strike one about that: in the first instance what on earth is Germany paying more money to an organization that is known to be corrupt? As it casually allowed 57 million dollar of its own money to walk out of the door in spite of having known about the corruption since 2001 and failing to do anything about it till 2009!

The second is to wonder where on earth all these coffin-dodging 'Holocaust survivors' (like the nephew of German-hating jewish novelist Lion Feuchtwanger who is now styling himself as 'Hitler's Jewish Neighbour') have come from given that according to orthodox 'Holocaust history' (such as it is anyway) the Germans gassed all the non-teenage children on arrival. Even if all; or even most, of these individuals are 'Holocaust survivors' then one also has to wonder why it is Germany's responsibility to give them handouts considering they have paid billions upon billions to the jews in 'restitution' to these jewish organizations who have promptly squandered said money!

Why not do something refreshing and go overturn the tables of the jewish money-changers in their 'Holocaust' temples?

Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do after all?

Oh and another jew; this time one who makes his living peddling fables to the easily-bamboozled in Latin America, has called the Germans sub-human and referred to them as beyond the pale of jewish forgiveness.

Perhaps said jew would like to tell us why jewish forgiveness is just so important to Germans?

One does wonder...

That said at least one Polish historian told the jews where to go and shove their 'Holocaust' and was promptly dismissed from his position for it. While a joke about shoving jews into ovens got two employees fired in Iowa and French students are being accused of 'gross anti-Semitism' for staging a comic parody about jews and Israel. We've also been treated to the news that the jews were heavily involved in bits of the famous later manifestations of the Ku Klux Klan, which would make the Klan less about klucking and more about kvetching wouldn't it?

Perhaps some Hasids decided to try white robes rather than black ones to see if they could set the next ultra-Orthodox fashion trend?

The eternally gloomy Norwegians however have decided to brighten up the week by publishing a delightfully vicious anti-circumcision cartoon in one of their major daily papers (informed sources suggest that this was because a jew demanded the abolition of Scandinavian languages this week), which has predictably got jews squawking; like chickens about to have a date with a kosher butcher, about 'anti-Semitism'.

Such cartoons are obviously not 'anti-Semitic' to anybody who knows what the term actually means; which most jews seem ignorant of. Or perhaps they; as the supreme masters of the universe, have a deep mystical understanding that us mere mortals cannot hope to understand, but that is doubtful considering the amount of times one encounters jews doing stupid things like wandering into 'anti-Semitic' lamp-posts in the city that never sleeps. Part of the reason for that popular appellation of course is the number of jews who keep the populace up all night trying to demand that Talmudic; not American, law be applied to their parking fines.

This tide of 'anti-Semitic' lamp-posts; let alone the occasional jew-hating traffic warden is presumably part of the alleged 'global tsunami of hate' that is being thrown against the jews: the US State Department agrees and is presently planning; with the aid of the newly-appointed 'Special Envoy' on anti-Semitism, to send in the bulldozers against all offending lamp-posts as well as unleash the dogs of war; or at least a couple of yapping poodles that have escaped from the local Korean restaurant, on traffic wardens who haven't swatted up on their Talmudic lore lately.

Don't be fooled however this plague of dangerously anti-Semitic lamp-posts and jew-baiting traffic wardens has also spread to Italy, which according to one jewish 'expert' is possibly more anti-Semitic than the Third Reich.

The jews have however not been slow to act as they are demanding that the Greek government pass an 'anti-racism' law meant to make Greece 'safe for jews' (but rather unsafe for Greeks). Indeed the law is aimed at banning the patriotic Golden Dawn party (who are apparently prolific recruiters of lamp-posts and traffic wardens) and the jews have told Greece in no uncertain terms that if they don't play ball... well they'll unleash the demasculated duo on them: Bill Clinton and Al Gore

After all don't you know that only Israel really wants world peace and tries to get everybody to place nice in the Middle Eastern sandbox?

Well that is when it isn't practising racial segregation in theme parks anyway...

That said at least Israel doesn't overtly state that it hates the United States like Adam Levine although its political figures are possibly among the most corrupt in the world. Although one of its citizens-by-proxy has managed to be caught being a drugs trafficker and money-launderer in Bolivia while having hilariously convinced himself that Sean Penn is actually an expert investigator and criminal lawyer.

Somebody has been watching too many Hollywood blockbusters again...

If he really wanted to get rich quick then he should have become a jewish lawyer in New York City and charge 701 million dollars in fees for 'attempting' to recover the money that jewish Ponzi scheme swindler; Mr. Madoff, convinced greedy jews to give him so that they could fill a swimming pool with their gold.

If trying to defraud the yokels; or in this case the US Postal Service, out of their savings doesn't appeal; as jews seem to be always getting 'framed' for doing (when was a jew ever 'guilty' of anything?), then the life of a prostitute's pimp must surely appeal although this is also a hazardous occupation given that; as a jew, the 'evil urges' of the gentiles might infect you and cause you to sexually assault fifteen year old boys instead.

We are assured that we should be careful in allowing our children to be around Catholic priests in case they might have lewd thoughts, but what about jews?

Well if you really pushed for ideas about how to con people to make money then you can just make a teapot that looks like Hitler; as J. C. Penney did and promptly sold out (sources suggest large orders from traffic wardens), forcing them to take down their advertising at the sudden success of Hitler teapots.

Nobody from J. C. Penney was available for comment, but there are good odds that soon we will be seeing a new range of Third Reich-themed kitchen appliances with an oven inspired by Himmler, a toaster that looks like Goebbels and the new Hermann Goering 'Lean Mean Jew Frying Machine'.

Jews in the News

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:42:00 +0000

(Week Ending: 02/06/2013)

[Part 1]

This week we have had so much of a bonanza of news from the world of the self-chosen people of Yahweh that I've had to split up the job into two articles rather than one with the second half coming tomorrow.

To begin with we are seeing increasing speculation that the jewish chief of the Federal Reserve; Ben Bernanke, is to be replaced by one Larry Summers. Larry Summers of course just so happens to be another member of the tribe and it is simply a case of changing the name plate on the chief's desk rather than changing anything more fundamental.

It does cause one to wonder though: when will America have a federal reserve that doesn't have a chief who comes from a 'tiny religious minority' who we are blithely assured have no power at all and are eternally persecuted by evil conspirators seeking to blame them for problems of their own creation?

This preponderance is possibly part of the reason that a Lebanese Muslim; who for some reason has been elected to the Australian parliament, called Shaoquett Moselmane (phew what a mouthful!) has called the power of the Israel Lobby in Australia 'cancerous'. We would have suspected that if Mr. Moselmane wasn't part of a minority group himself: he would have been called a 'Nazi' by the Israeli ambassador to Australia; Yuval Rotem, and carted off to the nearest insane asylum to be cured of his 'Judeophobia' by the Australian government. Or even possibly to Auschwitz for 'Holocaust' education like some Imams were this week?

While Facebook have decided; after banning Nakba groups in response to Israeli pressure, to cave into a feminist group for good measure and have started to actively remove anything deemed to be constructive criticism... oh sorry I meant 'hate speech' by said group.

Perhaps Facebook would like to remove some Israeli Prime Minister; Benjamin Netanyahu's, 'hate speech' from this week?

In another ominous event: in Britain; Sir Malcolm Rifkind (who; as you may have guessed, is also part of a 'tiny helpless religious minority'), has been championing the cause of spies snooping in people's private email accounts with little to no accountability on the rationale that said spies cannot do their job if they can't read all your personal correspondence and find out f your Aunt Agatha is really an Al-Qaeda handler.

You always knew that her little mobility scooter looked a bit funny with all that C4 packed into the basket with the tins of beans, pet food and the rather startled looking tabby: didn't you?

In other Britain-related news: Peter Mandelson; who is quite literally a 'Lord' not just a self-styled 'Lord of the Universe' (it wouldn't surprise me if he also claimed to be a Time Lord but oh well), has been trying to claim he is a 'gay icon'/'gay role model' this week. If homosexuals were all like Peter Mandelson then homosexuality probably wouldn't have been decriminalized in the first place.

He also admitted this week that Tony Blair's Labour government deliberately tried to bring over as many non-European immigrants as possible to alter the ethic make-up of the British Isles by wiping out the indigenous people in a tsunami of immigrants taking the jobs, benefits and having large families.

There is another is another word for that Peter: genocide.

Oh sorry: does that only apply when people do it to jews?

While we are at it: back in the States Pat Buchanan has been claiming that Ted Kennedy was actually responsible for the destruction of the US immigration laws as a meaningful legal force. Kevin MacDonald over at the Occidental Observer however has corrected him and pointed out that the tribe; of which Mandelson is also part, were the key players in that disaster.

While an apparently angry voter has sent Mayor Bloomberg of New York City a letter filled with Ricin for his comments and activities in and around New York's gun laws.

Henry Kissinger has been encouraging a new wave of Chinese empire-building this week (what is it about Kissinger and south-east Asia: I really didn't know he liked Bangkok that much) and trying to suggest that Chinese state capitalism as exemplified in their purchasing American companies and assets with wild abandon is actually in America's best interests. Well in America's best interests if you perceive the future to be a North American continent that is a satrapy ruled from Beijing.

To use the common aphorism: that man is dangerous, because he actually believes what he says.

In other news Alan Gross; the jewish spy who claims the US Government assured him that working openly to give unlimited internet access to a small insular [jewish] community with obvious potential for sabotage and espionage to be performed in a Communist police state was not a hazardous occupation, has had his lawsuit against the US government dismissed after a financial settlement agreement broke down.

Basically Gross got greedy then and may have to change his name to slim given that there just isn't enough kosher food in Cuban prisons.

In slightly brighter new; Henry Morgentaler, a member of Yahweh's priesthood on earth and a key figure in forcing through legislation to allow Canadian babies to be aborted has died at the age of 90. According to many anti-abortion activists he died 90 years too late.

Now that the Boy Scouts of America have now decided to lift their ban on homosexual scouts: we note that the jews are taking sole credit for it.

Well sure: they can have the credit for that. Don't blame me when John Hagee starts thundering about 'satanic jewish conspiracies' (oh I wish!) to propagate homosexuality in America. This is especially so because it has been revealed this week that New York's Fire Island gay 'resort' is 'like Israel for gays'.

I guess I didn't know homosexuals were a persecuted religious minority who had a Biblical claim to Fire Island: did you?

In other news: a jew has decided to claim that the jews don't control Hollywood any more.

Oh really: then so why are all the studious still more or less totally owner and run by jews?

Oh wait: are they non-religious jews so they don't count?

That must be it...

Damn: how could I be so foolish?

In yet more developments there is a debate brewing in jewry over whether or not the compilation of 'powerful jews' or 'successful jews' is a good idea. The rationale being that celebrating jewishness too much might draw the attention of 'evil Nazis'; no doubt resident in either Antarctica or their secret moon base, who might just notice that a 'tiny helpless religious minority' is disproportionately represented among those who are positions of influence and power.

After all noticing that is just 'prejudice': isn't it?

It does make it much easier me though: thank you very much jews and jewesses.

And just for the record: according to one jewish editor Israel is now a global power.

So if it is a 'global power' then why does it need billions of dollars in American taxpayers money to fund it?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Oh are you aware that jewish groups are now organizing for jews resident in Israel; who hold American citizenship, to vote in American elections?

It brings a whole new aspect; as well as a certain literality, to the concept of an 'Israel Lobby': doesn't it?

Senator Robert Menendez has also been in Israel this week to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (whose name I always think sounds like he should be the world's premier kosher yodeler rather than the titular head of planet Earth's version of the Borg Collective) where our dear Senator has been assuring Bibi; to use his Israeli nickname, that he still holds Israel's interests closest of all to his black heart (one wonders if he crossed his heart would he in fact die or just hope to?).

You know when you elect an official to serve the American people; well in theory at least, it would surely be not to much to expect for them to put American interests first rather than those of the 'tiny helpless religious minority' in their own country.

Oh well: the US Senate is about as useful as a chocolate coffee cup in the sahara desert anyway.

I am sure you have all heard the bleating about Islamic fundamentalism from Robert Spencer and his kosher counter-jihadis over at Jihad Watch. The jews however refuse; as usual, to be outdone by us mere mortals and there are serious concerns about the growing religious fanaticism that is sweeping the jewish world although; weirdly enough, some twenty years on the fastest growing of these groups of would-be jewish jihadis; the Lubavitch Chabad, still hasn't managed to find a new leader.

They have however proven more decisive in managing to just about open up a kosher soup kitchen in Milan in Italy: they claim it is for both jews and non-jews but considering what the Chabad believes about non-jews I think this highly unlikely or at best a pretence. This is while these fanatics have been moaning that the 'real danger' is jews who are 'unaffiliated' with a synagogue and are thus semi-lost to Judaism and potentially to jewry writ large due to the higher likelihood of intermarriage with mere goyim (i.e. us).

Israel however has given these would-be jewish jihadis something else to kvetch about this week as they have formally ended the exclusion of ultra-Orthodox jews from the Israeli draft for service in the IDF.

I wonder: don't they want to get involved in torching random Palestinian cars, illegally demolishing Palestinian and European Union property, firing 'poo cannons' at demonstrators or engaging in the torture of those they arbitrarily label 'enemies of the state'?

Oy vey! Perhaps they could fake illness and smoke some medical marijuana instead?

That said they could always try the same trick a supposedly highly religious jew tried on eBay when he put his place in Gan Eden (the jewish version of heaven) for auction and nearly netted $100,000 dollars. He naturally claimed it was 'all a joke' when confronted by eBay: one wonders whether he would have returned said $100,000 if he had been paid it?

Yes: I doubt it too.

In other news Israel has more or less sabotaged its intelligence-sharing relationship with Australia as they are refusing to name their Mossad station chief in Australia (although an clever Australian journalist worked it out with the 'Oy Veys!' from the Israeli embassy reportedly being heard as far as away as Singapore) in the ongoing diplomatic brouhaha over the use of Australian passports in the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabouh in Dubai and subsequent silencing of 'Prisoner X' (Ben Zygier) in a secret Israeli prison cell in 2010.

---------------------------------------

To come tomorrow among other things: Israel's 'global tsunami of anti-Semitism', yet another religious jewish paederast has been caught, Madoff's jewish lawyers make a fortune, a jew caught drug-running in Bolivia, a noted jewish author claims all Germans are intrinsically evil and J. C. Penney's 'Hitler Tea Pot'.

The Relative Importance of Theodor Nathan Kaufman's 'Germany Must Perish!'

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 16:28:00 +0000

Theodor Nathan Kaufman's 104 page booklet 'Germany Must Perish!' is a possibly one of the most unintentionally famous books in all history. It is frequently cited and discussed in anti-jewish and revisionist circles as well as is notably subject to a considerable amount of silence among many historians; jewish or gentile, except when they are specifically dealing with either Goebbels or the propaganda of the Third Reich during the war years.

The reason for this is rather simple: the Third Reich; and more specifically Goebbels, became aware of this book just after it was published in March 1941 at a time when the Third Reich was increasing its propaganda effort against the United States at both home and abroad with a specific interest in Latin America. (1)

In September 1941; with Hitler's blessing, (2) Goebbels and the head of German radio broadcasting; (3) Wolfgang Diewerge, published a pamphlet of excerpts from the book with commentary called 'Das Kriegsziel der Weltplutokratie' ('The War Aims of World Plutocracy'). The print run for this pamphlet was an astounding five million copies; (4) and remember this was during war time when paper was becoming scarce, which indicates just how important this discovery was to Goebbels.

It has since become; as I have indicated, a staple of many anti-jewish and revisionist discussions of the Second World War and the 'Holocaust' narrative: where it is usually held; much as Goebbels himself did, as an important indicator of what was to come should Germany lose the war. Conversely mainstream historians; such as Herf, have tended to significantly downplay the important of the pamphlet and suggest that the importance attached to it by Goebbels and the Third was either cynical or deluded.

This is what I intend to discuss in this article. Although I will not discuss the similarity between Kaufman's plan and the Morgenthau plan which I will do in a separate article. It is important to stress on this point that Kaufman's and Morgenthau's ideas are relatively tangential and there are indications that the Morgenthau plan may well have been based on Kaufman's plan.

To business then: Herf's case for the irrelevancy of Kaufman's booklet is based on several facts, which I will note below.

Herf's facts are thus: (5)

A) 'Germany Must Perish!' was Theodor Nathan Kaufman's first and only book.

B) He founded Argyle Press and essentially self-published 'Germany Must Perish!'

C) He distributed the book through the US post office not book stores.

D) There was no such organization as the 'American Federation of Peace'.

E) Kaufman had no known affiliations with any jewish organizations.

F) Kaufman had no known affiliations with President Roosevelt.

Now let us deconstruct these facts a little.

In the case of A this is really an irrelevant detail given that whether or not 'Germany Must Perish!' was Kaufman's first book or whether it was only one of several matters not about whether Kaufman was an important or influential personage. Indeed important and influential people;for example Homer, not infrequently have only one or two books attributed to them: so it is hardly an argument to say that an individual is not important or influential just because he published only one book.

The same applies for Kaufman's founding of Argyle Press as the publisher of his book (i.e. point B): it doesn't speak as to a lack of importance although it does suggest (but does not necessarily mean) a lack of influence. It does not follow; as Herf would have it, that this means that Kaufman was rejected by all the publishers he applied to (if he actually applied to any): indeed even if this was the case then it more speaks to the content of what Kaufman was publishing and the time at which he was trying to publish it (in late 1940/early 1941 when Pearl Harbour was still months away and German victory in Europe seemed all but assured).

Similarly with the distribution of the book through mail order (i.e. the post) rather than at bookshops it does not speak to importance or lack of influence, but rather to the content that Kaufman was selling. To try and sell a clearly homicidal plan to mass murder Germans through book stores would obviously be a non-starter and it would be very unlikely to gain any kind of mass readership.

No: Kaufman; if he was rational as his clever use of shock in his advertising methods would suggest, (6) would have realized that the book would be unlikely to ever gain a mass following and accordingly in order to get his ideas put into practice as; or cause a change in, American policy then it would be necessary to influence key individuals as opposed to trying to win a mass following. This is the same policy that Robert Welch used in relation to his famous book 'The Politician', which was also distributed by mail to interested parties. (7)

The goal of such a distribution is clearly shown in Kaufman's own writing (8) precisely because he doesn't appeal to the American people or flatter them for their democratic traditions as one might expect if he wished to appeal to the average layman. Instead Kaufman focuses on laying out the reasons why he believes that Germans; not just Germany, would need to be ethnically cleansed via a policy of mandatory sterilization as opposed to a simple change in government.

That suggests that; much as Welch's book was intended to, Kaufman's goal was to change the minds of those with more influence than himself as opposed to being for mass distribution. This is also indicated by Diewerge himself when he says that:

'[…] the leading political figures in the United States and in England received a small, long packet containing a miniature cardboard coffin. Upon opening the cover one found a card with the demand: “Read the brochure: Germany must die!” This notice was followed the next day by a red-bound book with 104 pages with the original title in gold letters “Germany must perish”.' (9)

In the above we should note that Diewerge is saying that this book was well-presented (i.e. it was expensively bound and used gilt lettering rather than being a cheaply-covered, mass produced bit of work) and that Kaufman went to a lot time and expense in making sure that when journalists and politicians received the book: they took notice of it.

This took the form of sending a black cardboard coffin to the persons concerned the day before with a note that they were to receive the book (this is confirmed by the Time review of the book which mentions the cardboard coffins). (10) This was essentially a gimmick, but it was the kind of thing that was both highly effective and straight out of Goebbels' own play book. (11)

Clearly then Kaufman wasn't looking for a mass audience as Herf (as well as to a lesser extent Benz) seek to imply, but rather to influence important individuals with his work.

Comparing Kaufman's to Welch's actions (which are; after all, less than two decades apart) is also a useful guide for thinking about Kaufman's creation of the 'American Federation of Peace'. This is because the John Birch Society was originally conceived as an elite; not a mass, organization (12) that would be a bit like the 'Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations' in that it would serve to act as a central medium of exchange and coordinating entity of anti-Communist (and in Kaufman's case anti-German) activities.

As such Herf's claim that there was no such organization are clearly nonsense precisely because what we read in Kaufman's text is his plan for 'world peace' by exterminating the Germans. That Kaufman formed such an organization as the 'American Federation of Peace' is; I think, incontrovertible, and that it was intended to be an elite organization/coordinating body (as opposed to a mass organization) based around the goals announced by 'Germany Must Perish!'

What Herf and Benz are standing on in relation to is the lack of formal stationary and registration that such organization existed and thus to them it must be a 'creation of the paranoid Nazi mind'. This is a technicality at best and merely indicates; as no one has ever disputed, that said organization never got off the ground, but it does not mean that it was never formed albeit informally.

That this was Kaufman's intention is also suggested by the amount of effort and expense he went to in bringing his ideas to the attention of opinion and decision makers in the United States (I have not been able to confirm who in England it was sent to if anyone as it could simply be an assumption by Diewerge) given that in doing so he was trying to gain attention for his work (which he clearly felt would be highly persuasive) and thus stimulate opinion and decision makers to contact him.

Whereupon he could then bring up the topic of their joining his 'American Federation of Peace' and in this way build himself and his new organization into being an elite coordinating agency/working group with his ideas being the guiding light.

The concept of course is rather like Herzl's own ascent from journalistic obscurity to a major political player and thinker in the jewish world on the basis of having written and promoted 'Der Judenstaat' by himself which in turn became the global phenomenon that Kaufman would have known in his day. I would suggest that this was the model that Kaufman was seeking to emulate and also explains why when this didn't happen: he faded into obscurity precisely because the power of reason; in his view, had unlike Herzl's been unable to cause the political revolution he believed that it would affect.

Such an explanation goes a long way to explaining the German reaction to the work as one crazy booklet recommending that the world kill all the Germans wasn't exactly new given that; as the oft-cited headline stated, in 1933 the jews declared war on Germany. Some would; at this point, start quibbling about whether or not this was true: the fact is that it is inconsequential to the fact that the Germans believed this was the case.

Jews from 1933 to 1941 had done little to remove the notion that this was a specific war against Germany which the jews were believed to hate without abandon, (13) which is particularly indicated by the fact that the Germans were well aware that the Poles had; particularly since 1935, been enacting ever more stringent anti-jewish measures including official boycotts and organized local pogroms (14) while suffering no international repercussions for doing so in contrast to Germany which had been on the receiving end of anti-anti-Semitic attacks and boycotts for some time by 1935 let alone 1941. (15)

Rather than being discriminated against for their anti-jewish policies the Polish government; which was actually a semi-dictatorship, was actually rewarded by Britain and France with an offensive alliance aimed at Germany (i.e. the blank cheque that the two powers wrote for Poland in mid-late 1939).

This; combined with the Poles own widely-distributed propaganda about wanting to conquer Germany as 'former Polish land', (16) obviously played into the German belief; as exemplified by Goebbels among others, that the jews of the world were uniting in action specifically against the Third Reich and thus in the standard National Socialist view against Germany (as 'Hitler was Germany and Germany was Hitler').

To Goebbels' mind Kaufman's book was simply the beginning of the next stage of this war against Germany, which view is exemplified in Diewerge's use of the wording that Kaufman's plans were the 'official opinion' of the 'leading circles' of 'world plutocracy'. (17) This wasn't; as Herf and Benz assert, a cynical propagandistic fiction, but rather his; and Goebbels', actual opinion based on the fact that Kaufman's book had not been censored or banned in spite of its genocidal content, had been sent by Kaufman to leading opinion and decision makers (including he reasonably assumed the President) and that Kaufman had set up a new jewish organization (the 'American Federation of Peace') which; because of the above described context, they believed actually represented a new phase of what they perceived to be the jewish war against Germany.

Diewerge was not being irrational at all when he argued that this was the 'goal of world plutocracy' precisely because in the National Socialist view the outbreak of war had been instigated by the jews with Poland, the British Empire and the French Empire as their pawns. All Diewerge was doing was spinning the story slightly; per it being intended for mass distribution as war-time propaganda, where Kaufman was already the important figure and confident that Diewerge believed; per the common belief that Roosevelt was of a similar opinion, (18) that he would now become.

Understanding this then allows us to explain points E and F in that while it is true that Kaufman had no known connections to any jewish organization or President Roosevelt: his plan seems likely to have been to use the publicity and interest he believed 'Germany Must Perish!' would generate to establish those kind of contacts.

We can thus see that Herf's and Benz's arguments about the irrelevancy of Kaufman's 'Germany Must Perish!' are right merely in the sense of technicalities, but their interpretation and conclusions about Kaufman's book are incorrect in large part because they have signally failed to understand what Kaufman was trying to do and did not interpret that in the context of what such a move would have looked like from a National Socialist point of view.

Now while Kaufman obviously failed in his attempt to build an elite coordinating agency/working group around the ideas enunciated in 'Germany Must Perish!' that does not make Kaufman's ideas themselves lacked influence in the medium-long term. This we will cover in the second article relating to the relationship between Kaufman's plan and the later Morgenthau plan, which seems very likely to have drawn; at least in part, on what Kaufman proposed to do especially as it had been modified to remove the more homicidal elements and take into account a different geopolitical situation on the ground.

Part of the reason that Kaufman's 'American Federation of Peace' idea failed; aside from his own personal insignificance and apparent lack of contacts, was that he had launched it at precisely the wrong time when there was considerable support among American voters for isolationism while the American elite as a rule favoured intervention on the side of Allies. Had it been launched a year later then we can have little doubt that it would have had a much better chance of succeeding in building at least part of the group that he was looking to create.

We can thus see that Goebbels and Diewerge weren't so paranoid after all...

References

(1) Jeffrey Herf, 2006, 'The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust', 1^st Edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, p. 110

(2) Ibid, p. 112

(3) Aristotle Kallis, 2008, 'Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War', 2^nd Edition, Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke, p. 116

(4) Herf, Op. Cit., p. 112

(5) These are all drawn from Wolfgang Benz, 1981, 'Judenvernichtung aus Notwehr?', Vierteljahrshefte fur Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 615-630

(6) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884346,00.html

(7) See Revilo Oliver, 2006, 'America's Decline: The Education of a Conservative', 1^st Edition, Historical Review Press: Sussex, pp. 189-198

(8) The full-text is available here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish

(9) Wolfgang Diewerge, Anon. (Trans.), 2003, 'The War Goal of World Plutocracy: Germany Must Die!', 1^st Edition, Preuss: USA, p. 5

(10) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884346,00.html

(11) See Russel Lemmons, 1994, 'Goebbels and “Der Angriff”', 1^st Edition, University Press of Kentucky: Lexington, pp. 24-25; also another National Socialist propagandist; Johann von Leers, used a similar type of tactic in his popular anti-jewish pamphlets (see Darren O'Brien, 2011, 'The Pinnacle of Hatred: The Blood Libel and the Jews', 1^st Edition, The Hebrew University Magnes Press: Jerusalem, p. 30)

(12) Oliver, Op. Cit., p. 191

(13) Herf, Op. Cit., p. 53; also for example see Lucien Steinberg, 1970, 'La Revolte des Justes', 1^st Edition, Librairie Artheme Fayard: Paris, pp. 2-4

(14) Bernard Wasserstein, 2012, 'On the Eve: The Jews of Europe before the Second World War', 1^st Edition, Profile: London, pp. 39-41; 46; 56; 108

(15) Like those organized in France by LICA (La Ligue Internationale contre l'Antisémitisme Allemand) cf. Paula Hyman, 1998, 'The Jews of Modern France', 1^st Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley, p. 151

(16) For details see Udo Walendy, 1981, 'Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second World War', 1^st Edition, Institute for Historical Review: Torrance, pp. 164-185

(17) Diewerge, Op. Cit., p. 6

(18) Kallis, Op. Cit., pp. 116-117

The Truth about Israeli Organ Harvesting

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Thu, 30 May 2013 11:51:00 +0000

Back in August 2009 an article in the Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet by Donald Boström sparked a global furore about a 'new blood libel' that ended up causing a large scale rift between the Swedish and Israeli governments. (1) The article concerned charged that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) had been collecting organs from Palestinians that they had killed; or who had died in Israeli custody, for transplant operations for Israeli citizens and/or scientific research. The article does not; as was mistakenly reported by some media outlets, assert that the IDF deliberately killed Palestinians for their organs, but rather took advantage of Palestinian deaths while in their custody to harvest organs from them.

Predictably enough the jews globally; with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the vanguard, began screaming that this was ipso facto anti-Semitic and was a 'variant' of the 'blood libel'. This of course nonsense as it is not anti-Semitic to charge that the Israelis are engaging in highly illegal practices as it isn't accusing the jews writ large of anything, but is precisely accusing the IDF and possibly the Israeli Defence Establishment of such.

Anti-Semitism is a very specific ideological charge not a catch-all term for criticism that jews do not know how to respond to so they just scream demented rhetoric at it. For similar reasons the editor of the Aftonbladet newspaper; Jan Helin, was routinely denounced by Israeli and jewish politicians and media sources as being a 'Nazi', (2) which is clearly absurd and a rhetorical smear designed to suppress criticism by equating it with the 'Holocaust'.

One enterprising jew; from New York City no less, even tried to sue the Aftonbladet in US Civil Court for 'libel' against the Israel and/or jewish people, which has unsurprisingly got no-where given that the evidence; as I will relate, has tended to vindicate Boström not the shot-from-the-hip Israeli denials.

Now it is not my purpose here to recount the Aftonbladet versus Israel affair as that is complicated and deserves a separate analysis. My purpose here is simply to look at the claim that the IDF harvested organs from Palestinians it had killed or those who had died in IDF custody (mainly; but not exclusively, during the 1980s and 1990s). Further adding to this are unsubstantiated claims that the Israelis have also been harvesting organs; in a similar fashion, in Haiti (3) when an Israeli medical team was sent there as part of the international humanitarian relief effort to assist the Haitians rebuild after a large earthquake had hit the country.

Now while I find the Haitian angle difficult of this story difficult to believe: I do not find the central claim; in relation to the IDF harvesting organs from Palestinian who have died in their custody, to be unbelievable, but rather to have a substantial and plausible evidential base.

The difference between the two claims of Israeli Organ Harvesting is actually quite drastic, because in the Haitian case: the Israeli medical team are operating in non-Israeli controlled conditions, far from organ donation centres and not within easy distance to enable them to send the organs home easily (unless for dissection and tissue experiments). Indeed even selling the organs on the black market would be difficult due to the destruction of Haiti's transport and healthcare infrastructure by the earthquake, which would have made quick market access (vital when dealing with organ transports) almost impossible.

Further the Haitian claim originates; as the Jerusalem Post article correctly relates, from a jewish anti-Zionist blogger in the United States: who made said claim on the basis of an unverifiable YouTube video posted by a group called 'AfriSynergy'. (4) Having looked at the group's other videos on YouTube they appear to be an black nationalist group that believes that anyone and everyone is involved in a conspiracy to exploit and oppress black people. Indeed they allege that the Egyptians, (5) Ukrainians, (6) South Africans (7) and the American police (8) are all harvesting the organs of black people in an international conspiratorial cartel.

The fact that nobody else seems to know about this or have found any substantial evidence for it: suggests that the claims about Haitian organ harvesting by the Israelis are probably groundless and based on nothing more than the almost random paranoia of a group of black nationalists.

In comparison the claims made about the IDF harvesting organs from the bodies of dead Palestinians are quite specific, because they allege that named victims were taken into the IDFs custody (and thus care) only to then have their bodies returned to their families sans specific organs.

The main body of contention around this claim is related to the body of Bilal Ghanem (which is the central feature of Boström's Aftonbladet article): who was taken into Israeli custody after having been shot by the IDF just for being a Fatah member and activist. (9) After the body of Bilal was returned to them a week later: the Ghanem family noticed that Bilal had been 'opened up' (suggesting an autopsy rather than an operation) as he had stitch marks up his torso and also appeared to have no abdomen while Jalal; Bilal's brother, also noticed that Bilal now had no teeth in his mouth. (10)

Now I want to draw attention to two important observations made by Jalal here: in the first instance the fact that Bilal's body seemed to have no abdomen (i.e. no belly) is suggestive that organs had been removed precisely because normally when laying down the abdomen should be slightly pronounced (i.e. distended) due to the presence of the bulky organs beneath it (in addition to any body fat that is extant). However the body appearing to have no abdomen suggests that it looked cadaverous or in other words like a skeleton because the organs had been removed.

I would also draw attention at this juncture that the fact that Bilal's body had been sewn up down the front suggests that an autopsy had been performed by the IDF or by Israeli doctors following Bilal's death. This in itself isn't too surprising, but what is interesting is the apparently cadaverous appearance of the body suggesting that the organs are missing.

This directly suggests that Bilal was autopsied and as part of that autopsy his organs were removed, but not replaced again as is required by Israeli law. It is usually the case that when autopsies are undertaken then the next of kin; if any can be located, have to make a decision as to whether they want the organs to be returned to the deceased individual's corpse or donated.

However in this case the organs had apparently been removed without consent and the key issue is what they have been used for as the organs of someone who is dead can; it is true, be used for scientific research, but if a man is clinically dead then it is possible for a short time afterwards to use his organs as transplants. Additionally tissues; such as skin, heart valves, corneas and veins, are transplantable up to 24 hours after death.

This means in effect that because all (or most) of Bilal's abdominal organs had apparently been removed (we do not know about the others) en bloc then it suggests to us that either he was subject to an autopsy immediately after death (or died while being operated on allowing the surgeons to immediately remove all his abdominal organs) for the purposes of organ transplants or his organs had been removed at a slightly later date in the official autopsy for the probable purpose of scientific experimentation.

The other fact that is suggestive is the second issue with the body: the complete removal of Bilal's teeth. I can't think or find any reason why these would have all been removed in the course of an autopsy or even an operation after he had been shot as even if he had been shot in the mouth this would have not really have been necessary. It is however quite possible for teeth to be transplanted (although not necessary today) and the use of teeth for scientific experimentation/practice or as a source of genetic material is fairly common.

I would be less inclined to believe in the literacy of Jalal's claim about the fact that Bilal's body seemed to have no abdomen if that was all there was to it. The removal of all of Bilal's teeth however; because it is an unusual thing to do, suggests foul play, because it is the sort of thing that one may notice and not attach importance to but isn't exactly the sort of thing that a grieving relative would make-up precisely because it wouldn't be the first allegation to make against someone accused of stealing the organs of your relative.

It also adds to the overall impression given by Jalal's testimony that the IDF or the Israeli medical establishment had more or less gutted Bilal's body before returning it to the family for burial.

This; as far as evidence goes, is suggestive as it is clear that the body was likely substantially tampered while it was in Israeli custody and that nobody else is likely to have performed the tampering other than the IDF and/or the Israeli medical establishment.

However the other evidence that surfaced in the wake of the high-level of politicization of the claim by the Israeli government and the jews themselves caused the screeching about 'anti-Semitism' and 'Nazis' to significantly backfire on them. This was in large part due to the fact that an American anthropologist; who is also an investigator into organ harvesting and donation on the black/grey market, had taped an interview in the year 2000 with the director of Israel's 'L. Greenberg Institute for Forensic Medicine' (aka the 'Abu Kabir Forensic Institute'): Yehuda Hiss.

The unfortunately-named Hiss admitted on that tape that during the 1980s and 1990s he had under-taken to harvest organs; and more specifically tissues such as those taken from Bilal Ghanem, without the knowledge or permission of the relatives of the deceased in his institute (which as director he could have had others doing as well) from the dead who brought there: (11) most of these were Palestinians, but included IDF soldiers and foreign workers as well. (12)

This served as more or less the nail in the coffin of the fact that organ harvesting had been happening on a regular basis in Israel. With the typical screech of gears we suddenly saw Israeli propagandists and jews suddenly start back-pedalling quicker than a swimmer who has just seen a shark's dorsal fin a few metres away.

All of a sudden that which had been a new 'blood libel' and 'hideous anti-Semitism' before had become a quite plausible argument. The Israeli Ministry of Health then jumped into the fray and made the following statement to Russia Today:

'The subject of your enquiry is a matter that passed into history years ago. The Institute performed an organ-harvesting procedure for the purpose of medical treatment that took no note of the provenance of the cadavers.' (13)

Now this is typical public relations news-byte speak that we need but a few moments to unpick. What the Israeli Ministry of Health is actually saying here is that:

A) Bad things done in the past (by Israel) don't matter.

B) The 'L. Greenberg Institute for Forensic Medicine'; under the directorship of Yehuda Hiss, used the organs of cadavers for transplant operations.

C) The majority of cadavers subject to the program were those who had no known relatives or where the Israeli authorities didn't know where the body had come from.

Now obviously A is an attempt to claim a special exemption for the jews from the court of history, which is especially in the fact that the Israelis insist that everyone on the planet should receive a large amount of 'Holocaust' education and; if possible, a visit to Auschwitz for some ritualized weeping.

In the case of B and C: they are actually direct confirmation of what I have argued in relation to the case of Bilal Ghanem (which after all is the case that set all off the storm of irrational outrage from the jews and Israeli government) in so far as it directly tells us that; at the very least, the Israelis have engaged in organ harvesting without familial consent in the past.

Further in the case of C the Israeli Ministry of Health made a contradictory claim asserting that the cadavers with 'no providence' (i.e. they don't know who the body is and where it is from) were in nearly all cases those of Israeli citizens or fallen IDF soldiers. (14) This is a rather foolish claim to make precisely because how; if you have no idea of who a cadaver was or where that cadaver came from, then can you claim that you suddenly know that the majority/nearly all the cadavers concerned were Israeli citizens let alone IDF soldiers.

Clearly the defensive claims of the Israeli Ministry of Health are fallacious precisely because they are outright contradictory. The Israeli officials here are simply trying to put out the fire by randomly asserted that they 'know' who the dead were, but then get themselves in a twist by asserting to Russia Today that they didn't know who the dead were so they harvested their organs as there was no family to contact.

Interestingly the Israelis also inadvertently widened the scope of the organ harvesting scandal precisely because their spokeswoman; the unfortunately named Einav Shimron-Grinboim, declared that organ harvesting of this kind had gone on in multiple Israeli hospitals in the past (presumably the 1980s and 1990s). However she; as in the statement to Russia Today, promptly suggested that Israel shouldn't be judged on what it had done in the past and denied it had occurred recently.

This is clearly not the case as in 2000 Hiss had stated on tape that he was doing just this and Hiss was not fired (for 'body-parts scandals') until 2004 although he has remained the chief pathologist since that time (thus is reasonable to conclude that the organ harvesting under Hiss took place till at least 2004). (15) What is noteworthy here is that here we have Hiss being fired for the same thing that he admitted on tape in 2000, but yet in spite of this blatant medical misconduct being allowed to stay on in a senior position.

What this means is simply that Hiss admitted doing precisely what Boström and Jalal Ghanem accused the Israelis of doing with Bilal Ghanem's body while it was in their custody. That Hiss wasn't fired for such major medical misconduct is also suggestive of a fundamental lack of care at an ideological level among the Israeli medical profession for Palestinians. (16)

The incontrovertible revelations about Hiss's organ harvesting; and the implicit confession of the Israeli Ministry of Health, make the case of Bilal Ghanem difficult to dismiss and provide good supporting evidence that Bilal Ghanem was subject organ harvesting by doctors associated with the IDF.

This suggests to us that the claims made by Boström are; on the basis of the currently available evidence, true not an 'anti-Semitic fantasy' as the Israeli government and the jews were so quick to brand them. As well as that it vindicates the late Palestinian President; Yasser Arafat, when he alleged in 2002 that the Israelis were harvesting organs from Palestinian cadavers without the permission of the next of kin.

References

(1) http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/21/israel.sweden.organ.harvesting/index.htm l

(2) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766093,00.html

(3) http://www.jpost.com/International/Haiti-organ-harvesting-claims-false

(4) Ibid.

(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-_8HIvTNU

(6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9IrD_uSrc8

(7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0vaVcJ7p7o

(8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIIYMhp_Gjg

(9) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2009/08/200982510415994815.html

(10) Ibid.

(11) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009122161551898444.html

(12) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPzQp6tCuFw&list=PLE00DBAB2CB687C15

(13) Ibid. (1:01 minutes)

(14) http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/

(15) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-94606108.html

(16) Implied in relation to the medical profession by Ilan Pappe, 2011, 'The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel', 1^st Edition, Yale University Press : New Haven, pp. 136; 165-166

William Guy Carr, anti-Semitism and the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 29 May 2013 17:25:00 +0000

As I have pointed out in a previous article: (1) the well-known conspiratorial writer William Guy Carr has for sometime now been accused in some quarters of being anti-jewish and/or anti-Semitic.

For example the Democrat think-tank 'Political Research Associates' claims the following about Carr:

'Anti-Jewish allegations could easily be added to anticommunism. In the mid-1950s William G. Carr promoted the anti-Semitic variant on conspiracism with books such as 'Pawns in the Game' and 'Red Fog over America'. According to Carr, an age-old Jewish Illuminati banking conspiracy used radio-transmitted mind control on behalf of Lucifer to construct a one world government. The secret nexus of the plot was supposedly the international Bilderberger meetings on banking policy. The anti-Semitic Noontide Press distributed 'Pawns in the Game' for many years.' (2)

The allegation; such as it is, comes down to two basic points: one is the claim that Carr envisioned the Illuminati as being a jewish-dominated; or simply jewish, entity. The other is that because the anti-Semitic publisher; Noontide Press (associated with Willis Carto and the Institute for Historical Review), distributed 'Pawns in the Game' then it thus makes Carr anti-Semitic.

Now before we plunge headlong into the dark recesses of the liberally accusative mind that wrote those lines: we need to understand what anti-Semitism actually is. The reason for this is simple: the argument is that Carr was anti-jewish and thus he was anti-Semitic (which incidentally do not follow in spite of the popular belief that they do) so unless we know what anti-Semitism actually is then we cannot judge the label that is being pejoratively attached to Carr.

Anti-Semitism broadly defined is simply the opposition to jews on the basis that they are a biological group. Now there are two other forms of what we may term anti-jewishness. That is anti-Judaism, which broadly defined is opposition to Judaism as a religion and anti-Zionism, which similarly defined is the opposition to the state of Israel and Zionism as a political and intellectual ideology more broadly.

This then gives the lie to the popular misconception that anti-jewish is synonymous with anti-Semitic precisely because there are three kinds of opposition to jews which can be held individually or in varying combinations. None of these broad categories are mutually exclusive to each other either as there have been anti-Semites who were all for Zionism and critics of Judaism who thoroughly supported Israel and Zionism while roundly condemning anti-Semitism.

It isn't so simple an identification as 'Political Research Associates' claim by implication: in fact it is a very specific label and one that; as I will show, not only doesn't fit Carr, but is actually indicative that whichever nincompoop wrote said piece didn't bother reading Carr's work or had they read them don't seem to have been able to understand the difference between correctly suggesting that many controversial influential individuals in history have been jewish and opposing jews based on their being a biological group.

Now returning to what 'Political Research Associates' claim in relation to Noontide Press; to deal with the second point first, the argument they make simply boils down to claiming that if an author's work is distributed by an anti-jewish or anti-Semitic publisher then that means that author's work must per force be anti-jewish or anti-Semitic. This is clearly a profoundly stupid argument to make given that an author can be admired by those they are radically opposed to and distributed on that basis or an author can be distributed because what they argue/write can be seen to support the contentions of the distributor.

A good example is Rabbi Michael Higger's 'The Jewish Utopia', which has been distributed by anti-Semitic publishing houses for years in spite of the fact that it is written by a jew for jews. It never-the-less plays nicely into conventional anti-Semitic beliefs about jews, because of what it argues is the case.

Would this make Higger an anti-Semite by extension?

No: it doesn't.

All that it means is that Higger's ideas are held to fit or confirm all or part of the ideas held by those who distribute their work. It is as simple as that. You cannot argue that Carr is anti-jewish or anti-Semitic based on the fact that one; and mark you one, anti-Semitic publishing house has distributed his work for quite some time.

Without confirmatory evidence that Carr is anti-jewish or anti-Semitic then we cannot reasonably contend that this is the case.

Coming back to the first point and the allegation that Carr sees the Illuminati as predominately or all jewish, which is the cornerstone of the 'Political Research Associates' argument. It would be well for us to quote Carr's comments in regards to the relationship of jews and the Illuminati in 'Pawns in the Game', 'The Conspiracy to Destroy All Existing Governments and Religions' and 'The Red Fog over America'.

To wit:

'Pawns in the Game'

'He [Christ] exposed the synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9; 3:9) he denounced those who belonged to it as sons of the devil (Lucifer), whom he castigated as the father of lies (John 8:44) and the price of deceit (2 Cor. 11:14). He was specific in his statement that those who compromised the synagogue of Satan were those who called themselves Jews, but were not, and did lie (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). He identified the Money-Changers (Bankers), the Scribes, and the Pharisees as the Illuminati of his day.' (3)

'To offset the plans of the International Money-Barons, Karl Ritter advised the leaders of the Aryan Groups to organize Nazism and use Fascism, i.e. National Socialism, as their manual of action to further their secret ambitions, for world conquest. Professor Ritter pointed out that because the International Bankers intended to use all phases of Semitism to further their plans, the Aryan leaders should use all phases of anti-Semitism to further their cause.' (4)

'The important fact to remember is that among the Jewish leaders, in exactly the same way as among the Aryan leaders, there always has been a small, hard core of men who have been , and still are, Illuminists or Atheists. They may have given up lip-service to the Jewish or Christian religions to suit their own purpose, but they never believed in the existence of God. They are Internationalists now. They give allegiance to no particular nation although they have used, on occasion, nationalism to further their causes.' (5)

'History proves they [the Illuminati] had a fiendish reason for putting the guilt of the death of Christ on the Jewish people. History proves that they intended to use the hate engendered amongst the Jewish people as the result of persecution, to serve their vile purposes, and further their secret totalitarian ambitions.' (6)

'Study of the World Revolutionary Movement (W.R.M.) from the time of Christ to the present day, proves that it is unjust to blame the whole Jewish Race for the crimes committed against humanity by a small group of false priests and money-lenders. These men always have been, and still are, the secret power behind internationalism. They use Communism today as their manual of action to further their secret plans for ultimate world domination.' (7)

'After the Jewish-dominated revolution collapsed for want of aid, the German Aryan people took a full measure of revenge on the Jewish people. Thousands of Jews, men, women and children, were rounded up during the night and executed. Rosa Luxemburg, and her right hand man Karl Liebknecht, were captured and shot in the head like mad dogs by a German lieutenant. Thus, once again, a large number of Jews were made to pay the penalty for the crimes of a small group of international gangsters who used them as pawns in the game of international intrigue.' (8)

'Leo Maxse, writing in the August issue of the 'National Review' 1919 stated: “Whoever is in power in Downing Street, whether Conservatives, Radicals, Coalitionist, or Pseudo-Bolshevik, the international Jews role the roost. Here is the mystery of the 'Hidden Hand; of which there has been no intelligent explanation.” Once again the word 'Jew should have been 'Banker' or 'Gangster'. It would be just as reasonable to blame all Roman Catholics for the crimes of a few Roman Mafia Chieftains who had given up the practice of their religion for many years.' (9)

'[…] a fact that past history would indicate is very doubtful. Satanism, not the Jews will rule.' (10)

'Thus history reveals that from 1920 to 1934 the Secret Power directed international intrigue in such a manner that the leaders of ALLEGEDLY Jewish dominated Communism in Russia were working hand in glove with the leaders of ALLEGEDLY Aryan dominated Nazism in Germany. This phase of history is most complicated. It is difficult for the average citizen to understand.' (11) [Capitalization in original]

'The purpose of the Inquisition was to ferret out and question infidels suspected of masquerading as Christians. Spain had been exceptionally kind to the Jews. They were allowed to hold office and acted as tax-collectors. But, as happened in every other country in Europe, the crimes of the atheistic money-lenders, and their agents, were charged against the whole Jewish population.' (12)

'Therefore to charge this diabolical conspiracy as a crime against the whole Jewish people and their religious leaders is unjust.' (13)

'These “tools”, be they Jew or Gentile, Freemason or otherwise, have been without exception, liquidated by one method or another if, after serving their purpose, they were considered to know too much.' (14)

'The Long Range Plan of the International Illuminati called for the destruction of the British, the German Empire, and the Jews who were not actively Communistic and therefore not their “Tools”.' (15)

'The Conspiracy to Destroy All Existing Governments and Religions'

'We must also remember that the words “Synagogue of Satan” do not, repeat not, mean the Jews because Christ also made it perfectly clear that the Synagogue of Satan. “Are those who call themselves Jews, but are not, and do lie.” The Synagogue of Stan is composed of men and women of many nationalities which have their origin in Cain, Eve's son.' (16)

'The Red Fog over America'

'Those charged with preparing the hoax used the plan found on the courier's body, but they changed certain words and phrases make those who read the “New” document [the Protocols of Zion] believe it was a Jewish plot to obtain world domination in accordance with the policy of Political Zionism was advocated by Herzl in 1897.' (17)

'The documents [the Protocols of Zion] are undoubtedly the conspiracy by which Satan plans to bring about his kingdom on this earth. If it succeeds Christians and Jews; black men and white; Aryans and Semites; Communists and Nazi; Socialist and Capitalist; will all have to fall down on their knees and adore his Satanic Majesty.' (18)

'One can only conclude it was all part of the publicity campaign embarked on by the agentur of the Illuminati to arouse the hatred of the Russian Gentiles against the Jews and to inflame the Jews with the spirit of revenge against non-Jews so they would revolt and introduce the reign of terror.' (19)

'It was the additional words “of the Learned Elders of Zion” which placed the blame for the diabolical nature of the “scheme” on the shoulders of the Jewish people, that was wrong.' (20)

'The matter of subversion within religion cannot be ended without dealing with the way the conspirators of Satan have infiltrated into the Jewish religion. Christ condemned those who were deliberately teaching the Jews false doctrines. He prayed for and sympathized with those who fell into error as the result of such teaching. At the age of twelve Christ sat at the temple of Jerusalem with the priests and elders correcting their teachings. He was doing this when found by Mary and Joseph after he had been missing three days.' (21)

'It is the false priests and false prophets who have deliberately caused Jews to hate Christians and Christians to hate Jews.' (22)

'The manner in which the lesser Jews were herded into Ghettos enabled the Satanic despots to make them think and do whatever they told them to think and do. After all, the wealthy Jews and Elder exercised the power of life or death over their lesser brethren.

Our quarrel is not with the lesser Jews, it is with a small number of men who pretend to be Jews while they are in actual fact followers of Satan.. Let Christians insist that those Jews, to whom they extend the hand of friendship, condemn publicly the Talmudic teaching which contain blasphemies and insults regarding Christ and threats to Christians.

Anti-Semitism plays right into the hands of the Illuminati. The high priests of Satan must get a great deal of satisfaction when Jews are blamed for their crimes against humanity. That is exactly what they want. Many Gentiles and Jews swallow their bait, hook-line-and-sinker.' (23)

'Moslems, Jews, and all other people who worship the One and ONLY God, Creator of Heaven and earth could be united in such a common cause [to fight Lucifer].' (24)

'Many Clergymen, news commentators, editors, politicians, etc. blame Communists and Jews as being the root of ALL evil. This is not so. Lucifer is the ROOT of ALL Evil.' (25) [Capitalization in original]

Having thus reproduced all the significant references to the role of jews in the Illuminati according to Carr: it is clear that Carr did not view the jews as the enemy or even a disproportionate element of the 'satanic Illuminati conspiracy' that he wrote against. Rather he felt that; like Europeans, it was their leaders who were the members of the members or dupes of the Illuminati not the average jews or gentile on the street

Carr also clearly makes it his business to condemn anti-jewish sentiments (except anti-Judaism) as being part of the Illuminati's master plan to create 'One World Government' (under Satan) by human discord/hatred and while Carr did indeed use some borrowings from anti-Semitic literature: he was clearly not anti-Semitic himself.

He merely adopted the ideas from anti-Semitic literature that suited his theories without being anti-Semitic himself in much the same way that Goebbels took ideas from Marx, Engels and Lenin, but was not himself a communist as he perceived that theories and ideas can have some truth in them without being wholly truthful.

So then in summary we can see that Carr was not an anti-Semitic in any way, shape or form and if anything his attitude towards the jews was positive not negative. So thus if anything Carr could be held to be a philo-Semite not an anti-Semite.

References

(1) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/05/william-guy-carr-and-protocols-of-zion.html

(2) http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_1-01.html [Last Accessed: 28/05/2013]

(3) William Guy Carr, 1958, 'Pawns in the Game', 3^rd Edition, Federation of Christian Laymen: Ontario, p. ix

(4) Ibid, p. 5

(5) Ibid, p. 13

(6) Ibid, p. 15

(7) Ibid.

(8) Ibid, p. 110

(9) Ibid, p. 115

(10) Ibid, p. 118

(11) Ibid.

(12) Ibid, p. 127

(13) Ibid, p. 175

(14) Ibid, p. 182

(15) Ibid, p. 184

(16) William Guy Carr, 1998, [1958], 'The Conspiracy to Destroy of All Existing Governments and Religions', 1^st Edition, Patriot Press: Henderson, p. 5

(17) William Guy Carr, 1962, 'The Red Fog over America', 3^rd Edition, Britons: London, p. 4

(18) Ibid, p. 7

(19) Ibid, p. 9

(20) Ibid, p. 105

(21) Ibid, p. 182

(22) Ibid.

(23) Ibid, p. 186

(24) Ibid, p. 228

(25) Ibid, p. 240

Philoxenus of Hierapolis on the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 28 May 2013 15:33:00 +0000

Philoxenus of Hierapolis; sometimes called Philoxenus of Mabbug, is one of the lesser known Christian Fathers of the Church, but he is a fairly important figure in the history of the early Syrian Church being a translator of the Bible as well as a major theologian in his own right. Philoxenus was born circa 440 AD in what is now Iraq and eventually became a major opponent of the teachings of Nestorius (i.e. Nestorian Christianity) leading the Christian communities in western Syria (i.e. Antioch and Edessa for example) to reject Nestorius' brand and instead adopt a form of Christianity championed by the Council of Chalcedon.

What is interesting to us about Philoxenus is less his life story; of which he know comparatively little other than an outline, but rather what he has to say in his surviving works (and he was a prolific author) on the subject of the jews. The easiest English translation of the text for the reader to use in order to check my interpretation is that of Budge, which although old is still quite usable. I have checked the text against more recent comments in relation to it to make sure that there have been no major textual revisions to the passages I have cited/quoted since Budge wrote. To further allow the reader to easily check for themselves I have used page numbers in Budge's work rather than standard classics references.

The principle references that Philoxenus makes to the jews are found in what has come to be known as the 'Ascetic Discourses', which argue at length for a return to the Christian values that Philoxenus held dear and as such are split into broad themes. The first significant mention of the jews in the 'Ascetic Discourses' can be found in discourse four when Philoxenus writes as follows:

'And again in another place our Lord taught His disciples to beware of the cunning of the Pharisees and Sadducees, saying, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, and of the leaven of Herod;" and thou may know that He here calls cunning and wickedness by the name of leaven, because in another place when the Pharisees said "Herod desires to kill thee," he called Herod a fox because of his cunning, saying, "Go say to this fox"----for because he has no power to do what he desires by authority, behold he contrives artful schemes and plots in order that cunning may take the place of power, even as cunning takes the place of strength in the fox----"by My own freewill will I go, but thy cunning which is outside My freewill, is not able to make Me go forth. To-day and to-morrow I work miracles, and the third day I am perfected." Behold then our Lord warned His disciples against the cunning of Herod and the wickedness of the Pharisees, because while they were doing one thing they taught another. Our Lord did not bid them beware of the doctrine of Moses which the Pharisees taught, but of their traditions which they invented in their cunning that they might be material for the merchandise of iniquity; and of their feigning to be righteous before the children of men; and of their being careful of the honour of God while in their secret works they belittled Him; and of their making long their prayers in order to devour widow's houses; and of their disfiguring their countenances that they might appear to be men who fasted; and of their washing the outside of the cup and platter----that is to say, they beautified and made fair the parts of them which were manifest----being filled within with iniquity and all impurity; and of their adorning their persons outside with a reverent and venerable demeanour to be observed with the eye, being secretly filled with rapine, and deceit, and wantonness, and the desire for all objects of lust. Of all this doctrine then of the Pharisees our Lord commanded His disciples to beware.' (1)

In the above we can see that Philoxenus is casting the Sadducees and Pharisees; i.e. the jews, as being the demons behind the curtain of life. He styles them as being cunning, highly Machiavellian and utterly evil. The Pharisees; Philoxenus tells us, were a group who practised sophistry in their beliefs in that they pretended to be noble and righteous while in fact being encouraging sin, greed and iniquity all the while. They also supported authority and tradition for their own sake as opposed to engaging; in what Philoxenus might style, the pursuit of knowledge of the one, true god with a critical attitude towards the convening of secular authority over them.

This is shown in Philoxenus' delightfully spiteful language and dripping sarcasm in relation to what the Pharisees raise their hands in prayer for: in that they prayed for the countenances of ascetics while gorging themselves on food and praying for the relief of the poor and needy while contriving artful schemes to cheat a widow out of her house and livelihood (one wonders; given Philoxenus' other comments on this matter [see below], whether the Pharisees were trying to induce said widow to become a proverbial 'sacred prostitute' as well). (2)

Philoxenus also makes the point of telling us that Jesus warned his followers against the Pharisees for precisely this reason, because they acted like the 'painted ladies' of antiquity (i.e. prostitutes) in so far as they would beautify themselves externally to make them look the part of a beautiful and noble soul when their soul had in fact been cultivated almost totally in the rapacious pursuit of vice, sin and wanton pleasures of the flesh.

That this corruption extended to matters related to carnal lust, fornication and copulation; in Philoxenus' view, can be derived from his comments about how the jews perpetually 'lusted after their neighbour's wives' to such an extent that even Yahweh had to step in and expressly forbid it more than once. (3)

Essentially the Pharisees; according to Philoxenus, were masters of manipulation, sophistry and propaganda who were rather impressed by themselves and had little regard for the doctrines of god. This then makes sense of what Philoxenus says about the jews in his fifth discourse on asceticism:

'For that which is rejected by the children of men is a choice thing with God, even as also the Apostles were rejected by all the world, and our Redeemer Jesus also was hated and rejected by all the Jews. So then also whosoever rejects the simple, and despises and is contemptuous of them because of their simplicity, the portion of this audacious man shall be placed with that of the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who rejected Christ and His disciples.' (4)

This is then continued later on in the same discourse as follows:

'He stood before Annas and was silent, and until he adjured Him He spoke not; He was questioned by Pilate and was silent, and until He heard from him the words, "Art thou the king of the Jews?" which made known to Him that he suspected Him of being a rebel against Caesar, He answered them not a word. They carried Him to Herod, who wishing to see and hear from Him great things asked Him questions temptingly; and there also He stood silent and spoke not, and He returned no answer to His questioner. He was esteemed a contemptible man who knew nothing, and a fool who had no answer to give. The Jews and priests thought this because they wished it; but He forsook not the simpleness of a lamb, and the law of simplicity He left not. The Apostle Paul considered Him as one "of no reputation", and the crucifiers considered Him to lack understanding, and His enemies accounted Him to be without knowledge and intelligence, and concerning Jesus Paul spoke against them, "The foolishness of God is wiser than the "children of men".' (5)

This then places Philoxenus' view of the Pharisees as masters of manipulation, sophistry and propaganda in the context of their role in bringing Jesus to trial before Pontius Pilate and his subsequent crucifixion. We can see that Philoxenus is very clear about who the guilty party responsible for murdering Jesus was when he unequivocally states that Jesus was 'hated and rejected by all jews' (not by the Romans mind but by the jews). We can thus see Philoxenus is being very pointed about just who killed the Jesus: the jews and no one else.

Further we should note that Philoxenus also comments about the simplicity of Jesus and that the jews believed him to be a 'contemptible man who knew nothing', which is another way of saying that he was an ignorant country bumpkin with delusions of grandeur. Essentially the jews were playing cock a snoop at Jesus in Philoxenus' view because they believed that their knowledge and mastery of the Law (i.e. the Torah) was profound and thus a penniless carpenter from Galilee could not have possibly have had insights that they did not (much as they did later to the Apostles according to Philoxenus). (6)

This then plays nicely into Philoxenus' snarling sarcasm aimed against at the jews in relation to their being intellectual prostitutes who were all bark and no bite when it came to religious learning, which is also brought up Philoxenus in relation to the Old Testament and god's continuously having to violently correct his eternally wayward 'Chosen People'. (7) It is also suggested; albeit by proxy, by combining this narrative of the eternally straying jews with the necessity of the death of Jesus by them as the jews would; at that moment, have to decide one last time whether or not they would walk to the righteous or the evil path for all eternity. (8) The jews; of course, chose the evil path.

What this also admirably shows us that Philoxenus was not one to mince his words about the jews and especially in relation to the jewish role in the death of Jesus. He didn't prevaricate, minimize, try to over-contextualise or just suggest the jews needed to be forgiven: he simply called it as he saw it. He saw no need to defend the jews, because they had done wrong and in his view: they needed to severely punished for that crime.

That Philoxenus rather despised the jews is also pointedly evidenced by a comment made about Philoxenus in a Syriac manuscript that is a kind of 'life of Philoxenus'. To wit:

'He opened in this town an immense treasure of doctrine, and filled it with spiritual riches. He composed, first of all, excellent homilies on the commemorative feasts of our Lord, and on all the Dispensation of Christ. He wrote five other books of discourses which enlighten, by means of the Holy Spirit, all those who read them. He wrote six books against the heresy of Nestorius and of Barsauma of Nisibis, and disclosed all the falsehood of the Nestorians by proving that they were "new Jews" and "ancient Pagans."' (9)

The above describes Philoxenus' literary labours of fighting a polemic war against the Nestorians, but what is important is his terms of abuse: 'new jews' and 'ancient pagans'. These seem odd at first, but if we but consider them for a moment then they begin to make sense. If Philoxenus argues that the jews are a mischievous and dangerously subversive people who hate Jesus and his Church then doesn't that rather symbolize a hard-line orthodox cleric's attitude towards perceived heretics (i.e. those who have now adopted the rule the jews play in the Biblical narrative and thus are the 'new jews')?

It does: doesn't it?

As to 'ancient pagans': well the symbolic derivation here is quite probably also from the jews as well given that they are described throughout the Old Testament as having reverted back to the polytheistic and idolatrous (i.e. pagan) ways by worshiping Egyptian, Babylonian and Canaanite gods and goddesses among others.

These then are probably the 'ancient pagans' of Philoxenus in that he is symbolically lambasting the Nestorians with being like the jews in being dangerous subversives who reject Jesus (also suggested by a comment Philoxenus makes in one of his surviving letters on the subject of the trinity) (10) while also suggesting; via the use of Biblical symbolism that would have much more obvious when he originally wrote, that Nestorians were like the jews of old in their constant straying from the righteous path and were in need of divine correction lest they be lost to god's kingdom forever.

To round off this article on Philoxenus' views on the jews it would be appropriate to quote him in his last vicious comment against them and reflect that Philoxenus; in spite of being relatively obscure, was a fervent Christian opponent of the jews and was in his time a fairly strident example of the heights of Christian anti-Judaism.

To wit:

'He who does not believe that He Who, as man, was apprehended by the Jews and led to the death of the Cross, is the Same Who, as God, in the power of His divinity caused creatures to tremble, shall experience the wandering of Cain all the days of his life.' (11)

References

(1) E. Budge, 1894, 'The Discourses of Philoxenus', 1^st Edition, Asher: London, pp. 108-111

(2) For more information see the critical discussion of jews and the concept of sacred prostitution by Stephanie Budin, 2008, 'The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity', 1^st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 103-111.

(3) Budge, Op. Cit., pp. 572; 574-575

(4) Ibid, p. 128

(5) Ibid, p. 133

(6) Ibid, pp. 146-147

(7) Ibid, pp. 187-190; 205-208; 262-274; 431-434

(8) Ibid, p. 243

(9) A. Mingana, 1920, 'New Documents on Philoxenus of Hierapolis and on the Philoxenian Version of the Bible', The Expositor, Vol. 9, No. 19, p. 153

(10) Arthur Vaschalde, 2013, [1902], 'Three Letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbug (485-519)', Syriac Studies Library Monograph No. 253, Gorgias Press: Piscataway, p. 110

(11) Ibid, p. 113

William Guy Carr and the Protocols of Zion

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Mon, 27 May 2013 21:48:00 +0000

William Guy Carr is a figure who will be well-known to many of my readers. He was the author of sixteen books/booklets, which dealt primarily with two separate (although occasionally intertwined) themes: the British Navy and the Illuminati. Having read all of these books/booklets over the last few months I have become rather well-acquainted with Carr's character and his ideas.

Unfortunately I do not particularly find either to be very creditable. Carr himself often comes across; particularly in his 'The Red Fog over America', 'The Conspiracy to Destroy All Existing Governments and Religions' and 'Satan: Prince of this World', as being what skeptics sometimes tern a PCT: Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist. I don't usually like to use such an obviously pejorative term for someone who is; nominally at least, on my side of general political fence, but Carr was; to put it bluntly, an absolute head case.

Though-out his works; but particularly in 'The Red Fog over America' which is his second volume of pseudo-autobiography, Carr routinely interprets events in his life; particularly when he perceives that people should have listened to or when something negatively affects him, as being part of a conscious plot by; what he terms, the WRM ('World Revolutionary Movement') against him personally as their implacable enemy.

Now putting aside Carr's rather weird character and ideas; which I will deal with in a longer separate article, I would like to focus this more concise one on Carr's ideas on the Protocols of Zion in part because they are unusual. Now before we cover this we do need to state quite unequivocally that Carr was not in any way, shape or form anti-jewish let alone anti-Semitic. Those who accuse him of such; notably Political Research Associates, (1) are not only flat out wrong in doing so, but either are completely incompetent (as they cannot have read Carr's most famous books let alone his less well-known ones) or malicious and quite possibly both.

To briefly evidence the point let me quote Carr on this matter:

'Many Clergymen, news commentators, editors, politicians, etc. blame Communists and Jews as being the root of ALL evil. This is not so. Lucifer is the ROOT of ALL Evil.' (2) [Capitalization in original]

And

Clearly Carr was not anti-jewish and could not be an anti-Semite; as some of those who claim to have studied his works seem to want to believe, although he did take some of his ideas from anti-Semitic sources, but made them neutral or; more commonly, somewhat positive in their representation of the jews as being 'forced' into doing bad things by the evil hand of the 'Satanic Illuminati' (which interestingly prefigure David Icke's claims about the jews being controlled by evil elites to make everyone hate them with Carr being the obvious non-cited source).

I will naturally deal with that particular claim in my longer article in relation to his views on the jews and anti-Semitism. It is however enough for our purposes to focus on Carr's attitude to the Protocols of Zion, which he spends several pages addressing in 'The Red Fog over America' and also uses extensively (although far less obviously) in 'Pawns in the Game'.

The interesting thing about this is that Carr's ideas are almost entirely based on a reading of the Protocols of Zion (what Carr terms the 'Long Range Plan'), but yet Carr himself believed that the Protocols of Zion had nothing to do with the jews. (4) That they were in fact a Masonic document that was obtained vis-a-vis the Grand Orient lodge in Paris by a woman of 'easy virtue', which Sergei Nilus had acquired in 1900. (5)

Carr claims that this is the story that Nilus had personally told anonymous 'friends of his', but this is rather unlikely given that this is nothing more than the recycled Philip Stepanov testimony, which suggests that the French original came from Justine Glinka through Sukhotin to Stepanov and Nilus. (6) That would mean that Carr's 'friends' would have to be either Sukhotin or Stepanov: both of which are extremely unlikely candidates for such a friendship. (7)

This means that Carr is either making up this claim or was gullible enough to believe the boasting of friends and acquaintances without a bit of checking (which he constantly advocates and describes himself as doing). It suggests that Carr was hardly the dedicated and careful researcher he believed himself to be and relied heavily on hearsay and gossip to pad out his case (which can easily be seen in the huge number of references in his books to 'friends' and 'informants' who allegedly told him things).

Now by 1901 Carr tells us the Protocols had fallen into the hands of Nilus (which is derived directly from the Stepanov testimony again), which is odd given that the Protocols include a quite obvious reference; had Carr cared to look, to events in 1901 (specifically the assassination of President McKinley) which means that the documents couldn't have come from Paris in 1900 as he believed.

Actually the Protocols were first published in Russian in 1903; with an allusion to them in late 1902, and Nilus doesn't get involved in the story until 1905. This more or less undercuts Carr's whole case about the Protocols as his key piece of evidence is the time-line based on the Stepanov testimony, but leaving out the; even by that time, considerable literature (on both anti and pro sides) on the dating and origin of the Protocols.

This confirms the impression the reader frequently gets when digesting what Carr has to say. His ideas are not based on a careful study of the facts or the literature, but rather on a slight engagement with the literature and padded out with a lot of positions almost conceived ex nihilo: largely stemming from a persecution complex combined with a deep and sincere Christian faith that seems to have perceived the devil as being more real than God (with the tacit assumption that Carr uses that he was a living saint of some kind).

Now getting back to the topic at hand: Carr also claimed; as I have already suggested, that Nilus was in error and the Protocols are not a jewish document, but rather a Masonic one. (8) Further Carr suggests; basing his argument on Nesta Webster's theory about the Illuminati gaining control of a large part of Freemasonry (Carr doesn't even seem to notice the fine distinctions and caveats that Webster uses), because the Protocols are a purely Masonic document: this means they are an Illuminati document. (9)

Carr bases his case on the erroneous assumption that the text; which remember he was after all consulting in English translation, had come down to him without any alternations: let alone any significant re-writing of it. However Carr's lack of engagement with the literature of the time on the Protocols of Zions shows in this absolute trust in the integrity of the text: as even a broad reading of the major pro-Protocols arguments of the time (such as Fry's 'Waters Flowing Eastwards') would have informed him of the need for care due to the lack of version or editorial control between editions.

This lead Carr into assuming that the frequent mentions of Freemasons; as being central elements within the conspiracy outlined by the Protocols text as passed down from Nilus, were from the originators of the text. This is incorrect as Nilus made two sets of sweeping changes to the text: he removed the Old Testament references and added the role of the Freemasons into it. (10)

It is ironic indeed that Carr suggests Nilus was wrong to argue that the Protocols text was composed by jews and it was instead composed by Freemasons given that Nilus himself removed a large part of the overt traces of jewishness from the text and inserted the Freemasons into the narrative. Incidentally we should also note that an anonymous friend; who had been or was in military intelligence according to Carr, had allegedly concluded the same thing. (11)

Carr here is engaging in the fallacy of authority by suggesting that because an individual had been; or was, in military intelligence: then they would be better able to discern the truthfulness, providence and origin of a given document when compared to independent researchers.

I suspect; but cannot prove, that Carr's continually resorting to unnamed and anonymous 'friends' to bolster his case by their spurious authority is a literary device that he is using to cover the fact that he has no actual evidence to support his theories other than to suggest that those in 'higher authority' agree with his conclusions.

The destruction of Carr's assumptions about the integrity and origin of the text more or less implode Carr's whole argument precisely because if the Protocols are not a Masonic document; which they are clearly not, but rather a jewish one then it renders his ideas about a grand Illuminati conspiracy; as enunciated in both 'Pawns in the Game' and 'The Red Fog over America', groundless because the Protocols being a Masonic document is the central pillar around which they are built.

This naturally doesn't mean that individual narratives by Carr about such and such an event are false or implausible, but rather that his grand theory is untenable, but yet segments of it might be salvageable if we were but to combine them into a new intellectual theory as to their place in the greater scheme of things.

Carr also lists fourteen points which he; and his anonymous friend currently or formerly in military intelligence, believe 'proves' the Protocols are an Illuminati plan not a jewish one. (12) I will deal with these in a separate article, because in large part they are either tautological, not relevant to the Protocols or eliminated once we realize that the references to Freemasons were added by Nilus in 1905 and that the original Protocols text from 1903 includes no such references. However they do require a more lengthy discussion than I wish to give here to prevent this article from becoming rather longer than is immediately warranted by the subject.

This then; to summarize, means that Carr's arguments about an Illuminati plan fall apart because he has based them on a literal reading of the Protocols of Zion as an Illuminati document and when we remove the Protocols from contention as an Illuminati document; as I have done above, then Carr's ideas fall out of the sky like dead birds in hunting season.

References

(1) http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_1-01.html [Last Accessed: 27/05/2013]

(2) William Guy Carr, 1962, 'The Red Fog over America', 3^rd Edition, Britons: London, p. 240

(3) William Guy Carr, 1958, 'Pawns in the Game', 3^rd Edition, Federation of Christian Laymen: Ontario, p. 15

(4) Carr, 'Red Fog', Op. Cit., p. 5

(5) Ibid, p. 2

(6) Cf. Cesare de Michelis, 2004, 'The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion', 1^st Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, pp. 23-25

(7) I have pointed out; by proxy, the general problems in the following article: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/05/protocols-of-zion-facts-myths-and-lies_31.html

(8) Carr, 'Red Fog', Op. Cit., p. 2

(9) Ibid, p. 3

(10) I have discussed this in the following article: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/05/protocols-of-zion-facts-myths-and-lies.html

(11) Carr, 'Red Fog', Op. Cit., pp. 2; 6

(12) Ibid, pp. 3-22

Jews in the News

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sun, 26 May 2013 16:50:00 +0000

Week Ending: 26/05/2013

This week we have a veritable bonanza of events in the global jewish community. To begin this week in review lets return to an issue that we touched on last week: the ongoing brouhaha about the $57 million worth of 'Claims Conference' monies that were milked out of German taxpayers as financial restitution for the alleged 'holocaust' of '6 million' jews and then promptly bilked by 31 jewish 'Claims Conference' employees.

As the Forward has pointed out in its rather acerbic editorial on the subject this week: the leaders of the 'Claims Conference' knew what was going on since at least 2001 and only in 2009 did they belatedly organise an 'internal review'. This was then only subject to Julius Berman's authority and was kept out of the knowledge of other members of the 'Claims Conference' board.

The hilarious thing is that Berman has tried to claim that it was 'impossible' to predict (comparing it to 9/11 no less) that such wholesale theft of gentile money would occur from a jewish organisation that is supposed to administer it for the benefit of other jews. So transparently idiotic is that claim that even the Israel Lobby apparatchiks; notably Ronald Lauder of the 'World Jewish Congress' and Natan Sharansky of the 'Jewish Agency', have noticed there is a problem with the books that even a little creative accounting and filibustering public denials cannot solve.

In particular; as the Forward editorial implies, the squabble here is less about the 'creative accounting' practices of the 'Claims Conference' and more about organisational access to the huge pot of money that has been extracted from the gentiles for the sole purpose of helping 'holocaust' survivors. We should remember that quite a few jewish organisations have been in severe financial trouble for some time now due to switching patterns in donations from jews away from traditional communal organisations and also the fact they had been duped by their fellow jew Bernie Madoff into investing in his ponzi scheme (via drooling at the potential return they could make out of said scheme).

After all with interpreting the jews it is important to always look where the money is: most of the time the jews are having a squabble about who gets the credit, should get the status and/or most importantly access to the big kosher piggy bank.

In other related news: our old friends at the Anti-Defamation of B'nai Brith have been exposed to the prying eye of scrutiny this week after the FBI; responding to a Freedom of Information request, have released a large amount of internal material on this most infamous of jewish organisation (this can be freely accessed here).

Among the things it details are the fact that the FBI have been trying to get the ADL designated as an Israeli foreign intelligence agency since 1969, that the ADL unstintingly defended jewish atomic spies because they were jewish (after all were they weren't defending the non-jews now were they?) in the 1950s, that the ADL spent a large amount of time trying to bribe police officials to release one of its spies in 1941 and also documents pertaining to the ADL's still pervasive campaign to link itself; and to publicise that link, with the FBI (i.e. trying to make itself an official police organisation).

If you but listen closely: the chorus of 'Oy Vey!' can be heard inside the ADL's New York headquarters.

Oh and just so everyone is aware: jewish researchers have now concluded that jews are indeed a racial group not; as liberals seem to believe for reasons I know not, a purely religious one.

In Israel-related news: Prime Minister Benjamim Netanyahu has stated this week that he will do anything to keep 'high-tech weapons' (he means anything more powerful than AK-47s and RPGs) from Hezbollah. This however should not be read as Israel being neutral in; or policing, the Syrian conflict; which Hezbollah is intervening more and more in, but rather as Israel trying to prolong the conflict as long as possible by; quite probably, indirectly arming the 'Al-Nusra Front' and the 'Kosher Resistance...'; oh sorry slip of the tongue 'Free Syrian Army', so that Hezbollah is subject to the infamous 'meat grinder' effect of wearing down its military capabilities and resources by prolonged and inconclusive warfare. It is also; we have been told, an excuse by the IDF to prepare for unilateral military strikes on Iran through Syrian airspace.

All the while the Chief Rabbinate of Israel is currently in the middle of a massive internal squabble about which matzoh chomping rabbi is 'best qualified' to dictate to other jews on matters of halakhah and also set policy in regards to just who is considered to be jewish. As is somewhat predictable the debate started out relatively politely, but has now degenerated into a bar-mitzvah brawl complete with fisticuffs, flying fringes and flung fedoras. As well as the occasional wad of banknotes for the huge bribes that have; allegedly, been changing hands sailing through the aid to knock a passing Palestinian out cold.

On the other front-line of Israel's eternal war against its neighbours: Gaza and the West Bank. A liberal Israeli think-tank; the 'Shalom Hartman Institute', is desperately trying to encourage the Palestinian President Abbas to give significant concessions (such as the jewish 'right' to Palestine) so that there can 'peace'.

As after all unless the Palestinians stop resisting the onslaught of jewish jihadis; sorry Israeli settlers, then there is going to have to be more violence and more jews will die. So obviously it is only in everyone's interests for Abbas and the Palestinians to go to the chopping block calmly so that that the jews can rule all of Palestine directly.

After all doesn't the Bible say that the jews have a right to rule Palestine?

Or does it?

In related news the British Foreign Minister; William Hague, has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs effectively condemning the academic boycott of Israeli institutions as well as paving the way for the legalization of the wholesale theft; by Israel, of British technology and state secrets: in much the same manner as has been conducted for decades (for example the Lavi fighter jet joint project with the USA in 1982) against other countries.

Further Hague has also tacitly revealed his support for a potential future unilateral Israeli strike against Iran by simply omitting to comment on the issue (which was brought up Israeli President Peres) and instead stating; quite forcefully, that Israel is within its rights to attack whomever it likes in the name of 'self-defense'.

In other news sub-Saharan African immigration to Israel took a new leap forward this week with a tribe in Senegal claiming to be part of the 'lost tribe' of Israel. There has yet to an Israeli response on the claim, but we can be sure of one thing: it isn't the last tribe which; wanting to immigrate to Israel, claims a jewish origin.

We can but hope Israel has to accept them: after all Israel deserves a bit of its own medicine in relation to state-sponsored multiculturalism (which has been predominantly pushed by jews in Europe and North America for decades).

Back in Hungary: one talented Hungarian kick-boxer has been banned from competing in a competition because of his 'evil tattoos'.

One wonders if we can ban jews who tattoo concentration camp inmate numbers on their arms from competitions too for trying to falsely assert by proxy that they are 'holocaust survivors'?

Also one Hungarian lawmaker; Tamas Gaudi-Nagy, aligned to the patriotic Jobbik party (which; because it is patriotic, jews have decided they hate) has dared to question the official version of the Auschwitz legend when remarking on jews demanding that every gentile, their aunt and said aunt's kitchen sink be sent; courtesy of the Hungarian taxpayer, to Auschwitz to be gassed with the noxious fumes of the foetor judaicus (lit. 'Jewish Stench').

Jews seem to have; as usual, totally missed the point of why the criticism was made (after all why fund jewish education for ordinary Hungarians when the jews themselves should be footing the bill if that is what they want to do) and decided to declaim loudly that it is a part of an anti-Semitic conspiracy to have 'another' (what happened to the first one?) 'holocaust'.

To wrap up this week we have a story of child abuse. No dear reader it isn't about Catholic priests fondling young boys in the rectory, but rather it is the rather less reporting and actually more prevalent situation of rabbis abusing jewish children in the synagogue next door.

In Australia one of the abused jews (who is now demanding the equivalent of the 'holocaust' reparations while the Chabad are suggesting that Torah-true jews; such as themselves, couldn't possibly have done it because the Torah forbids it) punched the representative of his Chabad abusers when said rabbi wished him a 'good Yom Tov'.

Ah aren't jews just lovely little creatures?

Jews and the US National Medal of Science

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 22 May 2013 20:10:00 +0000

Over the last few months I have published several articles dealing with the issue of 'jewish achievement' in relation to several different awards such as the Nobel Prizes, (1) Kyoto Prizes, (2) Fields Medal (3) and so on in addition to an article dealing with the fallacious reasoning of those making broad claims on the basis of these lists in suggesting that they show disproportionate jewish achievement and attainment. (4)

Continuing on this theme I have analyzed the winners of the United States National Medal of Science; which was constituted in 1959, and contains a large amount of different laureates: thus it makes an excellent award to study to understand whether the alleged 'jewish over-representation'; as routinely claimed by sites such as J-Info, (5) holds up to intellectual scrutiny. Indeed J-Info claim that some thirty-eight percent of the winners of the US National Medal of Science have been jewish. (6)

Now; as I have remarked elsewhere, the problem with such a claim hinges on precisely who is defined as being jewish.

In this particular instance; as I have noted elsewhere, (7) J-Info are using a biological definition of jewishness; not a religious one, as they are calculating jewishness based on the father being jewish without trying to ascertain whether or not said father was a member of the Kohanim or a Levite (which would mean that jewishness could be transferred patrilineally as opposed to pure matrilineally).

We can see this in their notes at the bottom of their page on the allegedly jewish winners of the US National Medal of Science as in eight out of twelve instances: they relate that the jew concerned had a jewish father and a non-jewish mother. This means that in religious terms the jews concerned are not Israelites (i.e. they aren't jewish), but rather are mamzerim (lit. 'bastards') who are the offspring of 'bad unions'.

The basic problem with J-Info's 'reasoning'; such as it is, is that they are assuming that any trace of jewishness makes one ascribable to being jewish, which means that they necessarily assert that jews are biologically superior to non-jews. If we but think about it: J-Info are telling us that when a jew has children with a non-jew then the achievements of those children will necessarily be because of being partially jewish in spite of not being wholly jewish.

This means that J-Info are; to use Duke's term, 'Jewish Supremacists' as after all: how are we to differentiate and ascribe the achievements of an individual to their having partially jewish origins as opposed to their having say partially German or Scandinavian origins?

The simple answer is that we cannot do so, but it shows the essentially politico-ideological motivation of J-Info; i.e. the kind of assumptions which underlie Zionism writ large, and why they are willing to misrepresent and distort figures in service to fallacious ideas of jewish superiority over non-jews.

Returning now from this necessary diversion we should point out that claiming that thirty-eight percent of US National Medal of Science winners are jewish is both incorrect and disingenuous.

It is incorrect, because; as my own checking of jewishness indicates (using the maximalist methodological assumption that any biological jewishness equates jewish [which gives the jews their best case), the percentage is actually twenty-six percent.

It is disingenuous because the figure given by J-Info is given as a percentage without necessary context in much the same way as one can claim that a basketball team have won fifty percent of their matches, but they have only actually played two games. Thus it is very easily to comprehend that without necessary statistical context a figure means very little.

Now in order to make sure the figures were comparable I used the same splitting of biological origins on all the laureates and assigned them into broad groups based on their biological origins. So those of European origin, Pacific Asian origin, African origin etc.

This is important precisely because; as we have covered above, the compilers of 'jewish achievement' lists are themselves using a biological definition of jewishness. So thus we cannot compare the number of jews; considered biologically, to the number of Muslims; considered religiously, who have won the US National Medal of Science: as they are not using the same criteria to build their comparative categories.

Having done that and looked through each individual laureate I calculated the following:

Out of 504 laureates who I could find biographical information on they stratified as follows:

Jewish Origin: 130 individuals

European Origin: 352 individuals

Other Origin: 22 individuals

Expressed in terms of percentages of the total this is:

Jewish Origin: 25.8 percent

European Origin: 69.8 percent

Other Origin: 4.4 percent

Breaking that down into the individual disciplines within the US National Medal of Science we get the following numbers:

Behavioral and Social Sciences

Jewish Origin: 8 individuals

European Origin: 19 individuals

Other Origin: 0 individuals

That as expressed in terms of percentages is as follows:

Jewish Origin: 29.6 percent

European Origin: 70.4 percent

Other Origin: 0 percent

Biological Sciences

Jewish Origin: 35 individuals

European Origin: 92 individuals

Other Origin: 2 individuals

That as expressed in terms of percentages is as follows:

Jewish Origin: 27.1 percent

European Origin: 71.3 percent

Other Origin: 1.6 percent

Chemistry

Jewish Origin: 14 individuals

European Origin: 57 individuals

Other Origin: 4 individuals

That as expressed in terms of percentages is as follows:

Jewish Origin: 18.7 percent

European Origin: 76 percent

Other Origin: 5.3 percent

Engineering Sciences

Jewish Origin: 19 individuals

European Origin: 69 individuals

Other Origin: 6 individuals

That as expressed in terms of percentages is as follows:

Jewish Origin: 20.2 percent

European Origin: 73.4 percent

Other Origin: 6.4 percent

Mathematical, Statistical and Computing Sciences

Jewish Origin: 20 individuals

European Origin: 36 individuals

Other Origin: 4 individuals

That as expressed in terms of percentages is as follows:

Jewish Origin: 33.3 percent

European Origin: 60 percent

Other Origin: 6.7 percent

Physical Sciences

Jewish Origin 34 individuals

European Origin: 79 individuals

Other Origin: 6 individuals

That as expressed in terms of percentages is as follows:

Jewish Origin: 28.6 percent

European Origin: 66.6 percent

Other Origin: 5.0 percent

Now in the above it is fairly clear that while the jews are over-represented as a group among the laureates of the US National Medal of Science: they are not the only group to be so and are actually the significantly smaller of the two minority groups. Those of European origin out-perform the jews by a factor of between two and three on all occasions, which clearly indicates that those of European origin are those who are the most significantly and disproportionately represented and not the jews.

This is consistent with European versus jewish over-representation I have found elsewhere in the Kyoto Prize laureates to the Fields Medal winners for example: this clearly suggests that; as a group, Europeans significantly out-perform jews precisely because in every kind of international scientific award; which although the US National Medal of Science is restricted to US citizens and those becoming US citizens it can reasonably be classified as such, then it evidences the fact that claims of 'jewish over-representation' are groundless, because proponents of such ideas have failed to account for the other over-represented group and more specifically the over-representation of Europeans when compared to jews among the laureates of international intellectual awards.

References

(1) See http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus.html; http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/01/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus.html and http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/01/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus_5.html

(2) See http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/01/jews-and-kyoto-prize.html

(3) See http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/01/jews-and-fields-medal.html

(4) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-jewish-achievement-lists-are.html

(5) http://www.jinfo.org/

(6) http://www.jinfo.org/Medal_of_Science.html

(7) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus.html

Jews in the News

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sun, 19 May 2013 10:26:00 +0000

(Week Ending 19/05/2013)

As I am an avid reader of jewish news; as well as jewish views, I thought I would bring back a concept that I experimented with two years ago on Semitic Controversies. Specifically a summary of this weeks news to draw attention to little tit-bits which people might not be aware of from our favourite group of people: the jews. I will use this weekly article published on the Sunday (in addition to my usual daily one) to make a few acerbic comments about the news in order to entertain (without any malice), but also help those who are undecided on the jewish question make up their minds.

To wit this week we were graced with the news that the Hebrew Union College; which is a major yeshiva, (i.e. a rabbinical seminary), has forbidden any student who is dating; or is married to, a non-jew from attending. If say a Christian seminary (obviously not a Catholic one) had banned Christians who were dating or were married to jews: would that not be the scandal of the century?

Of course it would: it just goes to show that there is a socio-political double standard in practice which views all jewish (and more broadly non-European/American) particularist ideas as being fine and dandy, but which also views any remotely pro-European/American particularism to be akin to devil worship.

In other news the celebrated physicist Steven Hawking showed he has more spine (pun intended) than many fellow scholars and scientists in his endorsement of the BDS movement and his refusal to attend Israel's presidential conference. In spite of this praiseworthy action we should point out that Hawking was originally going to attend the conference, but only withdrew after pressure from fellow academics and pro-Palestinian activists: so while he did the right thing, it was only after being nudged in the right direction.

In possible retaliation Facebook has now blocked the Nakba (the 'Arab Holocaust') group page.

I wonder would Facebook also like to block the umpteen 'Holocaust' groups just to be consistent?

More disturbingly the Jewish National Committee on Scouting has voted for and is now campaigning to remove the long standing ban on 'Gay Scouts' in the Boy Scouts of America. What ever is next? Are we to suppose that the Boy Scouts of America are supposed to provide special facilities to 'transgender scouts' now or? Or should they provide 'gender sensitivity counselling' to those who are so hateful as to not want a teenage hermaphrodite prancing around summer camp dressed as Dolly Parton.

Perhaps I am just being a 'reactionary', but if we have 'gay scout leaders' then; given the whole homosexual subculture focused on seducing teenage boys, are we not giving the fox the keys to the chicken coup?

That said if you thought weird behaviour was confined to gentiles; as jews like to claim in their screeds on anti-Semitism, then you'd be wrong considering the latest incident in Pikesville, Baltimore with a mad jewess stalking a young jewish couple proceeding to then throw a large rock at their house and then wave a replica hand gun until the police turned up and shot her.

In rather more serious development a jew named Alan Gross; who was been imprisoned for 15 years in 2009 by the Cuban government for being a spy and trying to recruit the Cuban jewish community to work for 'US Intelligence' (read: Israeli Intelligence), has settled with the US Government in a $60 million lawsuit against them for allegedly not telling him the 'risks' involved with going to a communist police state to give a minority group good access to the internet so they can easily be contacted by third parties.

Since when has a jew ever taken responsibility for their own actions?

Iran by contrast has just announced that it has executed two Israeli spies: we await with baited breath for their extended families to bring a lawsuit against the US government on some pretext that they have incurred bodily harm working for the CIA or the like.

At the Western Wall in Israel (the so-called 'Kotel' in Judaism) however there have; as part of a series of high profile incidents, (8) been clashes between ultra-Orthodox jews and modern Orthodox jewesses (read: superstitious third-wave jewish feminists) over whether or not women are allowed to pray there and whether said women are allowed to dance around and bow to an old wall in the traditional jewish prayer shawl (tallitot) while wearing a black leather strap around their left arm with a little black box with 'sacred writing' strapped to their heads (tefillin). (9)

Hilariously the jewish harridans; when they got hauled away by the Israeli police, started screaming 'Nazi' at the officers as well as their opponents.

Two things strike me about this: jews use 'Nazi' as an pejorative epithet regardless of whom they are flinging it at and it has also become the jewish cultural equivalent of calling someone an 'evil bastard'. This term of abuse; which jews clearly like to throw out, ironically has far more weight in non-jewish countries; which are perpetually regarded as being de facto anti-Semitic by jews, given the fact that they supposed committed 'crimes against the jews' is bashed into their skull every three seconds by some self-righteous jew with an inferiority complex (after all jews use it too much in Israel for it to even be noticeable). The second is that if Israel is the 'modern liberal democracy' of the Middle East: then why does it actively discriminate against jewish women who want to pray at the Kotel?

I thought that was the kinda of thing that the Muslims did?

Oh wait perhaps Judaism and Islam might have quite a lot in common?

No: that couldn't be it.

Or could it?

Incidentally while all this was going on: nearby a bunch of hard-line Zionists and settler fanatics (who seem to have been doing a bit of rabble-rousing at the behest of senior Likud politician Moshe Feiglin) were picking with a fight with Muslims over the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Temple Mount, which the jews demand be blown up so they can build the new Temple of Solomon on the site. (10)

Ah jews are such a peaceful and pleasant people: no?

In other news the successor to Hugo Chavez's Presidency of Venezuela has revealed that he; and his Minister of Communication Ernesto Villegas, are actually jewish and therefore cannot be anti-Semitic. This is particularly amusing considering that jews have spent the last decade bleating about the 'persecution' of jews in Venezuela by Chavez's government with all the predictable rhetorical gusto about Chavez being a 'new Hitler' or at the very least a 'new Stalin'.

While on the subject of anti-Semitism the Australian Federal Parliament has passed yet another declaration about their desire and willingness to 'combat anti-Semitism', which; if you read the text of the declaration, is actually a declaration that they wish to class and combat anti-Israel/anti-Zionist discourse as 'hate speech'.

So much for 'free speech' in Australia then.

This is while Israel plans to legalize four currently illegal jewish settlements in the West Bank in a move designed to remind US Secretary of State John Kerry who calls the shots in Washington on Middle Eastern policy. This comes after Kerry had been warbling on about a 'new peace plan' and then just as he was due to jet in to have a chat: Benjamin Netanyahu makes the point that Israel can do what it likes without fear of retaliation from the United States by making this rather bellicose move.

All the while the IDF has now claimed in court that it didn't drop chemical weapons; specifically White Phosphorus, on Palestinians and that if Palestinians civilians were killed by it: oh well they were in the wrong place at the wrong time because the IDF didn't know they happened to be at home.

What happened to there being a 'red line' in the use of chemical weapons for US military intervention against Israel let alone Syria?

That said Israel is doing its bit for international relations as it has found that at least one state likes it: Senegal.

Aside from the fact that most Israelis probably didn't know Senegal existed let alone have the ability to place it on a map. Israel has decided to do as it did in Sudan (hence their continual warbling about Darfur) and sent large amounts of money as well as numerous 'Israeli experts' into Senegal to train them in various different technical disciplines. This would sound rather generous if Senegal didn't happen to be a major exporter of minerals (ironically; in relation to the IDF's use of them on their fellow Muslims, phosphates) and Israel wasn't desperate for cheap access to raw materials that can fuel its flagging economy (which is dependent on preferential US trade agreements and huge amounts of foreign aid).

In nearby Morocco we have also been informed that one of the King of Morocco's chief advisers is a jew named Andre Azoulay, which might explain why Morocco is Israel's closest friend in the Arab world (albeit one that occasionally throws an tantrum at Israel officially so as to placate the general populace).

It goes to show that where-ever jews are powerful then positive relations with Israel tend to be rather high up on that government's agenda.

The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (aka the Claims Conference) has been in all sorts of hot water this week over the revelations; which were hardly a surprise to dedicated jew watchers out there, that its own staff ran a $57 million dollar scam and that a whistle blower had written a widely circulated internal letter in 2001 exposing just this (the Forward article contains an image of the letter and what it says for those interested).

That jews have been using the so-called 'Holocaust' as a gravy train is nothing to new to many people, but the hilarity comes from the fact that while the jews were extorting money from Germany to pay for seemingly eternally needy 'Holocaust survivors': other jews were stealing that money from them to enrich themselves.

No wonder they always wanted more money: their own staff were pinching it!

Then; in an event sure to cause even the most sombre of people to burst out laughing, the Claims Conference promptly; in an irony of ironies, blames dead officials for the fraud.

Beautiful isn't it?

An organization that exists to get money from a government for the alleged actions of dead people then; when its own corruption is discovered, goes around blaming other dead people for it. Perhaps they will want compensation for that from Western countries to?

You couldn't make it up if you tried.

In relation to this the president of Hungary's major jewish organization has been fired due to his involvement with the Claims Conference fraud and the miserable failure of the World Jewish Congress' recent conference in Hungary to stem the righteous indignation of Hungarians in relation to current and historic jewish activities in their country.

While in more US news: in Arizona a jews only form of legal aid has been created and has been given $8,250 to start defending needy jews who can't reveal the current whereabouts of their Swiss bank accounts.

Perhaps we could form a Europeans only form of legal aid?

Yes: I doubt it too, but it would nice to deal with some kind of sanity in the anglophone west for a change.

And last but not least part of the socialist left has finally realized; with Israel's recent air strikes on Syria, that Israel is a key player on the pro-jihadi (sorry the 'Free Syrian Army') side of the fence there and that Israelis want Syria in chaos so that they can; at some point in the future, invade if they need to, cut of the flow of weapons from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and also open up an air corridor for potential unilateral air strikes on Iran

Oh, but Israel is a peaceful country: isn't it?

Yeah: right.

Jacques Maritain, anti-Semitism and the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:44:00 +0000

As I have already covered in my previous article on the personal interest of the famous and influential Catholic philosopher; Jacques Maritain, in the jewish question is rather strong in spite of the fact that he wrote comparatively little on the subject. (1) I have there pointed out that Maritain had a jewish wife Raïssa Oumansoff; who was a convert to Catholicism, plus many jewish friends who he seems to have; at least in part, idolized. Further Maritain as I implied was originally an anti-Semite and a follower of the ideas of the anti-Semitic nationalist philosopher Charles Maurras. (2)

Indeed Maritain had written; in regards to the situation in Poland, as late as 1919 that: 'One of the most evil and strongest influences that is felt here, perhaps the strongest and most evil, is that of the Jews.' (3)

Clearly then Maritain still clung to Catholic; and indeed Christian, orthodoxy at the time on the subject of the jews in 1919 (i.e. anti-Judaism not; as Wasserstein would have it, anti-Semitism), but yet by 1939 he could write that all Christians are spiritually Semites. (4) However; as I outlined in my previous article, I would date Maritain's own Judeophilia to some years earlier in 1904 when he met his jewish wife and then converted to Catholicism with her in 1906.

I cannot agree with either Kertzer or Wasserstein in relation to their dating of Maritain's tout face on the subject of the jews to the advent of the Third Reich in 1933. I would argue that the roots of so superficially radical a change are much deeper. In particular I would point out the need for clarity of terminology to understanding what made Maritain so violently oppose the rise of anti-Semitism but yet so accepting of anti-jewish Christian orthodoxy before this.

The point is simple enough: if we are to understand Maritain's seeming double standards then we need to comprehend that Christianity as a whole; although there have been historical aberrations which defined jewishness biologically or wanted Christians to become jews, has long had a streak of anti-Judaism within it.

Now what do I mean by that?

Well very simply anti-Judaism is the opposition to Judaism not jews per se. Christian anti-Judaism has tended to focus less on the conduct of individual jews and much more on criticizing and commenting on both Judaism itself as well as Judaism's own criticisms of Christianity. The key thing to understand with traditional Christian anti-Judaism is that it allowed the possibility that individual jews could come good and convert to Christianity, which would then in turn mean that they lost the stigma of jewishness in the eyes of most of the Christian church.

However anti-Semitism was a whole other intellectual world: to the anti-Semite by contrast whether a jew confessed to a belief in Judaism or whether they had converted to Christianity didn't matter, because jews were a biological group and thus the problem was not their rejection of Jesus, but rather their actions as a biologically-based minority in competition with a biologically-based majority represented by their host countries.

In essence in Christian anti-Judaism: Maritain's jewish wife was acceptable, because she had; figuratively, seen the light and converted to Christianity from Judaism. To anti-Semitism however this was irrelevant because jewishness was not a religious label, but in fact a biological one.

Once we understand this we can very quickly see why Mauritain seemed to switch overnight from tacitly accepting anti-Judaism to becoming a vocal critic of anti-Semitism. This is very simply because anti-Judaism was the orthodoxy of Christianity; especially that of the Catholic Church at this time, and to oppose it as a Papal Nuncio: Maritain would have probably caused his own recall and as well damaged his own future influence given that senior Catholics at this time were strident in their anti-jewish views. (5)

Further anti-Judaism was no threat to Maritain's personal situation precisely because according to Christian norms: his wife was now a Christian like any other and the stigma of her jewishness did not; for many, come into the matter.

However with the rise of anti-Semitism in the late 1920s and then the advent of the Third Reich in 1933: this changed. While some Catholic clerics; like Cardinal Hlond of Poland, continued to attack the jews while broadly distancing themselves from anti-Semitism and the Third Reich more specifically: others went the opposite way; like the English Catholic writer Gilbert Keith Chesterton, and endorsed a kind of Judeophilia (an irrational love of the jews) in spite of having made many previous comments which; even then, were borderline anti-Semitic.

Maritian; of course, decided on the second approach to the problem and what seems to have in large part decided this was his jewish wife as well as his already; and increasingly, liberal reading of Christianity, which had been taking shape since 1904. That it was Maritain's jewish wife that was the key factor in his increasing Judeophilia is easily evidenced by looking at his work on the jewish question.

Now; to briefly explain, I have utilized one of the few times that Maritain addressed the issue of the jews and anti-Semitism to elucidate his views (i.e. his short book 'Anti-Semitism' from 1939) largely because it is his major statement on the issue and contains an excellent distillation of all that had to say about the jews in a chapter of another of his books ('Questions de Conscience' from 1938 although originally written in 1937) and his other short book on the jewish question ('A Christian Look at the Jewish Question' also from 1938). Thus I felt it unnecessary to cite everything that Maritain wrote on the issue of the jews as 'Anti-Semitism' is simply a repeat of his earlier arguments with additional qualification and new information on his part.

With this necessary side issue out of the way we can proceed to Maritain's actual text and the stress; or rather lack of it, that Maritan places on racial doctrines in regards to the jews.

Maritain tells us that:

'The truth is that the Jews are not a race in the biological sense of the word.' (6)

He then proceeds to add that:

'Eminent scientists have concluded that, in man's present historic stage, the idea of race corresponds to no anatomical-physiological reality, to no unity of “blood,” but merely to types of “mentalities” produced by historic and social conditions. Its significance rests on extremely complex historical factors (of a psycho-ethico-sociological character) formed by the course of time, rather than on hereditary characteristics transmitted by blood.' (7)

Before briefly analysing this; to put it politely, nonsense we should take note of the qualifier that Maritain introduces in his argument:

'We know that in man's present stage of development there is no group of any importance, even that most favoured in this respect, which is pure in race.' (8)

Now what is interesting about this qualifier is that we can very clearly see that Maritain is trying to degrade the very idea of relative racial purity; which is central to both nationalism and to most forms of anti-Semitism, so that every individual of every suggested racial group becomes de facto racially impure thus rendering any reason for not sleeping with other racial groups moot.

This then clearly plays into Maritain's personal situation given his love for and union with a jewess as if racial classification holds true then it means; very simply, that he is betraying his race and that Oumansoff is still jewish regardless of her formal profession of Christianity.

To justify this rationalizing need to attack the concept of race: Maritain engages in what I can only refer to as a lie by omission. He cites the fact that 'eminent scientists'; which is incidentally a use of the fallacy that has come to be known as 'weasel words', have 'concluded' that there is no such thing as race. He wasn't technically wrong in saying this as some scientists did argue precisely this, but yet they were not all; or even a majority, of the major figures in biological science at the time such as Wesley George and Carleton Coon to name but two: who agreed that race was a valid taxonomic category and also that pure races did exist.

In essence Maritain is being thoroughly dishonest here as he would have; and indeed should have, known better: that he did is shown by his airy-sounding remark about 'extremely complex historical factors', which is basically telling us that he doesn't know why he is right (with the implication he knew a lot of 'eminent scholars' disagreed with him) but that he believes he is regardless (i.e. it is an appeal to mysticism as opposed to a piece of evidence or an argument).

What is perhaps more interesting is that Maritain does not remark on the substantial debate on the subject of the categorization of the jews as a racial group which was then going on between largely German, Swedish and French scientists (For) and British and American scientists (Against). It is odd that Maritain didn't plump for the British and American interpretation in part because it would have resolved his immediate issue with Oumansoff's jewishness, but as Maritain was a philosopher and a Christian one at that: he took the logic to its ultimate conclusion.

Mankind had to be one and the same people to be equal in the sight of God, which would necessarily render race an invalid classification (in humans anyway). This then makes sense of Maritain's adoption of the extreme position of the denial of race and belief in the infinite plasticity of humanity; vis-a-vis the use of environmental factors, which was the hallmark of the fashionable left-wing counter to racialism: Boasian anthropology. (9)

The irony is; of course, the fact that Boas was not even a trained biologist (much like the German author on race: Hans Guenther) and was directly involved in distorting biological science and American anthropology into supporting Marxism's assumptions about nature. (10) Maritain did not not realise it, but his 'eminent scientists' were actually communists of the very kind that most Christians were decrying and the Pope was forcibly and volubly condemning at that particular moment in time. It also confirms the charges that were leveled at him by French nationalists at the time of being a 'mongrelizer of the races', (11) which works on two levels in that he was married to a jewess and advocated the abandonment of racial classification.

Maritain himself however adopted the position that in a choice between two evils: the Nazis were worse than the Communists. His rationale for this was that while Communism was secularism: it was 'against God universally', while the Nazis are secular while being specifically anti-Christian and anti-Semitic (and thus worse). (12)

This is obviously rather strained reasoning, which only makes sense when we recognise that; according Maritain, Christians are the new Jews (13) and that this is why both Christians and Jews were persecuted in equal numbers in the Third Reich. (14) That is simply wrong is neither here nor there, but we should note that it is regardless. (15)

Indeed Maritain actually goes further in developing his idea of the 'mystical body of Israel' (16) in that he styles the Christians as being merely the followers of the jews, (17) which suggests that Maritain's thought had developed to the point of implicitly placing the jews a superior group of people to gentiles. (18) This is particularly brought out when Maritain speaks of the 'special mission' of the jews to essentially be an indivisible remnant making the jewish question unsolvable outside of the Second Coming of Christ. (19)

The jews then; according to Maritain, are to; in effect, hold witness to the truth of Christianity in their 'heroic tribute to the sanctity of a personal and transcendent God.' (20) In other words the jews are a kind of spiritual and literal sacrifice to the God of Israel, because they sacrifice in the 'unjust persecution' to which they are subjected and also in the literal persecution which Maritain claims; on more than one occasion, will see them 'exterminated' by the Third Reich (i.e. a blood sacrifice as in the Old Testament). (21)

This is obviously prescient given that Maritain believed in 1939 that the jews were going to be subject to a 'Holocaust' type scenario and in 1945 it was Maritain who spent a good deal of time trying to persuade the Vatican to support the official 'Holocaust' narrative. Either Maritain was remarkably good at divining the future or Maritain was predisposed to belief in an extermination program.

The latter is the more likely given Maritain's strident belief; in spite of the large amount of evidence from the mass migration of jews from the Russian Empire from the 1880s up till the early 1920s, that mass emigration was quite impossible (22) and that the German attitude to the jews so bad (23) that the Germans would necessarily have to attempt to exterminate the jews in order to be rid of them.

Indeed we can see on this point that Maritain's belief; that emigration was impossible and that extermination the likely alternative in countries where anti-Semitism was state policy, informs his theological positions on the jews which emphasizes the idea of a jewish 'remnant' as witness to Christian truth and also assumes that all that the jews have been accused of; as a group, is necessarily false or unjust.

It also notably allows Maritain and the Church to escape complicity in; what Maritain viewed as, the inevitable attempt by the Third Reich to exterminate the jews by arguing that the Church had historically been a pro-jewish institution and needed the jews in order to fulfil her purpose on earth (thus its opposition to the jews was purely theological and completely different from anti-Semitism). (24)

Maritain develops this view by attacking what he considers as common anti-Semitic charges such as the jews were behind the Russian Revolution, that the jews own all the large banks and so on. Maritain's arguments on this score; such as they are, amount to emphasizing a distinction between the individual and the group. In so far as he argues that the actions of several jews cannot be used to condemn the whole of jewry (25) and further that no critic of jews has ever known enough jews to make a sound judgement about as them as a group. (26)

This is fairly standard intellectual fare for those arguing against anti-Semitism to this day, but as with such intellectually liberal propositions: it doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny.

The reason for this is very simple in so far as Maritain and others; in regards to the second point, are not arguing from an agnostic position on the judgement of the jews. In fact they are arguing from the position of believing the jews to be a universal (or a net) force for good as a group; or as 'the agent of higher culture formation' as Maritain might phrase it, (27) which means that Maritain; and those who tend to use this argument, are trying to have their cake and eat it.

In order to suggest that no group judgements can be made without knowing or sampling a sufficient amount of the given group: one has to abstain from making judgements about them whatsoever oneself because if we introduce our own subjective value into the equation (be it positive or negative) then it necessarily means that you are asserting that a group judgement cannot be made when the it is (in this instance) for the assignation of blame, but yet a group judgement can be made when it is for the assignation of praise.

This is; simply put, a contradiction in terms.

This then nicely brings us back to the first point in that Maritain is; as I have above outlined, trying to assign the jews praise as a group, but then refuses to assign them blame as a group. This is necessarily an invalidation of his own argument, but it doesn't stop there; because Maritain actually suggests that the jews have been 'adopted by God' as a people and thus 'godly' group judgements can be made. (28)

This is obviously another appeal to mysticism (i.e. saying 'it is a mystery' as your rationale for making a contradictory or incomplete affirmative case) on Maritain's part and as such deserves little attention other than pointing out that it necessarily demonstrates how weak Maritain's arguments; regardless of his bombastic theological rhetoric and pleasing written style, actually are, because he cannot show material evidence for them, but rather tells us that he knows it to be true because he was informed by a higher power (in effect).

That said Maritain does make one quite interesting argument; aside from trotting out the claims that the Protocols of Zion were the result of an anti-Semitic conspiracy headed by the Tsarist secret police (29) and the jews were only disproportionately over-represented among the leading Bolshevisk because of unjustified anti-Semitic persecution before the event, (30) when he argues that; as the jews are individualists by nature (31) and are natural capitalists not communists (32) [he actually labels modern economics to be of jewish inspiration] (33) that the solution to the jewish question in society; as it was then, would be to get gentiles to compete better against nature's capitalists: the jews. (34)

Maritain believed that free competition between jews and gentiles could allow for the creation of better economies and also liberalize society creating tolerance. However Maritain failed to understand that free competition is not simply limited to a set playing field of business with firms and entrepreneurs competing on price, quality, brand and so on. It is much wider than that because the freer the competition the more firms and entrepreneurs will take to using extra-market methods to influence the competitive struggle: so for example bribing a politician to introduce legislation that would be more favourable to them than all or some of their competitors leading; potentially, to an increase in market share for them.

This means; in effect, that Maritain's solution was completely unrealistic and part of the reason that the legislation was preferable to this so-called 'free competition'. Was precisely because the jews had abused the hospitality of North American and European countries by not competing fair and square, but rather being so ruthless as to begin to employ extra-market methods to get their own way and turn these same countries into miniature versions of Eden for jews and miniature versions of hell for non-jews (although the jews believed; and still believe, this was the divinely-ordained order of things). Anti-jewish legislation simply represented an extra-market method by the majority of non-jews to combat the extra-market methods that the jews had been using to better their situation at the expression of that of the gentiles.

The irony is; of course, that it was these same extra-market methods which were being used by jews in Germany to bring in policies which was contrary to the interests of Christianity at that time such as the attempt to normalize homosexuality (lead by Magnus Hirschfeld), the attempt to bring about a Communist state in Germany (Rosa Luxembourg and Kurt Eisner among others) and the destruction of the home by feminists (such as the non-jewish Klara Zetkin but whose ideas were often taken in actuality from Rosa Luxembourg).

However we are told by Maritain that the Germany of the 1920s was a paradise for the jews: (35) but yet he doesn't seem to realise that in defending the jews he is actually voting against everything he himself is against as a Christian in addition to working for the abolition of Christianity in Germany.

In essence Maritain was a brilliant philosopher; reading his interpretation of Saint Thomas Aquinas is a very pleasurable experience, but he was also an intellectually weak and naive man divided by the love of his jewish wife on the one hand and Catholic orthodoxy on the other. He chose to fight against his own faith for his wife's sake as his objections to anti-Semitism; as I have above outlined, are based on the supposition that he knows Christianity better than anyone else and that God has chosen the jews to be his agents as much as he has the Christians.

In other words Maritain advocated 'mongrelizing the races', because that was what he himself was doing every day.

References

(1) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/05/jacques-maritains-jewish-problem.html

(2) Bernard Wasserstein, 2012, 'On the Eve: The Jews of Europe before the Second World War', 1^st Edition, Simon and Schuster: New York, p. 32

(3) Quoted in David Kertzer, 2001, 'The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism', 1^st Editon, Knopf: New York, p. 251

(4) Jacques Maritain, 1939, 'Anti-Semitism', 1^st Edition, Geoffrey Bless: London, p. 27

(5) Wasserstein, Op. Cit., pp. 31-32

(6) Maritain, Op. Cit., p. 13

(7) Ibid, pp. 13-14

(8) Ibid, p. 13

(9) On the absurdity of this position see Frank Miele, Vincent Sarich, 2004, 'Race: The Reality of Human Differences', 1^st Edition, Westview: Boulder

(10) On this see Gary Bullert, 2009, 'Franz Boas as Citizen-Scientist: Gramscian-Marxist Influence on American Anthropology', Journal for Social, Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 208-243

(11) Leon Poliakov, 2003, [1979], 'The History of Anti-Semitism', Vol. IV, 1^st Edition, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, p. 304

(12) Maritain, Op. Cit., p. 21

(13) Ibid, p. 16

(14) Ibid, pp. 12-13

(15) See Susannah Heschel, 2008, 'The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany', 1^st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton

(16) Maritain, Op. Cit., p. 18

(17) Ibid, p. 16

(18) Ibid, pp. 11; 16

(19) Ibid, p. 17

(20) Ibid, p. 23

(21) Ibid, pp. 3-4; 6; 24

(22) Ibid, p. 3

(23) Ibid, pp. 6-7; 36-37

(24) Wasserstein, Op. Cit., pp. 30-32 neatly summarizes this.

(25) Maritain, Op. Cit., pp. 5-6

(26) Ibid, pp. 8; 19

(27) Ibid, pp. 5; 20; 22

(28) Ibid, p. 12

(29) Ibid, p. 7

(30) Ibid, pp. 7-8

(31) Ibid, p. 7

(32) Ibid, pp. 4-5; 9-11

(33) Ibid, p. 9

(34) Ibid, p. 5

(35) Ibid, pp. 9-10

Joseph Jacobs, the NSDAP and the Famous 'Jewish Noses' Diagram

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 15 May 2013 17:19:00 +0000

As I might not have a chance to write anything later today I thought it an idea to quickly publish an observation that my readers may find interesting. Now when I was in high school I was subjected to three long years of fairly intensive 'Holocaust' education; the reason being that the history tutors at our school had all specialized in the 'Holocaust' during their undergraduate history degrees, and of the many examples of 'Nazi propaganda about the jews' that I was told about and shown during that time: one in particular has always stuck with me.

It is a diagram of jewish noses that was allegedly; according to my old history textbook anyway, a Nazi diagram meant to confirm their pseudo-scientific beliefs about; as well as encourage hatred of, the jews. That particular diagram I found online yesterday when I happened to recall it and what I had (accidentally) discovered about it in the interim years.

The diagram concerned is thus:

Now I am sure that my fellow long-standing sufferers of indoctrination will remember that one of the claims about this diagram is that it was a crude bit of Nazi propaganda and was meant to get people to believe that a 'jewish nose' sometimes looked like the figure six and thus; as six is the number of the devil, the jews were evil.

As I've already intimated: some time ago I happened to come across this diagram again, but yet there were no mentions of Nazis or anti-Semitism in sight. (1) Indeed the scientist discussing it regards its use by the NSDAP as irrelevant in part because it was actually drawn by one of the most important jewish anthropologists and writers of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century called Joseph Jacobs. (2)

Specifically the article it comes from is Joseph Jacobs, 1885, 'On the racial characteristics of modern Jews', Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 15, pp. 23-62.

This is interesting precisely because it points out the fact that what 'Holocaust' historians are teaching as 'crude Nazi propaganda' designed to make make people hate jews was actually a diagram taken from a major jewish author on the subject of the racial anthropology of the jews and was meant to (correctly) illustrate the agreement between 'Nazi racial science' and 'Jewish racial science' on the distinctive physical characteristics of the jews.

It is also neatly points out that 'crude Nazi propaganda' against the jews is quite frequently not crude, not factually inarguable even today and was good science in its day (which also means that looking doing on it today; because science is a continuous empirical process not a state, is essentially a tautology).

Scratch one myth.

References

(1) John Baker, 1974, 'Race', 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. 241
(2) On the importance of Jacobs see Maurice Fishberg, William Helmreich, 2006, [1911], 'Jews, Race & Environment', 1st Edition, Transaction: New Brunswick, p. 3; Fishberg also reproduces exactly the same diagram on p. 85.

Jacques Maritain's Jewish Problem

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 14 May 2013 19:51:00 +0000

Jacques Maritain isn't exactly a household name, but it is the name of one of the most important Christian philosophers of the twentieth century. He was a man who was the guiding light of liberal Catholicism for most of his mid to later life, counted among his pupils Pope Paul VI and is rightly regarded; by both conservative and liberal Catholics alike, as being one of the spiritual fathers of Vatican II.

The interesting thing about Jacques Maritain for us is really that he wrote two books on anti-Semitism and the jews: one in 1938 ('A Christian Look at the Jewish Question') (1) and the other in 1939 ('Anti-Semitism'). (2) It is also more importantly that Maritain was a fairly central figure in attempting to impose the 'Holocaust' theory onto the Vatican as well as removing anti-jewish doctrines from Catholic Orthodoxy.

Now before we look at what Maritain thought (which will be covered in the next article) in relation to the jews it is important to bring up and understand three separate issues. To wit:

In the first instance Maritain was not exactly a neutral party on the issue of the jewish question as his wife; who Maritain by all accounts was genuinely in love for all his life, was a Russian jewess named Raïssa Oumansoff. (3) Both Maritain and Oumansoff converted to Catholicism in 1906 two years after they met in 1904 and both were fairly well-known during their lives Maritain as a philosopher and Oumansoff as a writer and poet. (4)

This means for all practical purposes that Maritain's philo-Semitism is unlikely to ever have been disinterested and certainly had a direct relation to his marriage to a jewess who had converted to Christianity under his influence.

In the second instance Maritain seems to have seen socialisti-cum-anarchist jews as 'role models' for his revolutionary brand of liberalizing Catholicism; regardless of their religious sentiments, such as the left-wing French jew named Saul Alinsky with whom he became good friends. (5)

This obviously; to reinforce my earlier point, means that Maritain's views on the jews are not those of a neutral observer, but rather a partisan with a specific stake in the cause that he espouses.

In the third instance one of Maritain's major intellectual influences was a French Catholic philosopher named Charles Maurras. You might ask why that is odd given that all thinkers have an intellectual ancestry so-to-speak, but add into the equation that Charles Maurras was the intellectual figurehead behind the 'Action Française' (6) and almost all of his writing espoused extreme nationalism (to the point where even the SS had to move to silence him because he was so nationalistic that he believed the NSDAP simply weren't radical enough [and were German to boot]) as well as one of the most extreme forms of intellectual anti-Semitism that has ever graced French literature (Maurras was fairly homicidal towards jews). (7)

Or to put it another way Maurras placed anti-Semitism at the core of French patriotism and nationalism as well as being a public nationalist intellectual par excellance (as Maritain was himself to become). (8)

That presents us with something of a contradiction: doesn't it?

The most philo-Semitic of French Catholic philosophers was heavily-influenced by the most anti-Semitic of French Catholic philosophers. It is certainly a strange thing to happen, but not unprecedented at the time as one of the most philo-Semitic German experts on Judaism; Hermann Strack, was actually the intellectual mentor of one of the most anti-Semitic German experts on Judaism (Erich Bischoff). (9)

Some jewish academics would have it that anti-Semitic (although; we note, not philo-Semitic) tout faces of this kind are the result of political circumstance, (10) but I would disagree on the grounds that this assumes that anti-jewish thought is ipso facto irrational. This; in spite of the many attempts to claim it is so, is patently absurd any more than it is to argue that anti-Islamic sentiment is ipso facto irrational because anybody could construct and detonate a suicide bomb not just Islamists.

Indeed I would argue that what circumstance there is tends to be a mixture of intellectual conviction, intellectual fashion (which incorporates economic and cultural motivations) and personal circumstances. The interesting thing is that Maurras violently opposed secularism (11) and was also deeply interested in reconciling the differences between Plato and Aristotle, (12) which mirrors Maritain's own intellectual later interests in anti-secularism and a revolutionary form of Christian philosophy based on a synthesis of Plato and Aristotle using the medium of Saint Thomas Aquinas. (13)

It is also important to note that Maurras had begun writing only shortly before Maritain entered higher education and with Maritain having a voracious mind deeply interested in the problems of philosophy: it is not surprising that he found an intellectual kindred spirit in Maurras.

Indeed if we take into account that Maritain was in higher education and university in France between 1898 and 1906: then it is not difficult to find the event that likely pushed him towards an interest in the jewish question outside of his attraction for Oumansoff. That event was very simply the Dreyfus Affair, which went on between 1894 and 1906. (14)

Maurras naturally was an anti-Dreyfusard and wrote anti-jewish polemics against the perfidy of Dreyfus and I find it difficult to imagine that Maritain would not have taken the side of Maurras during this early period especially as it was not until later that Dreyfus would be found innocent.

However by the time of his meeting with Oumansoff in 1904: Maritain's anti-jewish ideas; probably inherited from Maurras, were likely beginning to wane (with the fortunes of the anti-Dreyfusards) with his reading Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic classics which emphasized conversion and the goodness that man can do as opposed to fighting the forces and influence of hell (which was more in tune with Maurras and his intellectual confrères).

We can reasonably suggest that it is the introduction and then continued presence of Oumansoff in Maritain's life that was the formative agent in his views on the jews combined with his increasingly differing reading of the purpose of and the challenges facing the Catholic Church in comparison to Maurras. In essence Oumansoff was Maritain's Esther; as in the principle figure in the book of Esther, where she by dint of her jewishness controls the Platonic philosopher-king (Maritian) by said king's love for her so that said king will use his power to destroy the enemies of the jews (in Maritain's case ranging himself against the French anti-jewish Catholic intellectuals such as Monsignor Jouin). (15)

This then means; in effect, that Maritain was not the neutral partisan on the jewish question that he is so often made out to be, (16) because he had a jewish wife; who was like him a convert to Catholicism, and also because he had close jewish friends who he wished to protect and nurture into 'accepting Christ'.

The reason Maritain's views on the jews have tended to be regarded as relatively neutral is precisely because he wrote in an unapologetically liberal tone; seeming reasonable while using actually using rather strange logic (even for a Thomist), and that he wrote very little on the subject of the jews. Outside of the two books (and they are small ones even then) I can find only four articles in his papers explicitly to do with the jews, (17) he seems to have generally written little on the subject, but this doesn't mean; as is usually assumed, that because he wrote little that he was in anyway unbiased on the issue.

In reality it is probably because he wrote so little on the subject of the jews that his extremely philo-Semitic views on the jews (which I would without much equivocation style the irrational love of the jews or Judeophilia) were as well-regarded as they were, because he wasn't seen to obsess over the issue and instead focused on his philosophy and using his 'true humanism' to change the Catholic Church in order to suit both his liberal intellectual tastes and also make it a place that would unequivocally accept his jewish wife and jewish friends as Catholics like any other (as otherwise that wouldn't be 'his kind' of Church).

Was this not what the contemporary anti-jewish Catholic author; Leon de Poncins, foresaw happening? (18)

Indeed: it was.

References

(1) Jacques Maritain, 1938, 'A Christian Look at the Jewish Question', 1^st Edition, Longmans and Green: New York

(2) Jacques Maritain, 1939, 'Anti-Semitism', 1^st Edition, Geoffrey Bles: London

(3) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maritain/ [Last Accessed: 14/05/2013]

(4) Ibid.

(5) Bernard Doering, 1986, 'Jacques Maritain and His Two “Authentic Revolutionaries”', pp. 93-96 (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Maritain%20and%20His%20Two%20Authentic%20Revolutionaries%20(Thomistic%20Papers%20III.).pdf )

(6) Thomas Molnar, 'Charles Maurras, Shaper of an Age', Modern Age, Fall 1999, pp. 339-341

(7) Paula Hyman, 1998, 'The Jews of Modern France', 1^st Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley, p. 146

(8) See Zeev Sternhall, David Maisel (Trans.), 1986, 'Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France', 1^st Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley

(9) See the following article: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/06/erich-bischoff-contra-hermann-strack.html

(10) For example this is implied by Moshe Zimmerman, 1986, 'Wilhelm Marr: Patriarch of Antisemitism', 1^st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 96-111

(11) Pierre Birnbaum, Jane Marie Todd (Trans.), 1996, 'The Jews of the Republic: A Political History of State Jews in France from Gambetta to Vichy', 1^st Edition, Stanford University Press: Stanford, p. 131

(12) Molner, Op. Cit., pp. 337-338

(13) Doering, Op. Cit, pp. 91-92

(14) For a good overview see Albert Lindemann, 1991, 'The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs: Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank, 1894-1915', 1^st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 94-128

(15) On Jouin's fanatical hatred of and rather detailed research about the jews see Leon Poliakov, 2003, [1979], 'The History of Anti-Semitism', Vol. 4, 1^st Edition, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, pp. 282-283

(16) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maritain/

(17) For details of the Maritain collected papers see: http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/jm.htm

(18) Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Timothy Tindal-Robertson, 1967, 'Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion', 1^st Edition, Britons: London, pp. 167-174

Palladius of Galatia on the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sun, 12 May 2013 18:11:00 +0000

Palladius of Galatia isn't exactly a household name even among those who consider themselves fairly well-versed in early Christian history. This is in partially because we know very little about Palladius himself and all that we do know with some certainty is that he was a fifth century bishop of Helenopolis and was a devoted follower of Saint John Chrysostom.

Indeed one of Palladius' two surviving works is a book about the life of Saint John Chrysostom: the other is his 'Lausiac History'. What we do know about Palladius is that he was well-regarded in his day and that he had a considerable amount of correspondence and relations with many senior Christians of his day.

That then gives us a basis for the authority and life of Palladius' teachings and in particular we find a significant amount of material in his two works on the subject of the jews.

To begin with in the 'Lausiac History' he writes that:

'But Pythagoras, Diogenes and Plato drank water; so did the Manichaeans and the rest of the band of soi-disant philosophers, and yet they reached such a pitch of vain-glory in their intemperance that they failed to know God and worshipped idols. The apostle Peter and his companions used wine to some extent, so that their Master, our Saviour, was himself reproached on account of their participation, by the Jews' saying: "Why do not thy disciples fast as do the disciples of John?" Again insulting the disciples with reproaches they said: "Your Master eats and drinks with the publicans and sinners."' (1)

Here we see Palladius casting the jews in the role as the fanatical opposition to Jesus and as being devoted agents of the Devil in casting aspersions on this character (i.e. his association with drunks and prostitutes or put another way on his association with the lowest of the low as opposed to hobnobbing with the great and the good of his day) and also trying to draw him into imitating others (why don't you abstain from sustenance like the disciples of John the Baptist did/do) [thus proving him not to be original or wholly truthful and thus not the Messiah].

Palladius continues thus:

'So before their eyes he took scissors and cut off his left ear to the base, saying to them: "Well, be convinced now that it is impossible for me to be ordained, since the law forbids a man with ear cut off to be raised to the priesthood." So then they left him and departed and went and told the bishop. And he said to them: "Let the Jews observe this law. For my part, if you bring a man with his nose cut off worthy in character, I'll ordain him." So they went off again and implored Ammonius. And he swore to them: "If you use force to me, I'll cut off my tongue." So then they left him and went their way.' (2)

Here Palladius is casting the jews once again in the role of the fanatical opposition to Jesus and Christianity, but the emphasis he is using has changed. This change is that rather than the jews trying to actively lead the Christians; by contradiction and error, into the arms of the Devil: they are instead passively observing the old laws and if if; as the jews say, 'it is written' then the they must do it because it is written so.

Palladius' point is simply that the old laws of the Torah (the 613 Mitzvoth in historic and modern Judaism) are absurd and the jews observe them rigidly without understanding them or seeing an obvious motive in them: so; as he says, if the Torah forbade a man to be a priest who had had an ear cut off then the jews would adhere to this without critical appraisal regardless of how pointless or unjustified it may actually be.

Essentially he is making the point that the jews observe the letter; rather than the spirit, of the law of God and also observe those laws without understanding them, which is; in Palladius' view, in direct contradiction to Christian observance of the spirit of the law; as opposed to the letter of the law, as well as using the tools of logical analysis and philosophy to comprehend and make sense of those laws in quasi-scholastic fashion.

Palladius illustrates this adversarial nature later when he relates a personal anecdote to make a separate point. To wit:

'I knew an old Palestinian named Gaddanas, who lived in the open air in the region round the Jordan. Some Jews once set about him in a fanatic outburst, in the region round the Dead Sea, and came against him with swords drawn. And this incident occurred. When a man lifted up his sword and wished to use it against Gaddanas, the hand of him who had drawn it was withered up, and the sword fell from the hand of its wielder.' (3)

In the above we can see that the jews are cast as having attacking a pious Christian named Gaddanas and he was attacked due to this strong Christian belief by jews 'with swords drawn'. However God protected his devout follower and struck down his jewish attackers and thus miraculously saved Gaddanas from harm (i.e. proving the jews wrong and the Christians right).

We can see from this that Palladius means to suggest that the jews are the eternal persecutors of Christians and they have been filling this role ever since the crucifixion of Christ due to their persecution and hand in killing of him (i.e. the charge of Deicide). Indeed Palladius casts the jews very much in the role of the devil's own mortal army who will stop at nothing to stop the spread of Christian truth to the peoples of the world.

This is brought out in particular in Palladius' 'Dialogue concerning the Life of Saint John Chrysostom' when he states that:

'So they held a gathering, and took steps to bring a suit against John. One of them suggested that they should present petitions to the king, and insist upon his appearing before the synod, however unwilling. This was the course adopted; as with the Jews, so with them, money made everything easy.' (4)

Palladius' point is not hard to discern here in that the Christian synod was aping the stratagem of the jews in dealing with Christian influence: simply bribe officials to get your way as every individual has their price regardless of ideological scruples and claims to the contrary. The sub-text to the remark is; of course, that the jews have long used bribery and the offer of money in exchange for political influence as a practical political tool to fight against Christians in the public and private spheres of life.

To Palladius' mind it seems that while the jews attacked Gaddanas with 'swords drawn' ready to stab: they tend to attack Christians less in this direct way, but rather with their cheque books drawn from their pockets and ready to bribe.

This is confirmed when Palladius tells us:

'The feast of Pentecost passed, and five days afterwards Acacius, Antiochus, Severianus, and Cyrinus came to the king, and said: "Your majesty, as by God's appointment you are not under our authority, but have authority over all, you can do whatever you will. Be not more mild than a priest, and more holy than a bishop; we said to you publicly, Upon our heads be the deposition of John. Do not then be unmerciful to all of us, in being merciful to one man." They employed the same language, I might say the same actions, as the Jews, to persuade the king.' (5)

Palladius here is clearly telling us that the jews use underhand and dishonourable tricks such as bribery to get their way, but it is also implied in what he says that the jews also use the additional trickery of slanders, lies and calumny. In order to achieve their ends as a bribe is accepted that much more easily when it is given a justification and can be portrayed by the bribed party to be; shall we say, 'in response to information received'.

In other words the jewish assault on Christianity is two-fold according to Palladius: the jews spread lies, slanders and calumnies against the Christians and these are backed up by a campaign of bribery in order to grease the acceptance of these claims.

The object of this twin campaign against Christians is elucidated by what Palladius says happened as a result of it in the case of Saint John Chrysostom. To wit:

'With him went forth the angel, unable to bear the desolation of the Church, brought about by wicked principalities and powers, who had produced a sort of theatrical exhibition. Yes, there was a roar, like that one hears in a theatre; the ungodly hissed and booed, Jews and Greeks yelled at the top of their voices. And there were blows and body wounds, inflicted by the soldiers, as if they were dealing with criminals in a prison; while every faculty of the soul was tortured by the withdrawal of the teacher, and by the blasphemy against God.' (6)

The above presents us with the simple object of this campaign by the jews in that it was to see the Christians persecuted by the authorities and ultimately for Christian blood to stain the sands of the arena with that of the common criminals, which would then slake the jewish thirst for blood for at least a time.

Palladius also tells us quite clearly where the jews got the money for their bribes from when he states as follows:

'So the synod ordered, that they should recover from the heirs of Antoninus, and should communicate within the sanctuary, but not be reckoned as priests, for fear that if their doings were condoned, a custom might arise worthy of Jews or Egyptians, of selling and buying the priesthood. They say that the pestilential patriarch of the Jews, whose acts belied his title, used to change the rulers of the synagogues every year, or every other year, as a means of raising money; and that the Patriarch of Egypt emulated him by doing the same, that the word of prophecy might be fulfilled, "Her priests made answer for gifts, and her prophets divined for money." (7)

Now in the above; quite side from the delightfully pejorative comments Palladius makes about the 'pestilential patriarch', we can see that he had identified that the jews have corrupted their own institutions into being ones that can be bought and sold for profit by those in authority. This then gives the purchaser a huge boost in socio-cultural; in addition to political, status which they then invariably use to enrich themselves in order to recoup their losses (in much the same way as jews often brought tax-farming rights from medieval monarchs in Eastern Europe [i.e. paying the monarch a fixed sum for the right to collect taxes in a given area thus meaning that you use every law possible to wring more money from the population]).

However it also gives the jewish leadership caste a considerable flow of liquid capital/ready cash, which they can then use to bribe officials and influential individuals/groups into following their agenda rather than their own.

This also links nicely back to Palladius' comments in the 'Lausiac History' about the jews obeying the letter of the law as opposed to being in-tune with the spirit of the law. As to him the jews have debased their covenant with God so far that they are willing to sell even the highest of spiritual offices, because it is no specifically prohibited by the Torah but yet is clearly prohibited in the spirit of the Torah in relation to the formation of the priesthood of uncompromising Yahweh purists only beholden to God (i.e. the Levites).

This buying and selling of the priesthood; or simony in Christian theological vocabulary, for profit is then implicitly drawn on by Palladius when he remarks about jews seeking to become Christian priests and then deliberately causing the lowering of attendance at Churches so as to remove; what Marxists would call, the 'mass base' of the Church and thus remove a large segment of its political power in its ability to gather mobs together and fights its religious enemies.

To wit:

'So these companions of actors and Jews are entrusted by our clever friends with the secrets of the priesthood, as if they were friends of the Saviour, and in consequence the orthodox laity avoid the houses of prayer.' (8)

In essence Palladius is telling us that jewish converts to Christianity are 'wolves in sheep's clothing' who are interested only in promoting the agenda of the jews among the Christians by forcing the people away from the Churches and thus making war upon Jesus. This is clearly demonstrated by Palladius' reference to the jews as being the enemies of Jesus and the inference of his remark that the jews were; as a people, not the friends of Jesus and that jewish converts must; accordingly, be 'wolves in sheep's clothing' as opposed to genuine converts to Christianity.

We can then sum up Palladius' strident opposition to the jews and place him as one of the strongest critics of the jews among early Christian intellectuals by quoting his own last words on the subject of the jews, which find few parallels in Christian writing for their sheer strength of feeling and their obvious erudition.

He ends thus:

'Perhaps people who are always on the look-out for honours call this insolence; but John says to those who came to put themselves under his instruction, "O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" And Paul, in the Acts, says to the chief priest, "God shall smite thee, thou wailing wall;" and the Saviour in one place says to the Jews, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign," and in another, to all the apostles, "O fools and slow of heart." In yet another He calls Peter, Satan" Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou art an offence unto me." Yet there was no grave offence, which called for these severe expressions.' (9)

References

(1) Pall. Lau. Hist. Pro. 9

(2) Pall. Lau. Hist. 11

(3) Ibid. 50

(4) Pall. Dia. Vit. John Chrys. 8

(5) Ibid. 10

(6) Ibid.

(7) Ibid. 15

(8) Ibid.

(9) Ibid. 19

Update on the famous Goldwin Smith Misquotation

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sat, 11 May 2013 18:43:00 +0000

About this time last year I published an article; 'The Origin of the Goldwin Smith Quotation', (1) about the often used quotation that alleges that Goldwin Smith said the following in 1981:

'We Jews regard our race as superior to all humanity, and look forward, not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them.'

Now; just to briefly recap, I pointed out that in the first instance Goldwin Smith wasn't jewish, in the second he was a prolific opponent of the jews (being branded as the 'founder' of intellectual anti-Semitism in Canada for example) and that he wrote during the nineteenth century not the twentieth century (ergo he wasn't alive in 1981 or even 1921).

Further I pointed out that the quotation was completely wrong as he actually wrote:

''The Jew alone regards his race as superior to humanity, and looks forward not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them all and to its final ascendancy under the leadership of a tribal Messiah.' (2)

I also pointed out that the earliest variant of this misquotation that I was aware of was made by Gordon 'Jack' Mohr when he quoted it (without giving an originating source) in his 'The Satanic Counterfeit':

'Listen to the Jew, Goldwin Smith, Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, October 1881, “We regard our race as superior to humanity, and look forward not to its ultimate union with other races, but its triumph over them.”' (3)

Now it seems fairly clear that between 1982 and present there has been a mistype of 1881 for 1981, which would explain the rather silly error on the part of those who use this quotation: made worse by the fact that Goldwin Smith actually has a Wikipedia article explaining that he wasn't jewish and an opponent of them. Even putting his name into Google quickly reveals this to be the case.

I've been reading Goldwin Smith's rather considerable corpus of written material on and off over the last year with a view to doing some academic work on him (in part because we share a personal connection), but I did come across an mention of Goldwin Smith's 1881 article 'The Jewish Question' (from which this misquotation stems) in William Guy Carr's 'Pawns in the Game'.

To wit Carr says the following (which I have double-checked against the original text of Smith's article):

'In the Nineteenth Century, October issue, 1881, Goldwyn Smith, professor of modern history at Oxford University wrote: “When I was last in England we were on the brink of war with Russia, which would have involved the whole Empire – the Jewish interests throughout Europe, with the Jewish Press of Vienna as its chief organ, was doing its utmost to push us in.”' (4)

Carr also makes it explicitly clear that Smith was an anti-Semite and not jewish when he spends a paragraph in his notes criticising Smith for 'mistaking' the jews as the principle conspiratorial agent against the British Empire (Carr prefers a Satanic plot headed by the Illuminati in which the jews are just hapless pawns). (5)

It thus seems that between the last edition of Carr's book (the sixth in 1966 although there was a reprint in 1967) and Mohr's 'The Satanic Counterfeit': there has been a substantive change in the interpretation of Smith's article. It does however pointedly inform us that Smith's 1881 article 'The Jewish Question' was well-known in anti-jewish circle, but Smith himself was probably not (hence both why it was misquoted as well as also how the editor heard of the obscure article and Smith).

It also suggests (but does not prove) that between 1967 and 1982 was when the quotation was altered to make it seem like Smith was a jew and had asserted something he did not. I am yet to find an originating source, but I doubt that Mohr was actually the origin of the misquote given his tendency to simply take quotes from elsewhere and use them with attribution.

It seems likely however that this quote was probably modified and then published by one of the anti-jewish groups in the United States that were operating at this time (as the British anti-jewish groups would be more likely to know who Smith was given his high prominence in nineteenth century British intellectual life and Mohr isn't likely have got the quotation from a non-Anglophone publication) and unfortunately; as I have pointed out in relation to several other misquotes and supposed 'jewish documents', there are at least two significant candidates (with access to the pages of anti-jewish publications) who were operating at this time who were prone to do this kind of thing (i.e. Eustace Mullins and Walter White Jr.).

I shall publish an update when and if I find anything else to do with this particular quote whereby we can find an originating source or further narrow down the time period it seems to have come into existence.

References

(1) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/05/origin-of-goldwin-smith-quotation.html

(2) Goldwin Smith, 'The Jewish Question', The Nineteenth Century, October 1881, Vol. 140, p. 1114

(3) Gordon Mohr, 1982, 'The Satanic Counterfeit', 1^st Edition, CPA: Boring, p. 63

(4) William Guy Carr, 1967, 'Pawns in the Game', 6^th Edition, St. George: Glendale, p. 72

(5) Ibid, p. 83

Antiochus of Palestine on the Jews and the Fall of Jerusalem in 614 AD

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sat, 11 May 2013 17:19:00 +0000

In 614 AD the Byzantine Empire lost its spiritual centre when the Persian Empire under Chosroes II and one of those who chronicled this event in his 'Exomologesis' was a monk named Antiochus (usually called Antiochus of Palestine or Antiochus Strategos) who was an eyewitness to many the events that he describes. The interesting thing about this chronicle; which tells of the woes suffered by the Christians at the hands of the Persians and their allies, is that it includes a fairly substantive mention of the treatment of the Christians of Jerusalem by the jews.

I quote:

'Thereupon the vile Jews, enemies of the truth and haters of Christ, when they perceived that the Christians were given over into the hands of the enemy, rejoiced exceedingly, because they detested the Christians; and they conceived an evil plan in keeping with their vileness about the people. For in the eyes of the Persians their importance was great, because they were the betrayers of the Christians. And in this season then the Jews approached the edge of the reservoir and called out to the children of God, while they were shut up therein, and said to them: 'If ye would escape from death, become Jews and deny Christ; and then ye shall step up from your place and join us. We will ransom you with our money, and ye shall be benefited by us.' But their plot and desire were not fulfilled, their labours proved to be in vain; because the children of Holy Church chose death for Christ's sake rather than to live in godlessness: and they reckoned it better for their flesh to be punished, rather than their souls ruined, so that their portion were not with the Jews. And when the unclean Jews saw the steadfast uprightness of the Christians and their immovable faith, then they were agitated with lively ire, like evil beasts, and thereupon imagined another plot. As of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir; for they gave the Persians silver, and they bought a Christian and slew him like a sheep. The Christians however rejoiced because they were being slain for Christ's sake and shed their blood for His blood, and took on themselves death in return for His death...

When the people were carried into Persia, and the Jews were left in Jerusalem, they began with their own hands to demolish and burn such of the holy churches as were left standing...

How many souls were slain in the reservoir of Mamel! How many perished of hunger and thirst! How many priests and monks were massacred by the sword! How many infants were crushed under foot, or perished by hunger and thirst, or languished through fear and horror of the foe! How many maidens, refusing their abominable outrages, were given over to death by the enemy! How many parents perished on top of their own children! How many of the people were bought up by the Jews and butchered, and became confessors of Christ! How many persons, fathers, mothers, and tender infants, having concealed themselves in fosses and cisterns, perished of darkness and hunger! How many fled into the Church of the Anastasis, into that of Zion and other churches, and were therein massacred and consumed with fire! Who can count the multitude of the corpses of those who were massacred in Jerusalem!' (1)

Now it is not difficult to see that the above is a fairly vicious attack on the jews by a Christian monastic (I am not elaborating on it largely because the text is self-explanatory), but what is important to emphasize is that regardless of the fact that Antiochus' text is invective per se: it is also a chronicle of what happened by someone who may or may not have been there and if he was not there then he would have known eyewitness who had been.

The historicity of the account is also hard to dispute given the fact that the Roman Empire; which then became the Byzantine Empire, had long had an acrimonious relationship with its jewish subjects and Emperors; both Christian and Pagan, had long regarded the jews with suspicion and even outright hostility.

This suggests that one of two possible explanations to us in so far as the jews could have been driven into the arms of the Persians by Imperial persecution or the jews could have been against the Romans and Byzantines throughout the centuries they had been part of the successive empires with the events in Jerusalem just giving voice to that sentiment after having had it passively or actively suppressed due to their material circumstances for quite some time.

The latter seems the more likely of the two explanations; although scholars traditionally plump for the former as it neatly removes any need to investigate whether the jews had any non-material motivations for what they did, as it fits with jewish behaviour in the mid-late Roman Empire (2) as well as jewish behaviour in Spain before, during and after the Islamic conquests (where the jews were active traitors to the Visigothic kingdoms and acted as a pro-Islamic fifth column inside Spain's cities). (3) It is also worth noting; as I have argued elsewhere, (4) that the jews had long had a friendly association with the Parthian/Persian Empires in part because they contained large numbers of jews who we know with some certainly held positions of responsibility and influence. (5)

Indeed jewish assistance for anti-Roman/Byzantine powers has quite some history: predating even the formation of the Roman Empire and stretching back to the last years of the Roman Republic! (6)

This situational context is important precisely because without it the explanation that the jews were just persecuted into having nothing to lose, but to help the Persians seems quite appealing. When you factor in this situational context however: it becomes quite clear that the jews are not interested in anything but either general vengeance against Rome/Byzantium and/or using anti-Roman/Byzantine powers to sweep away their imperial masters so that they can in time forge a new jewish state.

In essence the jews weren't being oppressed by anyone in particular; to be sure they had statutory laws of long-standing against them but they were also afforded significant protection under these same laws, and their betrayal and then murder of Christians at Jerusalem (conducted as if it were a sport no less) then the defiling of its churches goes well beyond the pale of simple 'resentment against persecution' and more into vengeance and the nationalistic thirst for power and dominion.

This ironic especially as jewish historians; such as Samuel Glassman, when recounting the seventh century anti-jewish riots and jewish support for the later Muslim invaders in both Asia Minor and Spain, do not mention the catalyst event (jews killing Christians for vengeance/sport in Jerusalem in 614 AD and also working with the Persian Empire against the Byzantines). (7) Instead they mention the effect (anti-jewish riots in Constantinople/Byzantium as well as the wave of Byzantine legal repression of the jews that followed this) and what they see as the concomitant jewish sympathy for Islam and hatred of Christians due to this 'unjust irrational persecution'.

Glassman and others are misrepresenting the situation quite considerably, because they are citing everything but the founding event and then representing the Byzantine dislike of jews as being ex nihilo so as to fit into their broad narrative that the jews were unjustifiably and irrationally persecuted for things they didn't do as opposed to being rational prosecuted for things they most certainly did (i.e. the anti-jewish riots and legislation were irrational because they had no rational trigger [which we can clearly see that they did]).

We can thus see that Antiochus of Palestine's chronicle of the behaviour of the jews towards the Christians is actually likely to be very accurate; with the odd rhetorical flush perhaps, and that this murderous and spiteful jewish behaviour was then the cause of a wave of anti-jewish riots and legislation in the Byzantine Empire, which then escalated over centuries with the jews actively helping the armies of Islam leading to the slaughter of jewish communities across Europe at the time of the First Crusade (which occurred; we should remember, at the behest of the Byzantine Emperor).

So who ultimately caused jewish suffering in these later centuries?

The jews themselves.

References

(1) Frederick Conybeare, 1910, 'Antiochus Srategos: The Capture of Jerusalem in 614 AD', English Historical Review, Vol. 10, pp. 508-509

(2) For example: Eusb. Pamp. Ecc. Hist. 4:2.1-5; Cassius Dio, 68:32.1-3

(3) Eliyahu Ashtor, 1973, 'The Jews of Moslem Spain', Vol. I, 1^st Edition, Jewish Publishing Society of America: Philadelphia, pp. 10-16; also see the following two articles: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-28-jew-laws-of-erwig-part-i.html and http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-28-jew-laws-of-erwig-part-ii.html

(4) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/05/cassius-dio-on-jews-part-iii.html

(5) See Leon Poliakov, 2003, [1973], 'The History of Anti-Semitism', Vol. II, 1^st Edition, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, pp. 12-15

(6) Adrienne Mayor, 2010, 'The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome's Deadliest Enemy ', 1^st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 341

(7) Samuel Glassman, 1980, 'Epic of Survival: Twenty-Five Centuries of Anti-Semitism', 1^st Edition, Bloch: New York, p. 64

Debunking Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez's 'All European Life Died in Auschwitz'

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Mon, 06 May 2013 20:05:00 +0000

In my previous article on the subject of Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez's article-cum-chain letter 'All European Life Died in Auschwitz' I simply re-wrote the text of the article to make it fit the actual situation more appropriately than Rodriguez's original. (1) Now more than that I think it is necessary to actually analyze what Rodriguez has to say or rather; perhaps more appositely, what he claims.

The reason for this is simple: in that this article has been widely disseminated and includes basic assumptions that underlie a large amount of counter-Jihadi material that need to be challenged: as they are more fundamentally erroneous as well as; ironically, hypocritical. Indeed I would go so far as to argue that Rodriguez's article is actually representative of an intellectual disease that has afflicted some well-meaning people today.

That disease is very simply: the irrational love of the jews.

Otherwise known as: Judeophilia.

What do I mean by that?

Well if we understand that the sine qua non of most right-wing and patriotic ideas today is the supposition that the downfall of European civilization was ultimately caused by the advent of the Third Reich and the destruction that was World War Two; which Germany supposedly started out of ambitions for world conquest, caused the expansion of Communist rule. As well as greatly enhanced the attractiveness of Marxist ideas to Westerners and non-Westerners alike while simultaneously tainting right-wing and patriotic ideas; as well as racialism and hereditarianism in science, with the reflected tint of the supposed evils; inspired by so-called 'crank science', that were visited on the world by National Socialism.

This then informs us that World War Two and National Socialism have become the twin evils about which right-wing and patriotic ideas today seek to explain and answer, because they believe them to be a good part of the reason why their ideas and visions of society have failed.

However this is simply an excuse for their failure to; as Sun Tzu aptly put it, 'shape to fit the times': the right-wing and patriotic groups failed to learn from their experiences, they failed to recognize that the political battlefield had changed and perhaps more fundamentally they failed to evolve to meet that changing situation.

Right-wing and patriotic ideas have so long been on the back foot not because the ideas were lacking in appeal or because there weren't people willing to listen to them, but rather because the people who styled themselves right-wingers and/or patriots failed to understand the evolution of technology, failed to adapt their message to fit the changing society which encompassed new generations and even more fundamentally did not have the courage of their convictions.

How can a right-winger complain about the corruption of society or the influence of the jews: when they are not prepared to become; as Christians would describe it, 'living stones' of their political faith. Beacons of light in the growing darkness if you will, because only such beacons of light can inspire others to both make their way to that light and also try to reproduce that light in themselves.

Anarchists in the nineteenth century frequently talked of the difference between the 'propaganda of the word' and the 'propaganda of the deed' often arguing that a deed was worth thousands of words. I would naturally agree with that but with the qualification that individuals carrying out bombings don't cause intellectual and political revolutions, but rather those living their lives in agreement with their ideas and showing others what it means to be a right-winger and/or a patriot do make such revolutions.

The point is simple enough in that people; as exemplified by Rodriguez, believe their own excuses about why they have failed without understanding what businessmen call the 'root cause' of their problem. Instead they seek to blame their failure on some group and/or event that they feel aggrieved at in the belief that it 'queered their pitch' to their target audience.

Now the interesting thing about that is that it is that it is precisely what orthodox history tells counter-Jihadis like Rodriguez the Nazis claimed about the jews and the leftists in relation to Germany's loss of World War One. This is otherwise known to anyone who went through secondary or high school as the 'Stab-in-the-back' myth (i.e. the Dolchstoßlegende) and while this characterisation has some truth to it: the 'myth' is not without some evidential foundation in the first instance and in the second it was not an unreasonable belief for the soldiers on the ground or the German civilian population. (2)

Now if; as the counter-Jihadis like Rodriguez believe, we wish to suppose that the advent of the Third Reich and World War Two has caused them and their predecessors to fail to successfully propagate right-wing and/or patriotic ideas: then surely are they not creating their own version of 'Stab-in-the-back' myth in order to explain why they have; and keep, failing?

Instead of locating the 'root cause' of the problem: they have instead created legend to explain why a particular group and historical event have 'queered their pitch' to their would-be audience. However unlike the German nationalists; and then later the NSDAP, after World War One: the counter-Jihadis unjustly (and bizarrely) blame those they believe unjustly blamed the jews for their own failings.

It is certainly ironic that counter-Jihadis, right-wingers and patriots so frequently try to blame their erstwhile confrères for their own failures, but the belief that the advent of the Third Reich and that the necessary consequence of that was World War Two has also spawned an almost Hegelian anti-thesis to traditional right-wing and/or patriotic views on the subject of the jews. These; as I am sure the reader well knows, have historically hovered between passive dislike and outright hatred with every hue in-between represented.

However the centrality of the 'Holocaust' of six million jews; allegedly committed by the Third Reich between 1941 and 1945, to post-war interpretations of World War Two; as well as acting as a significant dose of rhetorical ex post facto justification, has meant that even passive dislike of the jews has come to be associated with adhere to the principles of National Socialism with one thus being an apologist for the Third Reich and accordingly trying to justify the 'Holocaust' in short rhetorical order.

This leaves counter-Jihadis; like Rodriguez, in something of a conundrum in so far as they cannot; or rather do not wish to seem to, support National Socialism, because they believe that it was National Socialism rather than their own poorly-chosen actions (and in many cases simple inaction) that caused their failure to propagate their beliefs. However traditional right-wing and patriotic beliefs are derogatory towards the jews in differing degrees, which means that they risk alienating their natural allies.

To solve it they needed to introduce a new understanding of right-wing beliefs into the equation and the jewish right (i.e. the Zionists) provided the perfect answer to the conundrum. That answer was simple: you could style the jews as being a 'super-people' who invented everything from the wheel to the computer and who Europe had blamed for their own failures as opposed to looking for the 'root cause' of the failure in themselves.

This meant in practice that the counter-Jihadis could emphasize their distance from National Socialism on the basis of the latter's vehement dislike for the jews and also gain a ready-made number of allies among the jews: who; as Israeli society is rather more right-wing as a rule than European or American society, could provide a steady stream of educated material to back up their other arguments.

However in forming this alliance the counter-Jihadis; like Rodriguez, ended up going a lot further than they originally intended. They ended up not just viewing the jews as a 'super-people', but rather ended up belittling their own people for not being like the jews and failing to even consider that the jews could have provoked a reprisal or performed a negative act.

In essence; to follow the expression of the common logical fallacy, the counter-Jihadis not only slipped down the slope, but they veritably tumbled down it.

The end position that they have come to is what I have above termed: Judeophilia.

In other words the irrational love of the jews.

The reason that is apt is simple: counter-Jihadis; like Rodriguez, see criticism of the jews as ipso facto irrational and a sign of a diseased and/or jealous mind. They do not consider for a moment that anti-jewish opinions and theses are as potentially justifiable as any other, but rather they simply believe they cannot be so because they are anti-jewish.

Instead they believe that the jews have been disproportionately responsible for arbitrarily assigned positives with which the world has been gifted. They believe that the jews are the best of Europe and that accordingly any criticism of them has to be irrational and based on jealousy.

In other words: Judeophobia.

Judeophobia; or the irrational hatred of jews, (which is incidentally a real term increasingly used by scholars and writers on anti-Semitism) is believed by the counter-Jihadis to be one of the touchstones of a backward mind, but yet they do not consider that in considering the jews as above other peoples they in the first instance uncritically accept as gospel what the jews say about themselves and in the second they engage in an essentially reactionary behaviour.

What do I mean by this second point?

Well very simply the counter-Jihadis; like Rodriguez, are simply reacting to the traditional right-wing many-shaded dislike and suspicion of jews by simply rejecting that and taking the polar opposite viewpoint. They haven't considered the merits of the Judeophilic argument; let alone those of the Judeophobic one, and have decided to take a position in an emotive reaction to the normalisation of the latter.

Hence they have reacted without thought as opposed to having made a critical and informed decision ergo they can be aptly described as 'reactionary'.

This is clearly evidenced by Rodriguez's claim that the jews are a 'chosen people'; which is the jewish description of themselves and should not as well as cannot be applied to the jews by non-jews unless said non-jews have either converted to Judaism or have become Noahides, (3) and that they produced a 'great and wonderful people who changed the world'.

Now I obviously disagree with Rodriguez's characterisation of the jews as a 'great and wonderful people'; and I have probably read and researched a great deal more into jews and their culture than Rodriguez has, but I cannot disagree with his assertion that the jews 'changed the world'. Indeed I know of few people on either the pro-jewish or anti-jewish sides of the debate who would disagree with it.

However our differences come when we assign a valuation to that change: Rodriguez would argue it was wholly positive. Where-as I would take a far more nuanced view that while the jews have naturally contributed things of positive value to mankind: they have also contributed disproportionately far more things of negative value to mankind compared to any other group. I would also argue that the jewish 'contribution to civilization'; as Cecil Roth styled it, has on been balance rather negative as opposed to overwhelming positive.

That Rodriguez's view is quite irrational is easily shown by pointing to his use of a Nobel Prize winners comparison between jews and Muslims as the centre-piece of his argument; and indeed the only thing remotely factual in it, however his list is not only ludicrously wrong (as it leaves out some jews and Muslims, leaves out the Chemistry Nobel and includes others who were not jews or Muslims as if they) (4) but it is an apples versus oranges comparison.

What do I mean by that?

Very simply the list isn't even comparing the same thing as it defines jewishness biologically (hence the numerous jewish atheists, second/third generation converts to Christianity with a jew mother/grandmother or father/grandfather included in it) while it defines Muslims as someone who born into or is an active adherent of Islam.

Clearly then you can't compare a biological group to a religious group now can you?

This is especially awful given that Rodriguez is essentially using the opinion of a committee to be his barometer of contribution, which is clearly erroneous as he is arguing for the total contribution of the jews as opposed to the contribution of the jews over the last few decades. Indeed; as Jan Biro has noted, (5) most of the jewish Nobel Prize winners have had their prizes awarded since 1945: when according to Rodriguez (and those like him) European culture and civilization has been in a headlong rout under the avalanche of leftist and 'Islamofascist' attacks on it.

Rather incompatible: isn't it?

To explain briefly: if European civilization has been in a headlong rout since 1945 under the assault of leftists and 'Islamofascists', but it is during this time that the jews have been winning large numbers of Nobel Prizes which obviously have a political element and rely on the socio-cultural compatibility of their ideas with the culture concerned (after all a chemistry paper that threw doubt on the 'Holocaust' story could never win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry: could it?). (6)

Then does this not suggest that the jews are likely winning Nobels at an increased rate, because their arguments and theses are highly compatible with the political ideas of said headlong rout of European culture and civilization?

Why yes it does.

So does that not suggest to Rodriguez: who might be playing a disproportionately significant role in the headlong rout of European culture and civilization?

After all the Third Reich fell in 1945: who does Rodriguez think might have benefited most from that in terms of their short and medium term prospects given the amount of empathy that was showered on them for 'surviving' the 'Holocaust'?

That's right: the jews.

In essence from this we can quickly see that Rodriguez's logic actually bounces back against him as he is forced into a position where the jews are linked to the headlong rout of European culture and civilization as being disproportionately responsible for it, because it is in said period of headlong rout that they have been at their most dominant as opposed to being passively and/or actively suppressed by the state and society in general (when European culture and civilization was in the ascendant).

I also note with not a little humour that in seeking to push jews to the fore Rodriguez is actively downplaying European achievement. By suggesting that the jews have disproportionately contributed to the advancement of humanity: Rodriguez forgets that the European people; who are not jewish, have contributed a vast amount more and significantly more disproportionately than the jews.

What about them then?

Europe has been the birthplace of most technology (past and present), most political ideas (past and present), the only civilization to create and us the empirical method, produced the greatest warriors and the greatest art that humanity has ever known.

Yet Rodriguez fails to mention that: he only signs the hymns of jewish not European achievement.

The jews are not part of that great history and indeed many of Europe's greatest minds have turned their attention to the jews in the spirit of empirical investigation only to be disgusted, appalled and repelled at what they saw starring back at them. They saw only fanatical hatred, jealously and greed starring back at them: not the peace-loving super-people that Rodriguez believes the jews to be.

Were these men and women irrational haters of the jews as Rodriguez would likely suppose?

Could Goebbels have found a spiritual ancestor in Cicero?

Could Himmler have found a spiritual ancestor in Voltaire?

Could Hitler have found a spiritual ancestor in Luther?

No: I don't think so.

Indeed the simplest possible solution that all these men undertook to study the jews and found them not only wanting, but a clear and present danger to all that they held dear.

There is no conspiracy, no jealously and no psychological abnormality here: only empirical investigation leading to one disturbing conclusion about the jews, which required action sooner rather than later on the part of the investigators.

In seeking to paint the jews as being a 'super-people' Rodriguez essentially blackens the name of his own people and in doing so his writing become less a counter-Jihadi call-to-arms to a sleeping Europe, but rather a counter-Jihadi attempt to emasculate a sleeping Europe by demanding they fight on the side of the school bully so that they can feel less guilty about punching him in the face once.

From this then we can see that Rodriguez is not only not a European nationalist or a European patriot, but rather one of those guilt-induced European liberals who has decided that has to sleep with the enemy in order to pay of the debt of his ancestors.

The only difference is: he is in bed with the jews as opposed to the Muslims.

References

(1) This is available at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/04/all-european-life-died-in-auschwitz.html

(2) On this see: Udo Walendy, 1981, 'Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second World War', 1^st Edition, Institute for Historical Review: Torrance

(3) The reason for this is that Rodriguez is effectively calling himself and his people sub-human and this is clearly incompatible with nationalistic, right-wing or patriotic thought.

(4) See the following articles which have independently treated this subject: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/jewish-versus-muslim-nobel-prize.html and http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-jewish-internet-defense-force-cant.html

(5) http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/The%20Jewish%20Bias%20of%20the%20Nobel%20Prize.pdf

(6) On this see the following articles: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus.html; http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/01/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus.html; http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/01/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus_5.html and http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-jewish-achievement-lists-are.html

Salvian on the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sat, 04 May 2013 17:55:00 +0000

The German-born Christian who we know as Salvian is not a well-known fifth century author of the classical world, but he is an interesting one given that he is one of the earliest examples of militant Christian ideas of the equality and justice. Essentially Salvian was what we would now call a socialist; if not a communist, and he refused to back down from his beliefs. In the last sense regardless of your personal views on socialist and communist ideas we can admire Salvian's steadfast sense of purpose precisely because he never compromised on what he believed was fundamentally right.

In many senses Salvian is the anti-thesis of many modern political thinkers as well as Christians in that he showed a great deal of spine in his reasoned intractability. While in comparison many of those who profess to have strong political and religious beliefs today have almost no spine whatsoever and are less intractable and more undefinable in the sense that an opponent of theirs has a great deal of difficulty in pinning them down to any specific position per se.

Salvian in his lifetime was not close to major political figures, but he was a significant figure in Christian intellectual circles and worked closely with several French bishops such as Hilary of Arles and Eucherius of Lyons. That said Salvian's influence and ideas are often seen; although usually by proxy, in the interpretation of the works and ideas of Saint Augustine by Christian authors up to the present time which tends; as he did, to stress Augustine's focus on asceticism and belief that no government was above the law of God.

We know Salvian was a fairly prolific author, but only two of his works and several letters have come down to us. It is in his treatise 'De gubernatione Dei' (lit. 'The Government of God') that we find Salvian commenting on the jews thus:

'Surely then, since our most indulgent Lord shows himself always more prone to mercy than to punishment, even though in punishing a part of the Jewish host by his divine censure he gave some scope to judgement and severity, yet his love claimed the greater portion of the people - a special and peculiar act of mercy to countless men that the punishment might not destroy all who were implicated in the guilt.' (1)

This is then needs to be understood in the context of his later comment in relation to Saint Paul and the jews:

'Since he so followed Christ, let us consider which of us seems to be a true follower of the apostle. He writes of himself first of all that he never gave offence to any, but in all things showed himself the minister of God, in much patience, in affliction, in necessities, in blows, in imprisonments, in stripes. Elsewhere, comparing himself with others, he says: "How is it, wherein so ever any is bold (I speak foolishly) I am bold also: I speak as a fool, I am more; in labours more abundant, in prisons more frequent, in stripes above measure, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck."' (2)

This is then clarified further by Salvian's comments on the nature of the jewish people and their relationship with God:

'The twelve tribes of the Hebrews, when they were of old chosen by God, received two holy names, for they were called the people of God, and Israel. We read: "Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee." Once the Jews bore both these titles, now they have neither. They who long since left off the worship of God cannot be called God's people, nor can they who denied his Son be given a name that means "Seeing God." So it is written: "But Israel does not know, my people doth not consider." For this reason on another occasion our God spoke of the people of the Hebrews to the prophet, saying: "Call his name, Not Beloved." And speaking to the Jews themselves: "You are not my people and I am not your God." Moreover, he himself showed clearly why he spoke thus about them, for he said: "They have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters." And again: "They have rejected the word of the Lord and there is no wisdom in them."' (3)

In addition to:

'For the whole human race is rushing headlong into eternal punishment by the very course that the Scriptures describe. First we kindle the fire, then add fuel to the flames, and lastly enter the flames that we have prepared. When does man first kindle eternal fire for himself? Surely when he first begins to sin. But when does he add fuel to the flames? When he heaps up sins upon sins. When shall he enter the everlasting fire? When he has already completed the irrevocable account of wickedness by the increase of his sins, as our Saviour said to the leaders of the Jews: "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers, ye serpents, ye generation of vipers," The men whom the Lord himself told to fill up the measure were not far from completing the full number of their sins. Because they were no longer worthy of salvation, they filled up the number of iniquities by which they were to perish.' (4)

Now in the above I have quoted four extracts from Salvian's writing which deal with the jews one after the other. The reason for this is very simple: in that each individual bit of text qualifies Salvian's attitude to the jews appreciably.

Salvian starts out in the first piece of quoted text pointing out that the jews were divinely censured by God who decided to kill a goodly number of them for transgressing his instructions/commandments to them, but proceeded to forgive most of them for doing so (i.e. the mass of the jews as opposed to the leaders/ringleaders) and thus spares most of the jews his chastisement. However in doing so he; to Salvian's mind, is clearly reminding the jews that they need not always be the chosen people and should they suitably anger God then they will suffer terribly and possibly even be wiped out altogether.

In the second piece of quoted text Salvian is introducing the conduct of the jews in relation to Saint Paul into the equation. Here we can see Salvian recounting the persecution, suffering and torment of Saint Paul at the hands of the jews and thus begins; in effect, to illustrate the fall of jews from divine favour as they have once again rejected God's instructions/commandments in favour of their own instructions/commandments.

This then leads to Salvian's qualification in the third piece of quoted text where the jews are said to have been finally deprived of their status as the 'chosen nation' of God and that God has abandoned them to their fate as being unrighteous and undeserving of his forbearance and grace. Salvian clearly tells us that in his view: a people who name themselves as the ones who can 'see God' cannot retain that name when they reject that God's ultimate messenger because they were willfully blind to that status.

Essentially Salvian is telling us that the jews are outcast and cannot be admitted into God's good books until such time as they accept Jesus as their Messiah and then beg forgiveness for their past errors.

Salvian then; in the fourth piece of quoted text, makes it abundantly clear that jews are destined for hell-fire and brimstone unless they do just this. Indeed he even suggests that many jews; although necessarily not all, are now incapable of receiving God's forgiveness, because they are the; oft-quoted, 'generations of vipers'. This means in effect that Salvian is arguing that the jews are the active servants of the devil and are thus the principle opponents of all Christians in spiritual warfare and are to be hunted down and treated as active enemy combatants where-ever they are found by the Christian faithful.

To confirm this we should note that Salvian argues that the Vandals; then ravaging the Western Roman Empire, were acting the part of the chastiser of the Christians, because they had; like jews of old, turned their face from God and thus he had also turned his face from them. (5) However unlike the jews this could be rectified, but like the jews Christians should beware because of the potential that God's wrath could be awakened as it had been by the jewish rejection and crucifixion of Jesus. (6)

Indeed Salvian also refers to the perpetual jewish hatred of Jesus as well as their responsibility for the crime of deicide (the murder of a God). (7) Salvian also vehemently makes the point that the pagans have not murdered the Saints, but rather the jews have done so. (8)

This indicates Salvian's deep-seated hostility towards the jews as being a group defined by national origin as well as faith, who; in his view, actively do the work of the devil and are accordingly to be expunged at every opportunity unless they truly convert to Christianity and ask forgiveness for their many sins. It also fundamentally shows that Salvian was; like Martin Luther after him, unable to show much compassion for the jews as a people and regarded them very much as his active enemies who wouldn't by en-large see the light of Christian reason and so thus needed to be put to the sword.

References

(1) Salv. De gub. 1:11

(2) Ibid. 3:4

(3) Ibid. 4:1

(4) Ibid. 4:8

(5) Ibid. 7:7

(6) Ibid. 7:8-11

(7) Ibid. 7:4

(8) Ibid.

Nestorius on the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:25:00 +0000

Nestorius is a fairly famous character in Christian history given that it is to his name that we attach one of the major Christian sects of the late Roman era: the Nestorians. This description is however problematic in part because so-called Nestorian Christianity was not really that different from orthodox Christianity: the difference was rather meekly that the orthodox Christians rejected Nestorius' teachings (which anticipated a significant number of Protestant arguments especially in around the so-called 'Marian Cult') en toto while the Nestorian Christians accepted him as one of their many teachers but did not elevate him to a position of intellectual primary within their sect. (1)

Nestorius himself was the fifth century archbishop of Byzantium/Constantinople, but only held the position for five years before being deposed by the Emperor Theodosius II in 431 AD. Perhaps predictably we have very little of Nestorious' voluminous writings have come down to us with one only of his works; 'The Bazaar of Heracleides', has come down to us more or less complete in addition to a few of his short missives to Pope Celestine.

The concern of most writers on the subject of Nestorius is usually in and around his rivalry with Saint Cyril (the famous Bishop of Alexandria); who was also responsible for the murder (quite possibly conducted by a converted jew) (2) of the pagan neo-Platonic philosopher and mathematician Hypathia, as well as what of his theological ideas we can discern from his few extant works and what his ecclesiastical enemies claimed about his arguments and intellectual positions.

However what has been almost universally ignored is Nestorius' several comments on the jews in his work, which I shall highlight and analyze in this article. For ease of reference for the reader I have used the commonly available edition of Nestorius' 'The Bazaar of Heracleides' by Driver and Hodgson. (3)

Nestorius in fact mentions the jews in the first few lines of 'The Bazaar of Heracleides' when he is outlining what he believes enemies of orthodox Christianity argue. To wit:

'Wherefore the Jews do not admit that he is Christ.

But the Jews do not confess that he is Christ because of the Cross and the death, in that they look for the advent of Christ in all great glory and dominion.' (4)

This is then clarified by what Nestorius says a few pages later:

'The Sabellians. Among them indeed are also those who deny that God the Word exists in ousia and who say only that the name 'God the Word' is that command: He spoke and it became. But thus also they predicate the Father and the Holy Spirit in name alone; so in short they agree rather with the Jews than with Christians.' (5)

Now what does Nestorius seem to be saying here?

Well very simply Nestorius is trying to add a qualification to the orthodox view of the fact that jews rejected Christ and then crucified him: thus making them responsible en bloc for the crimes of deicide (the murder of a God). What he is pointing out is that the jews killed Jesus because they simply did not believe that he was their long awaited Messiah and that when Christ comes again in the last days then; Nestorius believed, the jews would correct their error.

That is perhaps the obvious interpretation of what Nestorius is saying, but I would correct Driver and Hodgson's translation here because they have unintentionally altered the meaning of what Nestorius is saying by using the Greek rather the Hebrew term (i.e. 'Christ' rather than 'Messiah'). The term 'Christ' effectively chastens what Nestorius is saying, because of its generally positive connotation in Western thought compared to the generally neutral one for the term 'Messiah'.

This is because when we use the correct term 'Messiah' then the simple interpretation changes from Nestorius saying that the jews will realise their error when Christ comes again (which is a relatively benign message) to the far more Orthodox Christian message that the jews rejected Jesus because he did not fit in their notion of what the Messiah should be (which is a somewhat anti-jewish message).

To prove that all we need do is but look at the rather unusual wording that:

'Jews do not confess that he is Christ because of the Cross and the death, in that they look for the advent of Christ in all great glory and dominion.'

Which then changes (per my correction) to:

'Jews do not confess that he was the Messiah because of the Cross and the death, in that they look for the advent of the Messiah in all great glory and dominion.'

We should note that the precise wording that the jews 'look for the advent of the Messiah in all great glory and domination' is actually a fairly accurate rendering of jewish; not Christian, conceptions of the Messiah.

In other words to a Christian: Jesus was the Messiah who died on the cross to save the world, but to the jews the Messiah is judged not by his death and the saving of souls. Rather the Messiah is judged by the fact that when he comes as Elijah reborn: he was lead the jews to great military glory and thus dominion over the world (hence 'great glory' [i.e. conquering the non-jews] and [great] 'dominion' [i.e. conquering the world]). If a person claiming to be the Messiah didn't do that then according to the jews then he simply wasn't the Messiah in the first place.

This is reinforced by the fact that Nestorius is trying to place the fundamental beliefs of Christian sects and opponents of Christianity in their proper context so that they can be objectively examined. This would mean that interpreting the passage in the sense of the jews realizing their error when the Second Coming of Christ occurred would be necessarily be out of place, but interpreting the passage as to why the jews refused to credit the fact that Jesus was the Messiah fits the rest of Nestorius' text perfectly.

Thus we can already see that Nestorius; in spite of appearances, was not exactly complimentary towards the jews. While in the second of the two passages we can also see that Nestorius is effectively; if concisely, berating a Christian sect called the Sabellians for believing as jews do and not as Christians do.

Nestorius' general hostility to the jews is further confirmed by another comment he makes about their responsibility for the trial and crucifiction of Jesus. To wit:

'But by those who pass for orthodox these things are said, that he is of the very nature of the Father, impassible and without needs and unchangeable and immutable, and then, as the Jews mocked, calling him Christ, and surely crucified him'. (6)

It should be noted that this particular comment is buried in a lengthy discussion of the 'divine nature' of the Father and the Son by Nestorius and in which he signally fails; while attacking just about everything else the orthodox Christians of the time argued (i.e. those who agreed with Saint Cyril), to dispute or even criticise the comment that the jews mocked and crucified Jesus.

This isn't a positive statement of Nestorius' opinions on the jews of course (in spite of believing Jesus to have been a jew), (7) but the notable absence of criticism of that particular orthodox proposition directly suggests that Nestorius found nothing to criticise in it, because that is what he himself believed and argued was the case.

That said Nestorius; like Martin Luther in his 'On the Jews and their Lies', did allow the possibility; which was required by the basic tenants of Christianity, that jews could turn against their nature per se, because they were first men and that if a prophet of old were to rise up among them (in which role he envisions the Christian clergy) then some of them could be saved. (8)

But once again Nestorius clearly regards the jews as the bitter enemies of Christianity as he tells us that:

'For not even Paul, when he was stoning Stephen with the stoning Jews, was then an Apostle but when he removed himself afar from stoning.' (9)

We can see clearly in the above that jews; in Nestorius' view, were the great persecutors and enemies of Christians and hardly their friends as some have wished to read Nestorius' thinking. Add to that the fact that we have a reference to a homily that Nestorius explicitly composed against jews (although not the actual text) (10) then it is clear that Nestorius was actually a strident enemy of the jews albeit something of a moderate in the fifth century world of fervently anti-jewish Christianity.

References

(1) Charles Freeman, 2009, 'A New History of Early Christianity', 1^st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, p. 306

(2) On this see the following article: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/03/hypathia-of-alexandria-victim-of-jews.html

(3) G. Driver, Leonard Hodgson (Eds. and Trans.), 1925, 'The Bazaar of Heracleides', 1^st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford

(4) Ibid, p. 8

(5) Ibid, pp. 43-44

(6) Ibid, p. 94

(7) Ibid, pp. 99; 202

(8) Ibid, pp. 376-377

(9) Friedrich Loofs, 1905, 'Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius', 1^st Edition, Max Niemeyer: Halle, Frg. 253 (cf. Friedrich Loofs, 1904, 'Die Überlieferung und Anordnung der Fragmente des Nestorius', 1^st Edition, Max Niemeyer: Halle and Friedrich Loofs, 1914, 'Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine', 1^st Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge for good general background on the fragments and Nestorius respectively)

(10) Loofs, 'Nestoriana', Op. Cit., Frg. 254

Eutropius on the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:08:00 +0000

Eutropius is not a name well-know to many outside the scholarly realms of the Classics and as such his comments on the jews; or rather in those instances where Roman history crossed with jewish history, are often forgotten. This is in part because Eutropius' only know work; his Compendium of Roman History, is largely just a summary of what was known or believed about history to that point in time.

This isn't helped by Eutropius' distance; in terms of time elapsed, from most of the events that he describes, but never-the-less his comments about the jews should be brought to the fore once more so that we may be complete in our investigation of ancient and classical authors who commented on the jews.

However before we look at what he has to say about them we should explain that Eutropius was not a man of small station in the Roman Empire in his lifetime as he served the Emperor Julian faithfully as his secretary and then served in a significant administrative capacity up to at least the Emperor Valens. This gives additional weight to what Eutropius has to say in part because he; as a member of the Imperial household, would have had access to a wide range of sources that he could condense and would have been able to very easily check the sources of claims before deciding whether to credit them or not.

This makes Eutropius a very useful 'fact check' if you like, but it also makes him a difficult author to use if he was our only source for a particular claim. Hence historians tend to use Eutropius more as a 'fact check' and a guide to Roman historical thinking than a source in his own right.

Having described Eutropius as an individual and also commented on the use of his work by historians: we can then move on to what Eutropius has to say about the jews. The answer to that is that he; because of his purpose to write a summary of Roman history, only touches on the jews twice in the course of the Compendium.

The first mention that Eutropius makes of the jews is as follows:

'Shortly after he subdued the Itureans and Arabians; and, on entering Syria, rewarded Seleucia, a city near Antioch, with independence, because it had not admitted King Tigranes. To the inhabitants of Antioch he restored their hostages. On those of Daphne, being charmed with the beauty of the spot and the abundance of water, he bestowed a portion of land, in order that their grove might be enlarged. Marching from thence to Judea, he took Jerusalem, the capital, in the third month; twelve thousand of the Jews being slain, and the rest allowed to surrender on terms. After these achievements, he returned into Asia, and put an end to this most tedious war. ' (1)

This is then followed and clarified by the following comment:

'In the six hundred and ninetieth year from the building of the city, in the consulate of Decimus Junius Silanus and Lucius Muraena, Metellus triumphed on account of Crete, Pompey for the Piratic and Mithridatic wars. No triumphal procession was ever equal to this; the sons of Mithridates, the son of Tigranes, and Aristobulus, king of the Jews, were led before his car; a vast sum of money, an immense mass of gold and silver, was carried in front. At this time there was no war of any importance throughout the world.' (2)

What Eutropius is referring to here is the conquest of the near east by the famous General Pompey as part of the end-game of the prolonged Roman campaign against King Mithridates of Pontus and King Tigranes of Armenia, which were then and are now more commonly called the Mithridatic Wars. One of the countries which aligned with Mithridates and Tigranes was Judea; under King Aristobulus II, and which was brought under Roman control by Pompey's destruction of the Mithridatic armies (although it was not ruled by a Roman governor till the time of the Emperor Vespasian). (3)

Eutropius' comments however do have a slight anti-jewish tinge to them in that Pompey showed great favour to most other cities and countries that had aligned with Mithridates and Tigranes, but then in the case of the jews: he slaughters twelve thousand of them, forces them to beg for their lives and then promptly marches their king off to be humiliated in his Triumph in Rome.

This suggests that the jews were somewhat different to cities like Antioch that had sided with Mithridates and Tigranes precisely because Pompey shows mercy to them, but shows very little towards the jews.

We also should note the interesting addition of Aristobulus to the sons of Mithridates and Tigranes as part of the central element of 'defeated enemies of Rome' in Pompey's triumphal procession. This strongly suggests that either Aristobulus had dared to defy Rome after his side had been beaten or that Pompey wanted to teach the jews; who we know were close allies of Mithridates (as many of them were in Pontus), a particularly harsh lesson as part of Mithridates' inner circle of confederates with Tigranes.

Either solution works with the former being the more likely as it includes less assumptions about Pompey's mindset than the latter. That said the latter is strongly supported by the fact Pompey had Aristobulus poisoned on his way home to Judea (4) and then had his son beheaded at Antioch (5) in order to make sure the jews got the message (which; as history informs us, they did not).

Regardless of which solution is; in fact, the truth: we should note that Eutropius very clearly depicts the jews as the particular enemies of Rome. A fact that cannot have been lost on his readers given that at the time of the writing of the Compendium: the jews were numerous and played a powerful role in Rome, while the bodies of Mithridates and Tigranes were dust.

This slight anti-jewish tinge to Eutropius' compendium is also indicated by the fact that he does not credit anything done by the jews to be worthy of the label 'civilized', but rather states that only when outsiders have built cities in Palestine: have they been worthy of note and become great hubs of intellectual and commercial activity. (6)

All-in-all Eutropius' mentions of the jews are few, but considering what he says and also the environment in which he said it: it is very clear that Eutropius had no particular love for the jews and regarded them very simply as the enemies of Rome with little to no capacity for building creditable civilizations.

References

(1) Eutro. 6:14

(2) Ibid. 6:16

(3) Ibid. 7:19

(4) Jospeh. Bell. Jud. 1:9.1

(5) Ibid. 1:9.2

(6) Eutro. 7:10

All European Life Died in Auschwitz: A Reinterpretation

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:07:00 +0000

Recently a friend of mine emailed the rhetorical chain letter-cum-article 'All European Life Died in Auschwitz' by Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez that was written in 2008. I thought that; as I've seen the article re-posted and bandied about a lot on conservative and anti-Islamic forums, I would issue a rhetorical reinterpretation of Rodriguez's nonsensical article correcting its many historical blunders and focusing on the true culprits as opposed to just assuming their re-imagination of their own past and present is accurate.

I should note that I have removed Rodriguez's list of Nobel claimants given that it is firstly incorrect in whom it lists as both jewish and Muslim and secondly it is completely wrong even as a simple comparison as I have been at pains to point out elsewhere. (1) Also it is difficult to replicate in part because unlike the list of jewish Nobel Prize winners: the list of European prize winners is far longer and more illustrious. (2)

I hope that you; my reader, find the below reinterpretation interesting and dare I say it: fun.

All European Life Died in Auschwitz

Karl Radl

I walked down the street in Berlin and suddenly discovered a terrible truth: Europe died in Auschwitz. We didn't kill six million Jews, but got saddled with the blame for doing it anyway. Instead of burning them in the fires of Auschwitz we allowed them to take control of our culture, thought, creativity and talent. We didn't destroy the chosen people, but we did allow them to destroy us.

The destructive contribution of these people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, in the moral compass of the world. These are the people who didn't burn.

And these people lead us; through the pretense of tolerance and because they had gulled us into trying to prove that we were cured of the disease of Nazism, to open our gates to millions of non-Europeans who brought us stupidity, ignorance, religious extremism, poverty and crime due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up trains and turned our beautiful European cities into third world slums: drowning in filth, crime and vice of every kind.

Shut up in the houses that they receive free from the government they ape the chosen people who brought them here: they plan the murder and destruction of their native hosts.

And thus; in our misery, we have exchanged our ancestral culture for gay pride marches and anti-racist witch hunts, economic self-determination for financial slavery to Israel, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of knowledge of our European ancestors and their talent for building a better future for their children in addition to their pioneering determination to do what was right regardless of the cost. For the modus operandi of the chosen people who pursue self-enrichment and personal gratification purely at the expense of others, which includes both us and our children.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

The Jews are promoting brain-washing children in Holocaust Museums, teaching their children the virtue of killing ours and simply not to care if the victim is not Jewish.

The Jews blow up ships, assassinate people in other countries and bomb publishing houses. There is not a single living European who has destroyed a synagogue, but yet there is not a single Jew who protests the killing of Europeans.

The Jews routinely traffic slaves and their leaders call our epoch the time of their eternal victory, while proclaiming that in the near future every Jew will rule over every non-Jew.

Jews must ask 'what can they do for mankind' before they can ask that mankind forgive them for the Holocaust Industry.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel, the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours: even if you believe there is more culpability on the side of the Palestinians and the Arabs, then the following four lines says it all:

'The Jews were only forced to desist from their nastiness and clean up the mess by the threat of the butt ends of rifles. Of course, I know the expression 'lost tribes of Israel' applied to the tribes which disappeared -- not to the tribe of Judah from which the current sons of bitches are descended. However, it is my personal opinion that this too is a lost tribe -- lost to all decency.'

- General George Patton

It is a matter of history that General Patton warned us that the chosen people were preparing to use a Big Lie to assure their own self-enrichment, self-gratification and cultural domination for years to come. While to paraphrase what General Dwight Eisenhower told us: we should get everything on record now, because down the road of history someone will get up and say that the Holocaust Industry never happened.

It is now more than seventy years after the Second World War in Europe ended. Why is Europe still paying for atrocities it never committed? Why is the United States alone; with crime and poverty rampant domestically, still giving Israel at least 2.8 billion dollars a year? Why is Israel not paying for its well-documented atrocities?

Does not all of this violent injustice come from the fantasy that millions of Jews were burned in the fires of Auschwitz?

Yes: it does.

References

(1) Dealt with in the following articles: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/jewish-versus-muslim-nobel-prize.html; http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-jewish-internet-defense-force-cant.html; http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-jewish-achievement-lists-are.html

(2) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/01/jews-and-nobel-prize-fantasy-versus_5.html