‘Jewish nation state’: How israel enshrines apartheid into law

‘Jewish nation state’: How Israel enshrines apartheid into law

The law is only the latest attempt to legislate discrimination against Palestinians

Ben White's picture

On Thursday, the Israeli government formally passed the “Jewish nation state”law. With the Knesset’s summer recess on the horizon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to pass the law ahead of the break.

“This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel,” Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote.

The initiative has risen to the top of the news agenda in Israel, with high-profile interventions from opponents and supporters. Last Tuesday, President Reuven Rivlin warned in a public letter of what he believes are the dangers inherent in the law – especially an article designed to protect and promote the existence of Jewish-only communities.

Lobbying efforts

Ahead of the vote, a number of Jewish American leaders have strongly urged Netanyahu to reconsider, intensifying their lobbying efforts to prevent the bill’s passage.

These responses have, regrettably but predictably, been characterised by a failure to understand or take sufficiently into account how Israel’s status as a “Jewish state” has always been reflected in legislation and practice, and, crucially, how this has impacted on Palestinians since 1948.

The omission of the experience of Palestinian citizens in this ‘Jewish and democratic’ state is compounded by an analysis that fails to look deeper into why this legislation is being proposed at all

Many discriminatory laws are already on the books, and legal ways to create segregated communities in Israel already exist. There is no right to equality, and Israel is not a state of all its citizens. The much-heralded Declaration of Independence is not a constitutional law, and the Basic Law already privileges the protection of a “Jewish state” over equality for non-Jewish citizens. 

As a UN special rapporteur put it in 2012, Israeli authorities already pursue “a land development model that excludes, discriminates against and displaces minorities”. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has similarly noted “the enactment of a number of discriminatory laws on land issues which disproportionately affect non-Jewish communities”.

Indeed, the issue of Jewish-only communities, which has dominated recent criticism over the law passed on Thursday, is often debated without reference to the fact that Israel already has hundreds of such segregated communities, thanks to the role of “admission committees”.

Traced back to the Nakba

A decade ago, Human Rights Watch reported on how these committees “are made up of government and community representatives as well as a senior official in the Jewish Agency or the Zionist Organisation, and have notoriously been used to exclude Arabs from living in rural Jewish communities”.

Such decades-old institutionalised discrimination, which can be traced all the way back to the Nakba, makes a mockery of the claim by the Israel Democracy Institute’s Mordechai Kremnitzer that the new law would somehow constitute “the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state”.



Palestinians gather at the site of a tent protest on 8 April 2018 in Gaza (AFP)

The new law does, however, represent an innovation, both legally and politically, as analysed by legal rights centre Adalah in a new position paper published on Sunday; enjoying the status of a Basic Law, the Jewish nation state law would anchor racist practices in the constitution.

Coverage by Western media has, on the whole, reproduced the lacuna of the law’s Israeli critics. Yet, the omission of the experience of Palestinian citizens in this “Jewish and democratic” state is compounded by an analysis that fails to look deeper into why this legislation is being proposed at all.

The “Jewish nation state” law is not the product of a right-wing tussle between Likud and Jewish Home, or Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett. Rather, tracing the origins of this proposed legislation reveals that it is, in essence, pushback against the efforts by Palestinian citizens over the last two decades to affirm their national identity and demand a state of all its citizens.

Doubling down

Not long after former Shin Bet head Avi Dichter began efforts to pass a “Jewish nation state” bill in 2011, Israeli journalist Lahav Harkov – now news editor of the Jerusalem Post – praised the initiative by citing “campaigns to delegitimise Israel on the rise both inside and outside the country”.

Thus, the response from the Israeli political establishment to a mobilised Palestinian citizenry demanding genuine equality has been to double-down on discrimination, and to defiantly and ever-more explicitly assert and legally protect the existence of a “Jewish state”.

READ MORE►

At 70, Israel more than ever deserves a cultural and academic boycott

But this is not without its advantages, as highlighted by the furore over the new law. For what the draft legislation threatens is not the existence of a “democratic” Israel, but rather critics’ idea of a “Jewish and democratic” state (or at least the plausibility of maintaining this idea).

Through its crudeness, the law threatens Israel’s ability to continue long-standing, institutionalised discrimination with no international cost, a prospect flagged through the warnings of Israel’s attorney general and Jewish American leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs.

Demographic war

“The true face of Zionism in Israel,” wrote Orly Noy in +972 magazine last week, is “an inherent, perpetual demographic war against its Palestinian citizens. If Israel seeks to be Jewish and democratic, it needs to actively ensure a Jewish majority.”

The “Jewish nation state” law is part of this historic and ongoing demographic war – one that is testimony to the activism of Palestinian citizens and an effort to stifle it.

As Israel consolidates the de facto single state between the river and the sea, this won’t be the last attempt to see the apartheid reality on the ground further reflected in legislation.

Ben White is the author of the new book Cracks in the Wall: Beyond Apartheid in Palestine/Israel. He is a freelance journalist and writer and his articles have been published by Al Jazeera, al-Araby, Huffington Post, the Electronic Intifada, the Guardian’s Comment is Free and more.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: Israeli flags fly near the Dome of the Rock in the al-Aqsa Mosque compound on 5 December 2017 (AFP)

Advertisements

Being Ordinary

giladprophet.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

The Jewish press in Britain and around the world has seemed thrilled for the last few days.  “One of Britain’s most vocal anti-Semites,”( apparently me) “was handed a humiliating court defeat in London on Monday” wrote The Jewish Algemeiner. On Twitter, Israel’s firsters wrote about me ‘grovelling’ at court.

I guess that lying is a bit of an official policy within such circles. In order to remove any questions regarding my position in court, here is my Lawyer’s statement as delivered on my behalf:

“Defendant’s Solicitor, Jeffrey Smele

On behalf of the Defendant, Mr. Gilad Atzmon, I agree with the words of my learned friend.  Mr. Atzmon never in fact intended that his article would suggest to the reader that Mr. Falter was a “fraudster” or that he personally profited from his position at the CAA.

Mr. Atzmon offers his sincere apology to Mr. Falter for his actions.”

(The official court settlement document can be found here.  The official court document that was the base for Falter’s claim, to which I apologised,  can be found here).

Contrary  to the exclamations in the  Zionist fake news, the court didn’t charge me with ‘antisemitsm’ or ‘lying.’  There was no mention of such words in the court’s ruling. In fact, ‘a trial’ didn’t actually take place. As proceedings evolved, I wasn’t willing to defend Justice Matthew Nicklin’s ‘definition’ of the meaning of my words. I didn’t agree that in my original paper I intended to accuse CAA chairman’s Gideon Falter of ‘fraud’ or ‘profiting personally.’  I saw no point in defending an interpretation that was merely attributed to my words.

But the issues raised here are far more complex. I wonder why these Zionist outlets see the need to engage in an intensive smear project that actually reflects very badly on the Jewish political project as a whole?

Jewishness is a sophisticated survival strategy. It is a strict regulatory system of adherence. It encourages internal debate but limits any such deliberation by clear boundaries. If Israel, for instance, deploys hundreds of snipers against unarmed Palestinian protestors and practically perpetrates a massacre, then it will allow a few of its people to speak out against its own brutality. The outcome is predictable: Israel’s war crimes are reduced to an internal debate among Jews. Within the context of the Jewish universe, every so-called ‘Jewish problem’ is met from within by Jewish dissent.

Jewish history reveals important exceptions — people who broke out; who decided to unveil the tribal matrix by means of universal thought. Jesus was such a character, he ended up nailed to the cross. Spinoza was another, he was punished by excommunication. Marx, in his early writing, broke ranks and pointed out on the intrinsic bond between Jews and capitalism. The 20th century brought about some Jewish heretics and to a certain extent I followed their path– rather than speaking ‘as a Jew’ and contributing to ‘controlling the opposition,’ I openly denounced my roots; spiritually, culturally and politically. I stopped being a Jew and dedicated my time to the production of a critical study of the tribal mechanism that drives Jewish politics and identity.

It has never been an easy journey. Since I launched my writing career, I have been subject to intense attempts to buy me out by recruiting me into the Jewish so-called ‘anti Zionist’ camp. Anti Zionists, as they call themselves, can offer a lot of support.  They are well connected and organised. They can set up your tours, concerts, talks, university lectures and media coverage.

It took me a few years to understand that my dissent was actually pretty similar to early Zionist thought, sharing its phantasmic idea of becoming ‘people like all other people.’ Indeed, my personal goal was to fulfil the early Zionist project for myself: to become an ordinary human being like all other goyim. I realised that to achieve my goal, the first step was to stop being a Jew.

In 2014 Professor Marc H. Ellis,  regarded by many as the leading contemporary Jewish theologian, published  Future of the Prophetic,  an extensive study of the Hebrew prophet. In his book, Ellis dedicated a chapter to me and my work. He reached the conclusion that yours truly is the new Jewish prophet.

“Like the ancient prophets Atzmon exposes Jews. At the same time, Atzmon believes that the Bible, from which the prophets spring, is bogus….Atzmon provides no hiding place for Jews anywhere.”  (Future of the Prophetic, Marc H. Ellis pg’ 332)

“Atzmon is extreme but, in his extremity, he is much like the biblical prophets.” (pg’332)

So in the world in which we live, some Jews see me as Satan incarnated, others have called me the last Hebrew prophet. Naturally, I was flattered by Ellis’ insight. And it helped me to grasp the role of the prophet within the Jewish survival paradigm. Making a dissenter into a ‘Hebrew prophet’ works to dismantle opposition. It reduces the universal critical insight into an internal Jewish exchange. I wrote to Ellis that

as much as I was thrilled by his view of my work, I didn’t see myself as either a prophet or a Jew.  Instead I saw the need to emphasise that rather than speaking ‘to Jews,’ I much preferred to talk about “Jewishness, Jewish culture and ID politics.”

My approach must have been frustrating for both Zionists and the so-called ‘anti’. Since the publication of my first book  (2001) I have been persistently harassed by Jewish ethnic activists of all persuasions (except probably Torah Jews). They have called me a racist, an anti-Semite, a bigot, etc. and yet, to their dismay, despite the strict legislation in Europe and America, I have never once been questioned by any law enforcement body about anything I have ever written or said.

I have challenged my detractors and those who call me a ‘racist’ and an ‘anti-Semite’ to point out where I have referred critically to Jews or anyone else as a ‘race,’ ‘ethnicity’ or ‘biology.’ I have vowed that if such evidence appears I will issue an apology and never write again. Yet no such reference has ever been put in front of me or anywhere else. Instead, I criticise Jewish ideology, culture and ID politics because I believe that ideologies, cultures and politics must be subject to debate and criticism!

I will keep doing this as long as the law in Britain allows. If this changes, I will either impose silence on myself, or leave London and move to a slightly freer city, perhaps Moscow or Teheran.

In case you want to support my legal costs

]
See Also

Filed under: anti-semitism, AZZ, Britain, British Jews, Capitalism, Freedom of Speach, Gilad Atzmon, Goyim, Identity Politics, Iran, Jewish culture, Jewish History, jewish identity, Jewish Ideology, Jewish World, Jewishness, Russia, Zio-controlled media | Leave a comment »

‘Orthodox Judaism Is a Religion of Lying and Deceit’ – The Saker Interviews Michael Hoffman

Posted on by michaellee2009

The Saker Interviews Michael Hoffman

An excellent and very important interview.

Note from RI Editor Charles Bausman. While researching my February 2018 article, It’s Time to Drop the Jew Taboo, I also came across the works of Michael Hoffman, and read one of his books, ‘Judaism’s Strange Gods‘, and like the Saker, came to the conclusion that Hoffmann has performed a huge service with his academic work. This is an excellent and important interview. I hope it is released in audio format. Many thanks to the Saker for the huge amount of work involved in publishing a long interview like this.


Introduction by the Saker: I have always had a passion for theology in general and the studies of religions in general. Several years ago I discovered, quite by chance, a book written by Michael A. Hoffman II entitled Judaism’s Strange Gods which I found most interesting and thought provoking.

Reading that book, I felt that I wanted to find out much more and I ended up ordering and reading Michael A. Hoffman II’s magnum opus Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit which absolutely amazed me: over 1000 pages packed with information, sources and most interesting analyses. Needless to say, the book was also very controversial and elicited all sorts of negative reactions from various reviewers.

Here I need to immediately begin by a disclaimer: while the topic of “Rabbinical Phariseism” (modern “Judaism” should be called something like “Rabbinical Phariseism” since all modern Judaic denomination are descendants of the sect of the Pharisees; furthermore, this religion is dramatically different from the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: it is the religion of Maimonides, Karo, Luria and others) has always fascinated me and while I do have a graduate degree in theology, I am absolutely not qualified to endorse or refute the views of Hoffman.

What I can say is that his books are very well written, well researched, fully sourced and that I see no contradictions between what he wrote and the little I personally know about this topic. As for his critique of the religion of the Rabbinical Pharisees (from which all form of modern “Orthodox Judaism” stem from), it is not “racist” in any way: unlike ethnicity, a religion is a personal choice and thus a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism and Hoffman’s condemnation of Rabbinical Phariseism is in no way harsher than the writings of Church Fathers like Saint Justin Martyr, Saint John Chrysostome, Saint Cyprian of Carthage or Saint Ephrem the Syrian.

Hoffman recently published another amazing book, the 700 pages long “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome” which I began reading (I am about 1/3rd through) with, again, rapt interest. Yet again, here was a very well researched and beautifully controversial book which gave me as strong desire to speak with the author and, luckily for me, Michael A. Hoffman II has kindly agree to replies to my questions to him on his life and research. The following is the full unedited Q&A with I had with him.

* * *

The Saker: I am absolutely amazed at the width and depth of your research – could you please introduce yourself and then tell us how and where you acquired such a deep knowledge of topics which are almost never discussed nowadays and which the general public is almost totally unaware of? Do you have formal degrees in theology or history, or are you self-taught? What made you decide to spend so much time and effort deeply delving into topics which are often considered obscure, arcane if not completely irrelevant by most of our contemporaries?

Hoffman: My maternal grandfather Joseph Palace, with whom I had many discussions in my youth, was an amateur revisionist historian. He had been a successful businessman and seemed to have inside information about national events. He somehow knew in November 1960 that Joe Kennedy had bought the Chicago-area votes that helped swing the presidential election to his son Jack. He introduced me to other anomalies of history.

I attended college in my native New York in the early 1970s when the country was being torn apart by the Vietnam War and the change-of-era time. Because I majored in political science and history, I was often at odds with many of my liberal professors—not due to their Leftism, but their tunnel vision and abhorrence of dissenting ideas, in spite of posing as dissenters.

I was fortunate to find a few professors who were honest academics, particularly Francis J.M. O’Laughlin at Hobart College, and my Palestinian professor at the State University of New York at Oswego, Faiz Abu-Jaber. The latter repeatedly urged me to research the history of Freemasonry in upstate New York, where America’s great anti-masonic revolt was ignited after Masons murdered William Morgan in 1826. The result was my 1978 pamphlet, Masonic Assassination.

I left the university and drifted around the country doing manual labor on farms and as a longshoreman. Further into the 1970s I was writing for obscure publications like Fortean Times, where I became a columnist, and working as a reporter at radio stations, including one station that was an ABC News affiliate. I also began writing for the wire service of the NY bureau of the Associated Press (AP). Eventually I was hired by Willis Carto to write a column for his paleo-conservative Spotlight newspaper, which in 1979 had nearly 400,000 readers.

As a Spotlight reporter I covered the spectacular “Holocaust” show trial of German-Canadian activist Ernst Zündel in 1985 in Toronto, Canada and wrote a book about it, which was published by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) in California, where I became assistant director. The trial took nine weeks and in the course of it I became acquainted with Zündel’s defense team and witnesses, among them revisionist historians like Robert Faurisson and David Irving, and German veterans of Word War II, from a grunt who drove a tank in Rommel’s Afrika Corps, to General Otto Ernst Remer, the commander of Berlin when the attempt was made on Hitler’s life.

In the 1990s some of my books started to take off in term of sales, including They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America, and in 2001, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. I have been privileged ever since to lead the precarious life of an unaffiliated professional historian, while sometimes moonlighting as a copy editor for mainstream publications in the U.S.

The Saker: Clearly, when you began writing your books you must have been acutely aware that this would get you all sorts of ugly personal attacks and accusations – yet you went ahead and, far from being silenced, you continued to publish book after book and now, after having taken on Rabbinical Phariseeism, your latest book reveals an amazing level of depravity and heresy in the Latin Church (another misnomer since the “Roman Catholic” Church is neither “Roman” nor “Catholic” in the sense of “universal) since at least the Italian Quattrocento (15th century), many centuries before the First or Second Vatican Councils.

In this latest book you are even committing a sort of “thoughtcrime of thoughtcrimes” and denouncing the very strong collusion between Judaic black magic (especially in the form of its kabbalistic teachings) and the top Latin theologians and clergymen. What is your motivation in unearthing all these most interesting, but also long-forgotten, events and what gives you the courage to take on such powerful institution as organized Jewry and the Vatican? What are you trying to achieve, whom are you writing for, what gives you such courage and energy?

Hoffman: My family heritage is one of asking questions about everything. This for me is a normal state of mind — siding with the underdog, questioning authority. If you couple that with a burning curiosity, a desire to learn everything and to gain forbidden knowledge, then when one encounters a hint that white people in British America might have been chattel slaves on 17th century sugar and tobacco plantations, one experiences an insatiable hunger for knowledge in that realm, and if the information has been mostly suppressed, then the hunt becomes all the more compelling.

Some Orthodox Judaic people have a derogatory phrase they employ concerning those who abandon Judaism. They say that those who leave are “chozrim b’she’ela” which denotes, “returning to questioning.” In my view this is a left-handed compliment since it is the mission of the independent, ennobled human mind to always return to questioning.

You mentioned “organized Jewry.” I don’t see myself as taking on “Jewry” per se. Orthodox Judaism, yes. Israeli Zionism, yes. But since both of those institutions are at their core fundamentally anti-Judaic, I view my work as an expression of love for Judaic people and as a conduit for their liberation.

A prime source of Jew hate is Talmudism itself, which oppressively tyrannizes and micromanages the lives of Judaics born through no fault of their own, into its psychic prison, while Israeli Zionism imprisons Judaics in a permanent war footing with the indigenous people of the Middle East. To free Judaic persons from these two prisons is an act of compassion and charity. We should never forget that our work is pro-Judaic. It is the Talmudic and Kabbalistic rabbis and Zionists who are putting Judaic people on the road to ruin.

The Saker: Now, turning to your books on Rabbinical Phariseism, could you please summarize the main theses of your books on this topic? What is, in your opinion, the true nature of Rabbinical Phariseism, what are its core tenets/beliefs? What would you say to an average person are the myths and realities about what is referred to as “Judaism” in our society?

Hoffman: Orthodox Judaism, which is the scion of the religion of the ancient Pharisees, is above all, self-worship, and pride is the paramount destroyer. In the occult scheme of things, the ideology closest to it was Hitler’s National Socialism, in that it shares this predominant characteristic of pathological narcissism.

Christians and many other goyim (gentiles) have been deluded into imagining that Judaism, while being somewhat flawed due to rejecting Jesus, nonetheless manages to be an ethical religion reflective of the prophets of the Old Testament. Hillel, the first century A.D. Pharisee who is believed to have been a contemporary of Jesus, and Moses Maimonides (“Rambam”), the medieval philosopher and theologian, are most often held up as exemplars of this supposed ethical Judaism.

The myth of the benevolence of these two can only be sustained by ignorance. The problem is, that when a scholar begins to unearth facts that undermine pious media legends about men like Hillel and Maimonides, they enter “anti-Semitism” territory: if they dare to retail the truth, their ability to earn a living and keep their good name and reputation will be damaged, sometimes irreparably by the myth-makers who have the power to permanently stigmatize them as “haters and anti-Semites.”

I’m beyond those fears, so I can venture to say that Hillel offered theological grounds for the molestation of children and invented a “prozbul” escape clause for evading the Biblical command that no loan shall be in force more than seven years. Maimonides detested Jesus Christ with a volcanic hatred that led him in his writings to urge the murder of Christians when it is possible to do so without being detected. These facts are documented in my books Judaism Discoveredand Judaism’s Strange Gods.

Meanwhile, if you google “Hillel” or “Maimonides,” or you consult Wikipedia, you’ll find them described in terms of saccharine sainthood and humanitarian benevolence.

Orthodox Judaism, I regret to say, is a religion of lying and deceit. Duplicity and mendacity are formally inculcated. They are not incidental. There isn’t even a great deal of trust among Talmudists themselves. Witness what Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, one time head of the reconstituted Sanhedrin in Tiberias, and premier translator of the Babylonian Talmud, has pronounced on this matter:

“Rabbis are liable to alter their words, and the accuracy of their statements is not to be relied upon.” (The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition [Random House], Vol. II, pp. 48-49). In BT Yevamot 65b permission is given to lie “in the interests of peace,” a category so broad it is capable of serving as an alibi for countless situations in which scoundrels wish to conjure excuses for their falsehoods. There is also the general permission to lie to a gentile (BT Baba Kamma 113a).

These facts are not published in major media such as the New York Times. Yet the Times does not shy from insinuating that Shiite Islam is a religion of liars: “…there is a precedent for lying to protect the Shiite community…part of a Shiite historical concept called taqiyya, or religious dissembling.” (New York Times, April 14, 2012, p. A4).

Another defining theological aspect of Orthodox Judaism is its dogma that non-Jews are less than human. This is how the goyim are viewed in the Talmud and its sacred successor texts. In certain branches of Kabbalistic Judaism, such as the politically powerful and prominent Chabad-Lubavitch sect, their founder, Rabbi Shneur Zalman, formally promulgated the doctrine that goyim are not just less than human, they are non-human trash — “supernal refuse” — which is a reference to their Kabbalistic status as kelipot who possess “no redeeming qualities whatsoever.”

The Saker: My personal research has brought me to the conclusion ever since the recognition by Christ as the Messiah promised by the prophets of the Old Testament by one part of the first century Jews and the rejection of Him by the other part, the latter group began by developing an “anti-Christian scriptural toolkit” which included, of course, the forgery of the so-called Masoretic text, the development of the Talmud and the various commentaries, interpretations and codification of these texts.

The goal was to develop a “polemical arsenal” so to speak. At the same time, the first kabbalistic concepts were developed for the internal use inside the anti-Christian communities. Would you agree with this (admittedly summarized) description and would you then agree with my personal conclusion that Rabbinical Phariseeism is at its core simply a religion of “anti-Christianity”?

Hoffman: I think you’re correct up to the Renaissance, which is the point at which members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy including many popes, were secretly initiated into Kabbalistic mysticism. The belt of that transmission is chronicled in detail in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. Rabbinic Phariseeism is more than a religion opposed to Jesus for this reason: in its beginnings in the time before Christ, it had existence as a creed founded upon esoteric oral teachings that nullify the Bible itself.

Orthodox Judaism is an anti-Biblical religion. Yes, it has a “Moses” and a “Noah” as its patrons and it names other patriarchs too, but these are not the Moses and Noah of the Bible. These are radically falsified figures who bear those names. Pharisac Judaism is contemptuous of the Biblical Noah about whom, in the Midrash, it makes scurrilous claims. There is even contempt for Moses. About Isaiah, who said that Israel has filthy lips, the Talmud teaches that Isaiah was justly killed by having his mouth sawed in half for “blaspheming Israel.”

In both Left-wing New Age and Right-wing neo-Nazi circles, the heresy of Marcion is alive and well and the Old Testament is execrated. It is equated with the Talmud (most famously on the Right by Douglas Reed in The Controversy of Zion). The problem with that tack is that the Old Testament is absolutely not a book of self-worship of the Jews. It is radically different from the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible is an antidote to self-worship. The Old Testament excoriates Israelites in the strongest possible terms.

One notable instance of the Bible’s ego-deflation pertains directly to Jews (Judeans) in the person of the eponymous patriarch Judah. In Genesis chapter 38, Judah’s daughter-in-law Tamar disguises herself as a temple prostitute. Not knowing it is her, and thinking she is a votary of the Canaanite fertility goddess Astarte, Judah has sexual relations with her.

This was a horrendous transgression because in having sex with a cult prostitute one is having relations with a prostitute who seeks to channel the goddess by being possessed by her spirit. In this sexual act Judah would have been risking demonic possession himself.

Later in Genesis 38, when Judah seeks for the woman so as to pay her for her services, he asks the local people, “Where is the temple prostitute (the qedesha)?” Orthodox Judaism concocts fabrications to protect Judah’s reputation. Many Christian Bible translations influenced by rabbinic exegesis do something deceptively similar when they mistranslates Judah’s question as, “Where is the (common) prostitute (the zona)”?

That’s not the word Judah used in the Hebrew text. He didn’t ask after a simple zona. He asked of the whereabouts of a qedeshah. The Word of God in this scripture is teaching Israel, and specifically the tribe of Judah, not to become conceited regarding their lineage and genealogy because none other than their illustrious forefather and namesake, Judah, committed a perverted transgression.

Near the end of Genesis 38, Judah admits his hypocrisy and repents. Here the book of Genesis is imparting a very Christ-like Old Testament lesson about sinners, repentance and humility— which the Pharisaic rabbis in their arrogance, reject. In their Midrash on Genesis 38, they have the chutzpah to blame God for Judah having sex with a woman he believed to be a temple prostitute. They write, “Thus it is taught, ‘Judah would have never sinned with Tamar, but God sent the ‘angel of lust’ to tempt him to do so.” Nothing in the Bible supports this exculpatory allegation which blames God and renders Judah innocent of sin, since he was supposedly only doing God’s will.

Wherever there is the spirit of fanatical race pride, there is the spirit of the oral gnosis from which the Talmud, Midrash and similar authoritative rabbinic texts are derived.

To give another example, look at the language employed in Ezekiel 16:23-25. God says to Israel: “To crown your wickedness…declares the Lord Yahweh…At the entry of every alley…you opened your legs to all comers in countless acts of fornication. You have also fornicated with your big-membered neighbors, the Egyptians…you do not act like a proper prostitute because you disdain to take a fee…you bribe them to fornicate with you.”

A divine statement of such power, which mocks the Israelites for their immorality, is anathema to the Talmudic mentality, which is why the Talmud teaches that Yahweh is subservient to the rabbis, and they have the right to modify His divine law by means of situation ethics.

The Saker: I am often told that Zionism is secular and that its leaders were all secular, primarily, socialist, intellectuals and that there is no continuity between the small shtetls controlled by rabbis in eastern Europe and modern Israel because Zionism is essentially a Jewish version of 19th century European secular nationalism and, far from having its roots in Yiddish speaking religious communities, Zionism represents a secular emancipation from this self-enclosed and religion-centered world. What do you think, is there are continuity between modern “secular” Zionism (from Ahad Ha’am and Hertzl to modern Likudniks) and Pharisaic Judaism or not? And, if yes, could you please describe it?

Hoffman: The bridge between not only Talmudic Judaism and Zionism, but Bolshevism as well, is personified by Moses Hess, who Karl Marx termed, “My Communist rabbi.” Hess was not a rabbi in a formal sense, but he was enamored of the Talmud, as well as Communist and Zionist ideology. Hess recognized that what unites all three, their common bond, is Judaic self-worship.

The controversies and rivalries arise in the debate over which vehicle is best for the supremacy of the Judaic people over humanity: Judaism, Bolshevism or Zionism? Hess argued that depending on the zeitgeist, any one of the three would prove suitable.

Yes indeed, the founders of the Israeli state were secularists and Socialists who had little regard for the Talmud as a way of ordering the life of a modern nation. They viewed its code of conduct as a relic from a superstitious past. They were modern and “progressive.” Moreover, the pioneering Zionists had violated a fundamental tenet of Orthodox Judaism, which held that only the Messiah himself could initiate the founding of a reborn Israeli nation. Until the appearance of the Messiah, the Jews could not engage in armed struggle to achieve that end.

That was the view of the majority of Talmudic rabbis in 1948. Seventy years later it is the view of only a minority, mostly among certain Hasidic sects, such as the Satmar. Voila, in seven decades Orthodox Judaism has become a pillar of the Israeli state. The fanatical Israeli “settlers” are comprised of “religious Zionists.” The Talmud is their inspiration for using violence to steal what is left of Palestine in order to build “Eretz Israel.” How did this transformation occur?

Orthodox Judaism is a religion of situation ethics. There are few beliefs that are not negotiable. What is non-negotiable is the supremacy of the Judaic people and whatever aids that supremacy. Nothing else counts. Look at Gershom Scholem, the German-Israeli scholar who helped to bring the Kabbalah into respectability and prominence in the Israeli state.

Scholem and Judaic-American intellectual Hannah Arendt, the one-time girlfriend of German philosopher Martin Heidegger, had been friends in Paris before World War II. Arendt published a fair-minded book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, which infuriated Scholem. But not because she erred in her facts. He was incensed at her allegedly “heartless, downright malicious tone” regarding the Nazis’ mass murders of Judaics, and he cast aspersions on her in the pages ofEncounter magazine.

Arendt had transgressed, according to Scholem, because she had failed to write in deference to the supreme criterion that must be the idol of every Judaic person: “ahavath Israel” (“love for the Jews”). The truths that Arendt had written were utterly beside the point.

If it turns out that Zionism is the best vehicle in our time for advancing Judaic supremacy, then most of the gedolei (rabbinic elite) of Orthodox Judaism will continue to cooperate with it. In his novel Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens portrayed the Judaic arch-criminal Fagin donning innumerable costumes and disguises. Talmudism, Bolshevism and Zionism are the garments that Judaic megalomania dons and discards as it marches through the corridors of time.

The Saker: In a recent article for the Unz Review entitled “A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism” I posted a video of Bar-Hayim is an “Israeli Orthodox rabbi who heads the Shilo Institute (Machon Shilo), a Jerusalem-based rabbinical court and institute of Jewish education dedicated to the Torah of Israel”. Not a lightweight by any means who declared, among other things that: video time stamps indicated; see full video here:

My first question regarding this gentleman is simple: who authoritative do you consider him and how widespread are his views amongst “Orthodox” Judaics? How close are his idea to the current mainstream of Orthodox/Hasidic “Judaism?

Hoffman: I wouldn’t know the status of this particular rabbi in the Israeli state. The situation is in turmoil at present in terms of halachic authorities because there are competing religious bodies. There is disarray even in the headquarters of the chief rabbinate. The last Ashkenazi “Chief Rabbi of Israel,” Yona Metzger, is currently serving a prison sentence for theft and bribery.

Another source of tumult is the heated controversy over the conversion to Judaism performed by Orthodox Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of the storied East Side synagogue in Manhattan, which was rejected by an Israeli rabbinic court, which invalidated the conversion of the (unnamed) woman and blocked her from marrying in an Orthodox ceremony in the Israeli state. This was a shock because it cast some doubt on another conversion performed by Lookstein— of Ivanka Trump.

Judaic unity is only possible due to an external threat like Jew hate. If there was virtually no hatred for Judaics, and Jesus’ injunction to love one’s enemies actually was practiced, there would be civil war inside the ranks of Talmudists and Zionists, which is one reason why Zionists have been caught covertly directing neo-Nazism, as for example in Canada in the 1960s and ‘70s as documented by Paul Fromm and Ron Gostick. The Stasi East German Communist secret police meanwhile, under the Judaic Markus Wolf, chief of the foreign intelligence branch, are known to have backed neo-Nazi groups in West Germany.

Here in the U.S. it’s sometimes the case when Palestinians are gaining sympathy, or Israeli perfidy comes to the fore (as in the Jonathan Pollard espionage scandal), a dozen or so jerks with swastika armbands will assemble as if on cue, in some major American city, and virtually overnight the media are once again saturating America with the “Holocaust” narrative, and whatever Israeli scandal or Palestinian tribulation had managed to gain some notoriety, is lost in the agit-prop.

Returning to the candid statements attributed to this rabbi Bar Hayim — they are all accurate. Perhaps he’s been reading Judaism Discovered? He may be a renegade among rabbis, or on the other hand, he may be an astute Kabbalist engaged in a type of sophisticated psychological warfare known as the “Revelation of the Method.”

It can be briefly explained as follows: at midnight on the clock of destiny in this eschaton, the goyim have been sufficiently processed and conditioned to such an extent that the criminals who have been oppressing them for centuries are now in a position to reveal to their victims what they have perpetrated against them, in the expectation that the victims are so depleted spiritually they will not respond proactively to the revelation. In the wake of the revelation if the passivity of the goyim continues, their psychological conditioning and enslavement increases exponentially.

Rabbi Bar Hayim could never divulge these truths to medieval Catholic peasants. There would be hell to pay. I suppose that if his revelations were to become better known in a country like Poland, which most closely approximates in our time a living Catholic faith among the masses at the parish level, there might yet be severe repercussions. But in Britain, Europe, Canada and the United States these truths are met with a collective shrug of apathy and paralysis, which serves to escalate the rate of our moral and psychological deterioration.

As far as how widespread are the teachings of Orthodox Judaism? I would say it depends on whether the Judaics are living in shetl-like conditions in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem, or more freely in a place like Los Angeles. To what extent has their education been at a yeshiva? The process of inculcating the Talmudic mentality is both cultural and pedagogic. I surmise that at the very least, the majority of adult males in Orthodox Judaism have a sense of their own superiority over the goyim, and will treat them unfairly when it is to their advantage and they can do so with impunity.

In the Israeli state, the one place on earth where Zionists have nearly complete power, how do the goyim fare? Would you like to be a Palestinian residing in Gaza, or even east Jerusalem for that matter? This is the fate of any subject population in any nation where Zionists or Orthodox rabbis possess something approximating total power.

The Saker: I would now like to touch upon the so-called “Noahide Laws” [listed by “Rambam” (Maimonides) as: prohibition of idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, of sexual immorality, of theft, on (eating) a limb of a living creature and the imperative of legal system] and I would focus on the first one: idolatry. Rabbi David Bar-Hayim explains that it refers to “Avodah Zarah” or “foreign worship”. Modern Judaics explain that Christianity is a “special type of avodah zarah is forbidden to Jews but permissible to gentiles, so that a non-Jew who engages in Christian worship commits no sin”.

Hoffman: Thank you for making me laugh. I’ve had a difficult day so the mirth is welcome. They want us to believe that Chazal (the supreme sages of the founding era of the Mishnah and Gemara), issued a decree stating that idolatry is forbidden to the Jews, but permissible to gentiles who worship the hated Jesus? Whoever believes that, I have a mountain here in Idaho that I will sell them at a discount.

You mentioned Moses Maimonides. He is the principal halachic authority in Ashkenazi Judaism. He wrote in his Avodat Kochavim (chapter 10): “Show no mercy to a non-Jew.” In this same volume, which comprises part of his magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides decreed: “It is a mitzvah (religious duty pleasing to God) to destroy Jewish traitors, minim and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos and their students. May the name of the wicked rot.”

The words min and minim have been explained away as denoting “idolaters, akum,” wayward heretical Judaics, and other villains. The authoritative Shulchan Aruchhowever, pinpoints the source of the words min and minim to rabbinic wordplay on a description ascribed to Christians, “the faithful.” To mock the Christians, the rabbis of the Talmud took to calling them “sorts” as in “all sorts of malefactors.”

Min and the plural form minim are therefore primarily references to Christians, while Tzadok and Baithos are examples of apikorsim, i.e. opponents of the Talmud. Min and minim are references to both Judaic and non-Judaic Christians. There is indeed, admittedly, a more intense detestation of Judaic people who convert to Christianity, in that they may be classed in other penal categories such as rodef (“pursuer”) and moser(“informant”).

The notion that gentile Christians are exempt from being treated as idolaters under the Noahide Laws, is shown to be demonstrably false in Hilchot Avodah Zara 9:4, where Maimonides states without qualification of any kind, that Christianity constitutes avodah zara, the worship of a false god. Let the apologists for Orthodox Judaism show us where in the Mishnah and Gemara, or in Rashi, the Mishneh Torah or the Shulchan Aruch, there is a dogma that the non-Judaic worshipers of Jesus Christ are not idolaters?

One whole volume of the Babylonian Talmud is devoted to the study of Avodah zara(idol worship). This tractate starts out discussing ways to cause non-Jews “distress.” For example, three days before the “idol-worshiping festivals” of Christmas and Easter, Rabbi Yehuda teaches that repayment of debts should be demanded from the goyim because it will cause them distress during their festive season (BT Avoda Zara 2a).

There’s a long section in tractate Avodah zara going over the details pertaining to goyim and the kashrut (kosher) status of wine. If goyim have unsupervised access to wine intended for Jews, then it can no longer be considered kashrut—the supposition being that the goyim poisoned or otherwise tainted the wine. There’s a hilarious passage where certain thieves come to the town of Pumbedita and open numerous barrels of wine. The sages of the Gemara consider whether the wine is contaminated by the thieves and therefore no longer kashrut. One sage relieves their anxiety. He tells them not to worry, “The wine is permitted. What is the reason? Most of the thieves in Pumbedita are Jews” (BT Avoda Zara 70a).

The Saker: Furthermore, can you explain why in the US these rabidly anti-Christian laws have been proclaimed as the “bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization” by both President Reagan and Congress? Jews are a small minority in the USA, and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews are a minority amongst US Jews – so who is behind such weird and yet very official proclamations?! Is this the result of lobbying by the so-called “Christian Zionists”?

Hoffman: I will answer from the New Testament. “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truthand so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion so that they may believe a lie, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thessalonians 2:9).

Americans have an insufficient love for vital truths and it is God Himself who permits them to be seriously deluded as a result of their indifference. The stuff that the denizens of Churchianity such as Vice-President Mike Pence believe about “Israel” (more properly termed “counterfeit Israel”), is a curse on Pence and the nation in which he is a government leader.

Mr. Pence and his fellow “evangelicals” make themselves believe that the religion whose holiest book places Jesus in hell being eternally boiled in hot excrement (BT Gittin 57A; cf. https://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2018/03/farrakhans-defense-of-jesus-against.html ), is the apple of God’s eye. They take pleasure in being on the side of the powerful; the truth be damned. There’s a price to pay for that level of degeneracy and it is God who imposes it. The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

The “patriotic” wars America has waged from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, have added to the grievous woes of this world. The Deep State inside the U.S. government, which we fund with our taxes and which has our nation sunk in a trillion dollars in debt, is our formidable enemy. These indicators of decline and others even worse, like the opioid and methamphetamine epidemic of addiction, are the price America pays for its indifference to truth—we prefer situation ethics—and by that yardstick, objectively we are already Talmudists.

The Saker: In your books you explain that the primary book studied by Judaics is not what Christians call the Old Testament, but the Talmud. Yet even in the Talmud there are numerous references to the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). Do you think that most rabbis sincerely believe in the “official” characterization of Christ as a “magician” and “blasphemer” who was sentenced to death for his blasphemies, or have they rejected Christ because He, from their point of view, did not fulfill what they saw as God’s promise to the Jewish people, an earthly kingdom and, instead, gave to the “nations” (goyim) the world he has promised the Jews? Could it be that in their mysticism, the rabbis deliberately reject God’s Messiah and try put themselves into His place?

Hoffman: It’s difficult to say which path is taken among the majority, but both lead to the same destination: execration of the Gospel, which is often obstructed as much by internal subversion by Talmudic and Zionist agents within the churches, as from hostile forces external to it. The capture of the papacy in the 16th century was a watershed in this regard. This profound secret is contested by those who reply, “But the popes burned the Talmud!” Like the history of the enslavement of whites in early America, our rejoinder is, to which century are you referring?

The experience of whites in bondage in the 17th century resembled in many cases chattel slavery. By the early 19th century that experience was almost entirely that of indentured servitude, although the whip smarted no less when it struck Andrew Johnson, future Vice-President of the United States, for whom a reward was offered and a wanted poster issued when he ran away to Tennessee to escape his bondage in North Carolina.

In the history of the Catholic Church, if the reference is to the incineration of Talmud manuscripts in the medieval era, for example in the wake of the Paris Disputation in the 13th century, in which Nicholas Donin, an eminent Judaic convert to Christianity, debated and defeated the rabbis in the presence of the monarchs of France, on the contested subject of the Babylonian Talmud’s malice toward Christ—then truly that burning was a sincere effort to eradicate it.

In the papal 16th century however, the token burning of the Talmud authorized by the popes was almost entirely for theatrical effect. In The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome we demonstrate that it was the papacy which supported the printing (and circulation) of the finest edition of the Talmud ever published in recorded history, the magnificent Bomberg edition (1519-1523), which it is fair to say permanently rescued the Talmud from the possibility of extinction.

The only book more sacred to the pontiffs of the Renaissance was the Kabbalah, and we document an instance when, as part of a clever ruse worthy of the Mossad, agents of the papacy (led by Sixtus of Siena) burned the Talmud in order to distract from a rescue operation they mounted in Cremona to save copies of the Kabbalistic Zohar that had been printed by the Catholic publisher Vincenzo Conti. Sixtus of Siena’s patron and protector was Cardinal Michele Ghisleri, who as Pope Pius V would help inspire the the forces that defeated the Turks at the naval battle of Lepanto.

At this juncture we ask an inconvenient question: which is more damaging — the invasion of Europe by the Turks—or the invasion of the minds and souls of the Catholic intellectual elite by the Kabbalah? Renaissance (and post-Renaissance) Rome’s duplicity is of a depth that is more than most people can imagine, and having an insufficient love for the truth, they cling to the legends they have imbibed rather than the harsh reality that the documentary record imparts.

For the Messiah-rejecting Judaics, it’s an axiom among paleo-conservatives that the Leo Strauss school of Neoconservatism is its own messiah. You see this messianism in their secular sphere of action. Look at the headline on p. A12 of the New York Times of February 27, 2003, just days before George W. Bush invaded Iraq: “Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region.”

The Times wrote: “Israelis are now putting…hopes in an American war on Iraq…‘The shock waves emerging from post-Saddam Baghdad could have wide-ranging effects in Tehran, Damascus, and in Ramallah,’ Efraim Halevy, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s national security adviser, said in a speech in Munich this month….Until recently, Mr. Halevy was the chief of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency. He said, ‘We have hopes of greater stability, greater enhanced confidence from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic shores of Morocco.’

“Israelis have also suggested that that an Iraq war may salvage their economy…Mark Heller, a senior researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, said the potential engine for change would be the example of a transformed Iraq. ‘It’s at least conceivable that Al Jazeera will end up showing pictures of Iraqis celebrating in the streets, in which case people in other places like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to start saying, ‘If Iraqis deserve decent government, so do we.”

This is the utopian stupidity the Israelis sold to the Americans. The Zionists and Talmudists are their own messiah and they will, at any cost in human life and material treasure, seek to “perfect” the world in pursuit of their messianic utopia. Megalomaniacs don’t learn from their mistakes, even when they are catastrophic blunders. Bill Kristol will maintain his trademark smirk no matter the consequences of his own derangement.

The only post-war “celebrating in the streets” the Iraqis did was in 2008 when the intrepid journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi attended a Baghdad news conference where President Bush was speaking, touting the allegedly marvelous achievements of the U.S. invasion. Zaidi threw his shoes at Bush, shouting, “This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog.

This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.” Guards tackled Zaidi. He was beaten in jail and sentenced to three years in prison (he served nine months). Zaidi’s insult to Bush made him a celebrated hero in the Arab world.

But is there more to it? Is there an occult side? Here’s the data, draw your own conclusions: the Satanic character of traditional Judaism is not particularly difficult to discern if one adheres to the facts. The principal sacred text of the Kabbalah is the openly Satanic Zohar, which states the following: “Israel must make sacrifices to Satan so that he will leave Israel unmolested” (Zohar 2:33a). Also this: “The evil impulse is good, and without the evil impulse Israel cannot prevail in the world” (Zohar 1:61a).

These are appalling statements in a sacred book revered by the most politically influential rabbinic organization in America, Chabad-Lubavitch. I wish I could say they are anti-Semitic fabrications, but they are not. I can xerox them for you, with their context intact, from the edition of the Zohar published by Stanford University. Palestinians and goyim in general have the right and duty to assess the impact of this demonic Kabbalism in light of events in the Middle East and de facto Zionist control of the White House and Congress.

At first glance, it’s a seemingly lurid, even crackpot question to pose: was the Iraq War one of the Kabbalistic sacrifices which “Israel” must make to Satan, as the Zohar counsels? In the interests of justice and the advancement of knowledge, the question should be asked, and the Zohar should be studied (in the uncensored Pritzker edition from Stanford), in pursuit of an answer. The Zionist-instigated Iraq invasion took the lives of approximately a quarter-million Iraqis and 4,000 American youth.

The fact that America fought the Iraq war for so-called “Israel” is slammed as a “virulent anti-Semitic fabrication.” But we have only to read the Times of February 27, 2003 to learn that the Israelis virtually lusted for the U.S. to invade, while pushing a boatload of nonsense with which to persuade the collective American golem of the prudence of their messianic Neocon mission.

To address the other part of your question, yes, the Old Testament is the prestigious prop that Orthodox Judaism wears emblazoned upon its public escutcheon. But as Jesus declared in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, the Pharisees nullify the Word of God while adhering to their own “traditions of men.” They call it “Torah” but it is really only their anthropomorphic oral law (Torah she’beal peh), later committed to writing after their rejection of the Messiah of Israel, beginning with the Mishnah.

The only authentic Torah of Yahweh is the written Torah (Torah she’bich tav)—the Pentateuch of Moses. It’s perverse that sola Scriptura “evangelical” Protestants delude themselves into imagining that the Pharisaic Judaism that concocted two diametrically opposed Torahs, is of God.

They criticize Roman Catholic and Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians for giving authority to apostolic tradition, yet they claim that God is in love with the religion that is predicated on the authority of a bogus oral “Torah,” which Jesus repeatedly refuted and chastised in His confrontations with the Pharisees.

The Saker: I want to ask your opinion about two very different movements: first, the Karaites, who say that they reject the Talmud and “Rabbinical Judaism” and of Neturei Karta which are Haredi, but who vocally oppose the state of Israel and secular Zionism.

In the Russian Empire the Karaites petitioned the Czar in order not to be considered as “Jews” and that their petition was accepted. I was also recently told by a friend that Nazi Germany also did not consider Karaites as Jews. And yet, as far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, the State of Israel considers them as “Jews”.

But since they reject the Talmud, would that not make them apikorsim-traitors? How would you characterize the Karaites? What about the Neturei Karta? They reject the state of Israel, yet they live there, even in Jerusalem’s Meah Shearim quarter. But they travel to anti-Zionist conferences, even to Iran, and have met with the Iranian President. How do they escape being condemned as traitors or moser-informants? How different are they, in your opinion, from the other Haredi?

Hoffman: Karaites are the Judaics that Christians imagine Orthodox Judaism to be: an Old Testament-only religion. The Karaites were contemptuous of the rabbis of the Talmud for masquerading as the avatars of the Old Testament. They were cruelly persecuted by the rabbis in turn.

Karaites have sometimes served to assist Christian scholars in discovering and parsing recondite rabbinic texts. Historically they have exhibited scant devotion to Judaic racial-nationalism. In the past 20 years or so however, some Karaite groups have accommodated themselves to Zionism and to a Judaic racial identity which would have been anathema to their forefathers.

No doubt the Tsars had the good sense to differentiate between Karaites and Talmudic Orthodox Judaism. I have heard the rumor about the Nazis and until I see the documentation, I don’t believe it. Adolf Hitler was driven by a Helena Blavatsky-type of occult Jew hate, which he acquired through Dietrich Eckart and others in Eckart’s milieu. Hence, Hitler viewed Judaic people the way Orthodox rabbis view goyim: as irredeemably evil, without regard to mitigating factors such as whether or not they were Karaites.

Many illustrious and sincere Judaic converts to Catholicism for instance, were nonetheless rounded up by the Nazis and died in concentration camps, among them the theologian Edith Stein and the author Irène Némirovsky (whose novel David Golder is now considered anti-Semitic).

The Nazis rather mysteriously liquidated stalwart activists and publishers like the Polish priest Maximilian Kolbe, whose educational work had resulted in massive public revulsion toward Judaism and Freemasonry. Kolbe headed a Catholic publishing empire dedicated to revealing the perfidy of Talmudic rabbis and Freemasons. What was he doing interned in Auschwitz? From the information we have seen, Karaites enjoyed no special immunity from Nazi persecution or extrusion, unless there were individual acts of mercy on the part of German personnel lower down in the chain of command.

The Israeli state is replete with apikorsim and in fact was founded by them, as we have said. In “Israel” in 2018 it remains largely a matter of indifference whether one is an atheist-Judaic, a Buddhist-Judaic or a Karaite-Judaic. If you were born of a Judaic mother you have the right to take up residence under the 1950 “Law of Return.”

As for the Neturei Karta, which is a very small group relative to other anti-Zionist “ultra-Orthodox” Hasidim such as the Satmar, they achieved fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective), when they participated in the “Holocaust” revisionist conference in Iran in December, 2006 and maintained friendly and supportive relations with the revisionists who were present.

Another anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox group, the Eda Haredit community, are of interest, in part because they are offshoots of the more substantial Hasidic sects like Toldot Aharon and Satmar, and less prone to engage in publicity stunts, yet they cause headaches for the Israeli government.

These groups are the heirs to the “old Yishuv” — the Talmudic community that resided relatively peacefully side by side with the Arabs in Palestine, before the conquest by Britain and the Zionists. They don’t accept Israeli government welfare payments or the National Insurance program. Most contentious of all, they despise the Israeli military and refuse to be conscripted. Eda Haredit members lynched an effigy of an Israeli soldier and hung it from a building in Jerusalem. They demonstrate in the streets against the draft and are beaten by Israeli police and soldiers.

Dozens of them are in prison. They can’t obtain a passport until they reach 35-years-of-age — the age at which subjection to the draft ends. They are viciously attacked by the majority of the Hasidim who favor Zionism, such as in the pages of the influential Talmudic newspaper Yated Ne’eman.

In sum, yes, they are courageous dissidents vis a vis secular Israeli society and the mainstream of the modern Orthodox and Hasidic movements.

However, if we revert back to the time before the founding of the Israeli entity, all of these groups — Neturei Karta, Satmar, Eda Haredit and their progenitors, detested Jesus, obstructed Christians, oppressed their adherents by micromanaging their lives, practiced the arts of deception and theft, and are suspected of widespread child molestation based on the halacha which permits sex with children under a certain age (for boys it is below the age of nine). The relevant Babylonian Talmud tractate shows that this permission to molest young boys is granted:

“The law is in accordance with the ruling of Rav….Rav says, ‘…the Torah does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old to be like the intercourse of one who is at least nine years old, as for a male’s act of intercourse to have the legal status of full-fledged intercourse the minimum age is nine years…if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engaged in intercourse with him is not liable” (BT Sanhedrin 54b).

This is plainly criminal and inhuman. Outside of Tantric Hinduism and the Church of Satan, we can think of no other religion which formally renders such abominable predation permissible. Consequently, in terms of the rehabilitation of their image, if they continue with their allegiance to Talmudic and post Talmudic halacha of the horrendously foul nature we find in Sanhedrin 54b, it matters not to a Christian whether a few Hasidic sects are implacably opposed to Zionism and the Israeli state. Their anti-Zionism does not absolve them of their other transgressions. They remain an offense to God and man.

The Saker: I have many secular Jewish friends, some who are somewhat aware of the kind of issues you have raised in your replies (those with at a least basic religious education), but most of them are totally oblivious to these facts. For example, they would dismiss the Hasidic rabbis and their followers as irrelevant nutcases and – correctly – point out that there are plenty of genocidal maniacs in other religions too!). In fact, many of them would very strongly suspect that those who, like you, raise these issues, of harboring strong anti-Jewish motives. There is, after all, a secular Jewish identity, at least since the 19th century, which is strongly based on the cultural aspects of “Rabbinical Judaism.”

Hoffman: On what basis can this writer be accused of “harboring strong anti-Jewish motives”? This monotonous jargon does not impress. Reckless accusations founded on nothing more than a morally superior interlocutor’s ignorant presumption that any rigorously critical study of Orthodox Judaism is hateful, does not call forth a response, other than pity.

We would laugh out of consideration an Italian who came forward to announce that the articulation of harsh truths about the papacy was evidence of harboring strong anti-Italian motives. Here is the only standard that matters: res ipsa loquitur. The facts speak for themselves.

Who are these self-described “Jews” for whom the pidyon shevuyim (redemption of the captive) means nothing? What are their credentials for passing judgments on the accuracy of our research or the purity of our motives? Are they scholars? Clairvoyants?

If they “dismiss” the Hasidic rabbis as inconsequential “nutcases,” perhaps your secular Judaic friends may wish to look closer at the identity of the personnel holding many top ministerial posts in the cabinet of Binyamin Netanyahu, and influencing the United States government through the efforts of Chabad-Lubavitch and Agudath Israel of America. Maybe they will condescend to take a peek at demographic statistics showing that the strictly Orthodox are the fastest-growing Judaic population in the Israeli state and the United States.

Furthermore, throughout our conversation I have made reference to Orthodox Judaism without limiting myself to Hasidim. The “modern Orthodox” as they are known, to distinguish them from Hasidim, are heirs to the zealous Talmudism that pre-existed Hasidism (which arose in the 18th century).

They number in their ranks Jared Kushner, Steven Spielberg, former Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and tens of thousands of other movers-and-shakers in government, business and media. The modern Orthodox operate Yeshiva University in New York, which includes the prestigious Cardozo School of Law, whose graduates often become elite government and corporate attorneys and staff powerful non-governmental agencies such as the ADL. “Irrelevant nutcases”?

The Saker: I always try to explain that, unlike ethnicity, religion in a choice and thus a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism and my secular Jewish friends accept that on a logical level, but on an emotional level they still feel like something dear to them is being attacked. How do you deal with that?

How do we, by even raising these topics, avoid pushing our non-Haredi or, at least, non-Orthodox, Jewish friends or readers to “circle the wagons” with the hardcore Haredi? What do you think is the best strategy to completely separate issues of ethnicity/culture with specific issues of faith/religion?

Hoffman: If accurate scholarship pushes these supposedly confirmed secularists into the ranks of the religious-fanatic Hasidim (“Haredi”), then they must take the consequences of the choices they make. If our study of early modern papalism in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome were to cause a defensive over-reaction on the part of nominal Catholics, who then swore fealty to the ultramontane extremes of popery, how would anyone overcome folly like that, made by one’s own free will? There is a Yiddish proverb: “A shpigl ken oykh zayn der grester farfirer.” (“A mirror can also be the biggest deceiver”).

The Saker: thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my questions!


Historian Michael Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York Bureau of the Associated Press and the author of nine books of history and literature. These include Judaism Discovered, as well as Judaism’s Strange Gods; Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not; The Great Holocaust Trial; Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, and his latest, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. These volumes are available from Hoffman’s online store. Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History® newsletter (https://truthfulhistory), published six times a year. Website: www.RevisionistHistory.org


Source: Unz Review

 

Jewish mentality: Jewish extremists taunt ‘Ali’s on the grill’ at slain toddler’s relatives

Posted on by michaellee2009

Source

Jacob Magid — Times of Israel June 19, 2018

Jewish Extremists celebrate toddlers death

Far-right activists chanted slogans cheering for the death of an 18-month old Palestinian outside a courthouse in central Israel as the late toddler’s family walked near them following a hearing Tuesday.

Referencing toddler Ali Saad Dawabshe, killed in a 2015 arson attack carried out by Jewish terrorists, right-wing extremists chanted “Where is Ali? Ali’s dead,” “Ali’s on the grill” and other hate slogans.

Roughly two dozen youth had gathered outside the Central District Court in the city of Lod for a ruling regarding the admissibility of the confessions given by the two suspects in the firebombing of the Dawabsha home, which killed toddler Ali Saad Dawabsha and parents Riham and Saad Dawabsha.

Another son, Ahmed Dawabsha, who was 5 at the time, underwent months of treatment for severe burns sustained in the attack.

The chanting took place as uncle and grandfather Nasr and Hussein Dawabsha, who have served as guardians for Ahmed Dawabsha since the attack, walked out of the courtroom accompanied by Joint (Arab) List MKs Ahmad Tibi and Ayman Odeh.

A spokesman for Tibi managed to capture most of the chants on video, including those of one young religious activist who approached the crowd of Dawabsha supporters and shouted, “Where is Ali? He’s burned!” as he laughed.

Roughly 20 police officers were at the scene but did not appear to react as the chants persisted.

The Dawabsha relatives stood by their supporters without responding.

“These racist barbaric chants indicate that [the far-right protesters’] natural place is a zoo,” Nasr Dawabsha told The Times of Israel outside the courtroom.

The scene was reminiscent of a video following the Duma attack in which far-right activists were seen celebrating at a wedding by holding pictures of the baby and stabbing it.

The footage, which was widely condemned, led police to arrest several people who had attended the “hate wedding” as the incident was dubbed.

Police on Tuesday made no move to stop the protesters.
Source

Jewish extremists taunt ‘Ali’s on the grill’ at slain toddler’s relatives

Posted on by michaellee2009

Source

Times of Israel

Far-right activists chanted slogans cheering for the death of an 18-month old Palestinian outside a courthouse in central Israel as the late toddler’s family walked near them following a hearing Tuesday.

Referencing toddler Ali Saad Dawabshe, killed in a 2015 arson attack carried out by Jewish terrorists, right-wing extremists chanted “Where is Ali? Ali’s dead,” “Ali’s on the grill” and other hate slogans.  

Roughly two dozen youth had gathered outside the Central District Court in the city of Lod for a ruling regarding the admissibility of the confessions given by the two suspects in the firebombing of the Dawabsha home, which killed toddler Ali Saad Dawabsha and parents Riham and Saad Dawabsha.

Another son, Ahmed Dawabsha, who was 5 at the time, underwent months of treatment for severe burns sustained in the attack.

The chanting took place as uncle and grandfather Nasr and Hussein Dawabsha, who have served as guardians for Ahmed Dawabsha since the attack, walked out of the courtroom accompanied by Joint (Arab) List MKs Ahmad Tibi and Ayman Odeh.

A spokesman for Tibi managed to capture most of the chants on video, including those of one young religious activist who approached the crowd of Dawabsha supporters and shouted, “Where is Ali? He’s burned!” as he laughed.

Roughly 20 police officers were at the scene, but did not appear to react as the chants persisted.

The Dawabsha relatives stood by their supporters without responding.

“These racist barbaric chants indicate that [the far-right protesters’] natural place is a zoo,” Nasr Dawabsha told The Times of Israel outside the courtroom.

The scene was reminiscent of a video following the Duma attack in which far-right activists were seen celebrating at a wedding by holding pictures of the baby and stabbing it.

The footage, which was widely condemned, led police to arrest several people who had attended the “hate wedding” as the incident was dubbed.

Police on Tuesday made no move to stop the protesters.

Nassar Dawabsha said that if a Palestinian were to take pride in the murder of an Israeli in the manner which the protesters did, “they would receive the harshest of punishments from authorities.”

He accused police of “ensuring the protection” of the demonstrators.

Hussein Dawabsha, center, grandfather of a Palestinian toddler who was burned to death with his parents at their family home, stands with Israeli parliament members Ayman Odeh, left, and Ahmad Tibi, during the trial of the two Jewish men suspected of carrying out the attack, on June 19, 2018 at a court in the town of Lod. AFP / AHMAD GHARABLI)

Inside in a dramatic ruling moments prior, the court’s three-judge panel threw out a confession given by the teenage accomplice accused of involvement in the deadly Duma attack, saying that the statement had been given under duress.

However, a confession given by primary suspect Amiram Ben-Uliel was cleared for use after judges determined that enough time had passed between when he was tortured and when he admitted to the crime.

The decision creates a major hurdle for the prosecution, which may now need to throw out the case against the unnamed minor accused of helping plan the firebombing of the Dawabsha family home on July 31, 2015.

The minor and Amiram Ben-Uliel, charged last year with carrying out the attack, have claimed innocence, insisting they only confessed to the crime after being subjected to torture at the hands of Shin Bet interrogators.

Saad and Riham Dawabsha, with baby Ali (Channel 2 screenshot)

In April, the Central District Attorney’s Office announced that it would avoid using confessions obtained from the suspects by way of “special means,” referring to confessions extracted under duress.

The prosecution is believed to possess additional evidence on which to base its indictment against Ben-Uliel tying him to the Duma case. The minor’s admissible statements only refer to other incidents, which he still may face prosecution for.

The court has differentiated between confessions obtained in what is known as a “necessary investigation” and those that are obtained in a typical interrogation. In the former, investigators are authorized to use enhanced methods against the suspects due to a “ticking time bomb scenario” in which authorities believe another attack might be imminent.

However, the court ruled those statements inadmissible

The fallacy of israel’s human shields claims in Gaza

Posted on by michaellee2009

The Fallacy of Israel’s Human Shields Claims in Gaza

Desperately trying to justify the killing of unarmed protesters, Israel once again uses its ‘human shields’ mantra.

by &
Palestinian medic Razan al-Najjar, who was killed by an Israeli sniper, was featured in an Israel propaganda video claiming she was used as a 'human shield' by Hamas [Reuters/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa]
Palestinian medic Razan al-Najjar, who was killed by an Israeli sniper, was featured in an Israel propaganda video claiming she was used as a ‘human shield’ by Hamas [Reuters/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa]

It has become part of a macabre ritual. Each week, thousands of Palestinians stride towards the fence surrounding the small swath of land in which they have been imprisoned for years, as Israeli snipers pick their victims and shoot.Since March 30, 132 Palestinians have been killed and over 13,000 have been injured as they have courageously protested the effects of Israel’s ongoing military siege on Gaza.

To some, the Palestinian march might look suicidal, but to Palestinians, it is the ultimate act of peaceful resistance. Malnutrition, lack of drinking water, daily electricity outages, massive unemployment, and extreme poverty are not abstract slogans for the civilians who have participated in these demonstrations.

So, week in and week out, they march towards the fence in the hope that the world will hear their anguish and that some country, some leader, or even some movement will support their cause and help them break the siege.

But each week, Israel is trying hard to push a different narrative. The Israeli military has been disseminating on social media images and videos of young children at protests. One short clip plays a lullaby interrupted by the sound of gunfire and rhetorically asks: “Where are the children of Gaza today?” After showing children amid the protesters, it then displays the word “here” in all caps across the screen.

Such videos are used as “the ultimate proof” that Palestinians are deploying children as human shields.

Israel’s “human shield” propaganda has also been applied on civilian adults. Following international outrage at the slaying of 21-year-old Razan Al-Najjar, who was killed while treating an injured protester, the Israeli army circulated an edited clip entitled “Hamas uses Paramedics as Human Shields”.

The video is based on an interview with Al Mayadeen TV in which Razan described her work as a medic: “My name is Razan Al-Najjar. I’m here on the front lines as a human shield to protect and save the wounded on the front lines.”

The Israeli army’s media unit conveniently edited the interview, omitting Razan’s claim that, for her, shielding the wounded is part of her responsibility as a medical worker. They also artfully ignored another clip posted on the New York Times website, where she describes the protests as an attempt “to send a message to the world: without weapons, we can do anything”.

Israel justifies its violent attacks by continuously accusing Hamas of using human shields, desperately hoping to stir moral indignation while also trying to muster a legal defence for the indefencible.

Morally, the charge intimates that the Palestinians are savages. Not unlike imagined barbaric pagans who offered their children to the gods, it suggests that the Palestinians of Gaza have no problem sending their sons and daughters to the front lines. The subtext is that civilised people protect their children while Palestinians sacrifice them.

Legally, a human shield is a civilian who is used in order to render a legitimate military target immune from attack. By accusing Hamas of deploying human shields, Israel hopes to shift the blame from the hunter to the prey, since, according to international law, the party responsible for the death of human shields is not the one killing them but the one using them.

This is precisely the message Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations conveyed in a letter he sent to the Security Council: “[the] terrorists continue to hide behind innocent children to ensure their own survival”.

With this statement, Danon not only shifts the blame but, in effect, also categorises anyone who participates in the March of Return as a military target. 

Exactly because human shields, by definition, defend legitimate military targets, the seemingly endless accusation that Palestinians use human shields to protect demonstrators reveals that for Israel all Palestinian protesters are fair game.

But despite Israel’s best efforts, the “human shield” argument is increasingly failing to convince. In a recent report, Human Rights Watch accused Israel of perpetrating war crimes in its efforts to suppress Palestinian demands for liberation.

Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution with overwhelming majority condemning Israel’s use of “indiscriminate force”, while UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein called for an investigation.

What is even more frightening, however, is that Gaza is not particularly unique.

From Venezuela, where priests defended anti-government activists from the lethal violence of riot police, to South Africa, where white students shielded black students as they rallied against unaffordable tuition fees, to the United States, where veterans tried to protect peaceful Native Americans who were being brutally attacked by security dogs, blasted with water cannons in subzero temperatures, and fired on with rubber bullets at Standing Rock Reservation, more and more people are either being framed as human shields or are actually serving as human shields.

In spite of the differences between these contexts, the figure of the human shield – whether used to justify colonial violence or to protect demonstrators – has become omnipresent in our contemporary political landscape.

This, in turn, suggests that protesters are increasingly conceived as lawful targets and that the repertoires of violence as well as the legal justifications used in war have entered the realm of civilian life and are being normalised

Jewish Bolsheviks Slaughtered the Tsar’s Family in Cold Blood 100 Years Ago – a Look Back

Posted on by michaellee2009

Jewish Bolsheviks Slaughtered the Tsar’s Family in Cold Blood 100 Years Ago – a Look Back

This year marks the centennial of the massacre of Imperial Russia’s Tsar Nicholas II and his family. In July 1918 their Bolshevik captors herded the doomed family into a basement in Yekaterinburg under the pretext that their photograph was to be taken.

Romanovs. Ipatiev House

*  *  *

The Tsar and Tsarina Alexandra, their daughters Olga (22) Tatiana (21), Maria (19), Anastasia (17) and Alexei (13) fell under a hail of bullets. The family’s corpses and those of three loyal servants and family doctor were hurled down a mine and later burned.

image

From Kaliningrad to the Bering Straits, a distance about 5,700 miles, the Russian people this year lament their loss. Monuments and museums, art galleries, movies, television documentary and drama, church services, it is hard to forget the tragedy – except in the West.

6e30796d8081849273bba6ae20042b25

Is lack of interest due to shame? The so-called Russian revolution was a coup similar to most Western-inspired regime changes. Jacob Schiff, (1847 – 1920), the Wall Street banker who had financed Japan during the Russo-Japanese War (1904 – 1905), publicly boasted of his success in bringing about the coup.

Schiff and sickle

In 1911 the St. Louis Dispatch published a cartoon by Bolshevik insider Robert Minor. His published cartoon portrays Karl Marx with a book entitled Socialism under his arm, standing amid a cheering crowd on Wall Street.

communismRothschildJewMeme-1

Gathered around and greeting him with enthusiastic handshakes are characters identified as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, Morgan partner George W. Perkins and Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

__NWO_Quotes_WakeUpKiwi_David-Rockefeller-1

Western corporations moved in for the kill; Ford, General Electric, International Harvester, Caterpillar etc. Gulag slaves, whom Trotsky dubbed White Negroes, worked harder and cost less than those employed in Western sweatshops. Over 1,000 Gulag camps were scattered across this banksters colony.

Solzhenitsyn-quote

Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Plan (1941) was inspired by the need to rescue Bolshevik Russia from the Reich. The United States and Britain had invested heavily in Stalin’s blood-soaked regime.

The fate of the Tsar and his family are fairly well known. However, few have been told what happened to others making up the then Romanov Dynasty (1613 – 1917).

YooniqImages_102252564

The Romanov Dynasty was primarily a family made up of the best of Europe’s royal houses. The blood of the martyrs was that of England, Denmark, Greece, Germany, and Romania, Habsburg dynasty, Russia and Serbia (then a powerful state).

queen-victoria-her-family

Queen Victoria and her family

The martyred Romanovs could lay claim to being the essence of Europe’s royal houses. Theirs was not so much a Russian as a European dynasty.

! GrizzledAdoredDarklingbeetle-size_restricted

There were 53 Romanovs living in Russia when Tsar Nicholas II abdicated on March 15, 1917. Eighteen were slaughtered in the most heart-wrenching circumstances; 35 made their way to safety.

Imperial Russia’s gold reserves weighed 1,311 tonnes, which is $60 billion at today’s value. This too went west and not to the workers.

2743cad0691f82e780e19f17feef98ae--anastasia-romanov-familia-romanov


MICHAEL WALSH is the author of Slaughter of a Dynasty published by Amazon Books. Recommended books Slaughter of a Dynasty and Trotsky’s White Negroes by Michael Walsh

Next Page »
%d bloggers like this: