The Genesis of Genocide

Recently, a light has been shone on a movement called Sabbateanism by the ever tenacious A Peasant (AP) at Twelfthbough Blogspot here and here and by the redoubtable Aangirfan (see here) for the purpose of showing the ultimate cause behind much of the destructive world politics particularly in the last two centuries. It would seem that Sabbateanism is the organising principle behind most of the corruption and destruction taking place in the world today. There are a multitude of conspiracies afoot in the world and many know or feel that most of them are connected somehow. Sabbateanism is that connection together with another organisation with a striking family resemblance, satanism. Satanism has a symbiotic relationship with Christianity and the Catholic Church, in particular. Similarly, Sabbateanism seems to have a symbiotic relationship with Judaism principally but with Islam and Freemasonry as well. This essay will focus on the ground that Sabbateanism grew out of, Judaism, and the concepts therein that were so fertile for its growth.

AP has done a splendid job of introducing the main characters involved in Sabbateanism and their connections and will be continuing to enlarge on it further, I believe. It can all get terribly complicated very quickly, though, leaving the reader new to this area swimming in a sea of facts. This essay is my attempt to start to show the thinking behind Sabbateanism that grew out of Judaism, so as to show the basis for some of the 'reasons why' of the behaviour of groups within and without Judaism that may otherwise appear chaotic or just plain mad.

Before I get into any of the aforementioned 'isms' and their concepts, I think it will be helpful if I write a few words on the nature of God and the nature of humans because you, the reader, will quickly come to the realisation that this is a spiritual war or, at least, has all the trappings of one. You may think spiritual matters are just so much 'hokum' but the protagonists I will talk about speak and act as if it is more than real and this, in turn, forms the basis of their motivation, thinking, speech and behaviour. So it may be helpful for me to explain my philosophical and theological understanding about these natures for you to see the faulty thinking and logic in play when these spiritual matters enter into the political realm; at least from my perspective, anyway.

The nature of God is singular; one nature. God cannot be both creative and destructive as these are two mutually exclusive natures. These two natures are inherently in conflict. They cannot co-exist in the one spirit. To do so would cause that spirit to divide itself. Humans can be divided internally but we have a physical existence to prevent immediate self destruction of the spirit. Never-the-less, it can be readily seen in even a human being that a split mind inevitably causes serious problems. God cannot have internal problems, or a split mind, and still be God. Dualists might argue that this is exactly what happened, though; God divided himself into good and evil. But that presupposes a pre-existing time for God when he had both natures within the one spirit. And, as I argued, that's impossible. Additionally, you can't have two Gods. If that were possible, one would have to be the originator of the other because God is the ultimate source of all and you cannot have two ultimate sources. Therefore that originator has to be God to the exclusion of the other. So having two Gods and both always pre-existing doesn't work either.

Some may point to the Christian Trinity and say there we have an example of three Gods. The concept of the Trinity is based on the words of Jesus but he also maintained many times that he and The Father are one and the same nature. “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). He made the same point regarding the Holy Spirit. They are then three aspects of the one nature. There is no possibility for any internal conflicts.

I make this point so that when reading religious scriptures and a divided or conflicting nature is represented as God, such as in many places in the Hebrew Bible, a.k.a. The Old Testament, you can see that this possibility is not feasible. Either one or the other nature may be God, or neither of them, but never both.

The next step is that the destructive spirit cannot be God because destruction is dependent on prior creation. Creation, on the other hand is not dependent on destruction. So clearly, the creative spirit is independent of the destructive spirit and clearly the “source” and therefore God. The destructive one is not, nor can it ever be, God. Though, once created, it moulded its own character or nature, just as we humans do. But unlike us, being spirit, it has to be all or nothing. It cannot be creative to any degree as well. Ultimately, once it is isolated from creativeness, it will have no option but to destroy itself. (a thought worth remembering). Its nature is to destroy and even evil has to be true to its own nature. So if some piece of scripture is presenting God as being destructive, someone is telling 'pork pies'.

The reason for someone telling lies has to do with human nature which unfortunately has very much the potential for splitting and becoming ill or deluded as to what is real. The British Jurist, Lord Acton, uttered the famous saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The wisdom of this is never seriously disputed by anyone yet we construct and tolerate our social systems, particularly religions and governments, as if this weren't true and then marvel at how they mysteriously become corrupt! “Happens every time. How unlucky are we?” There's a second line to that quote of Lord Acton's which reads, “Great men are almost always bad men”

It's not the body that becomes corrupt but rather the mind. A mental pathology sets in and it is remarkably similar to that of any heavy addiction and can readily be seen if looked for. Compassion for others evaporates, priorities are up ended, reversed and destruction ensues for everyone in one form or another. Power creates a lust for ever more power. And power is seen as the antidote for the problems and consequences of using power in the first place. Violence is enacted upon a victim or victims and they, or others on their behalf, return the violence. This state of affairs isn't seen as a problem arising from using violence in the first place but rather a problem from not using enough violence in the first place. So the adherents of power see the answer as ever escalating violence. The affected (or infected) mind cannot see the addictive lunacy of this situation because part of the corruption of the mind is the diminution of the sense of and the importance of what's real, what's true, and also a diminution of conscience and the capacity for compassion.

“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice
Samuels, p. 155

Lies become more real than truth. Lies are at least useful to someone in this situation whereas truth, if they can recognise it, is a threat. A person given over to power is then blinded to the peril they are in psychologically and spiritually and often physically, too. Playing with powerful forces and therefore perceiving reality in a skewed fashion is like walking through a minefield with an faulty map as a guide. Sooner or later . . . . It has been said often that we are led by madmen. It appears so.

So if this pathology and destruction points out the 'wrongness', in terms of human health and survival, of the pursuit and use of power, what is the 'right' behaviour to aspire to? We are all born with free will and this is the key to the question. Free will is the ability to make choices for ourselves. This directly implies we have authority over ourselves which equally implies that others don't have authority over us and also equally and we, in turn, do not have authority over others. We are not psychologically designed to be slaves. Nor, importantly, are we designed to be masters, either. Free and voluntary co-operation is the sustainable and healthful mode of interaction we were designed for because it allows social systems to be constructed for mutual benefit and still maintain our individual control of ourselves; our free will. Any political or religious leader who assumes authority over anyone else is therefore acting against the human design for both himself and for those he would dominate.

If you believe we were designed by God, then this person claiming to represent God is, at best, totally mistaken and is effectively working for the destructive principle or spirit and will bring harm to everyone involved. If on the other hand, you believe we are the sole product of evolution, then these despots must be seen as acting directly against millennia of evolution and since this evolution has been obviously sustainable (otherwise we wouldn't still be here), they are acting unsustainably (i.e. destructively) towards themselves and the rest of humanity. Jesus paid out on the Pharisees for inserting themselves between the people and God. I see no reason why he might change his mind a mere (to him) two thousand years later. This is all to say that, if you agree with my foregoing logic, whoever was speaking in the Book of Joshua, for instance, and commanded the Jews to commit genocide against every living thing in the land of Canaan and possess it, was absolutely not God; nor anybody representing God's interests or nature. There is no possibility of it in my mind. None.

Okay, with those arguments laid out, let us look into the origins of the Judaism that spawned Sabbateanism that appears to be at the centre of world power and world destruction today. (For more information on Sabbateanism, itself btw, I refer you back to AP at Twelfthbough.) Both Sabbateanism and Zionism grew out of Judaism and the most informative writing I have read on this subject comes from Douglas Reed, former War (WW2) and European Correspondent for The Times. His exhaustive book “The Controversy of Zion” is available now for free download from a website maintained by Knut Eriksen. Mr Eriksen wrote a very handy summary of Douglas Reed's book and I will quote from it extensively. Mr Eriksen wrote elsewhere of Reed,
“In the cause of his work he has felt the evil as an almost physical presence in the plans, he reveals.”
He quoted Reed as describing this evil as, “forces from some dinosaur-lair projected into the twentieth century.” I think we might understand it better as emanating from an ancient dragon's lair and this force present in the world today is founded on an idea recorded for us by people called Levites some two and a half thousand years ago. This idea which was to wreak so much harm over the ensuing period is the idea of specialness, of exclusivity, of superiority, of a 'master race', of choseness; choseness by God. The fact that a people are 'chosen' by God, means that the rest are rejected by God. They are therefore Godless at best and God's enemies at worst. Therefore there is no cultural inhibition in exploiting them; to use their labour and, indeed, everything of theirs including their bodies and even their very lives for whatever purpose they deem fit. This will inevitably lead to the psychological pathology and destruction I mentioned earlier. No loving and creative God would wish this sickness upon any of his created beings as either masters or slaves .

This kind of corrupted thinking leads to sentiments such as these-
"The nation of Israel is pure and the Arabs are a nation of donkeys. They are an evil disaster, an evil devil, and a nasty affliction. The Arabs are donkeys and beasts. They want to take our girls. They are endowed with true filthiness. There is pure and there is impure and they are impure."
--Rabbi David Batzri, head of the Magen David Yeshiva in Jerusalem [Israeli newspaper Haaretz, March 21, 2006]
and, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail” Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

Knut Eriksen explains the beginnings of this thinking in his summary-.

“ The misery began in the year 458 b.C., when a small tribe in the old Judea accepted a creed based on race. The tribe had previously been expelled by the Israelites for such racism. This seemingly unimportant event has probably caused more destruction for Mankind than both the existence of explosives and epidemics. The tribe adapted the creed of the Master Race as nothing less than “The Law”.
The Judeans were a small tribe under the Persian king. The creed of Judaism was not the beginning of monotheism, as has been propagated. Monotheism dates all the way back to The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 2.600 years b.C. and maybe even further. Judaism, on the contrary, was the exact anti-thesis, namely the worship of a racist tribal god.
“The Law” or “The Pact” was – and is – unique in being based on a statement from a tribal god, to the effect that his “chosen people”: “the Israelites” (in reality, the Judeans) would be set above all other peoples and settled in a “promised land”, if only they would stick to all of his rules and judgements. If Jehova, then, was to be worshipped in a certain place, it followed, that when the worshippers were not actually in that place, they were being “persecuted”, in “captivity” and had to “destroy” the “strangers” that “kept them in captivity”. Only in this way was Jehova to be a god for all other peoples – as the punishing god, who punished his own people first – by a “captivity” among the heathens for their “transgressions against the law” and then, as by an exact script, punished the strangers by a predestined extermination, when “the chosen people” had followed all the rules to the letter.
It was probably not even a pact with the Judaeans, for according to “The Holy Scripture”, the pact was made with the Israelites, who had long since mingled with the rest of Mankind, and who have never known this racist creed as far as we know. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, that the Judeans “probably were a non-Israeli tribe”. The Israelites turned away from the racism of the Judeans. The creed has gone down in history as having been created by the Levites from Judea.
What happened before 458 b.C. is mainly mythology, unlike the later, most important events. The written record predates 458 b.C. by a couple of centuries, when the Israelites rejected the Judeans. The history of Moses was taken by the Israelites from the widespread mythology, which goes all the way back to the history of the Babylonean king, Sargon the Elder, 2.000 years earlier. The ten commandments are much like similar commandments from the Egyptians, the Babyloneans and the Assyrians. These common ideas about one god for all mankind, the Levites, the rulers of Judea, then put in reverse, when they wrote down their laws. They founded the permanent counter-movement against all universal religions and identified the names Judea and Jews, with the doctrine of self-made separation from Mankind, racial hatred, murder in the name of religion, and revenge. Also the personification of treason, a Judas, was included right from the beginning of Judea.
The stories of Moses, leading a mass-exodus from Egypt, can not be true, even according to Dr. Kastein. It was invented, as a necessity, in order to fit into the pattern of “Jehovas revenge”, the destructive basic principle of Judaism.
The Israelites had, as the larger part of a segregated group of people, settled in the northern part of Canaan. In the south, sorrounded by the original canaanites, the tribe of Judah took shape. Thus the name “Judaism” and “Jew”.
This tribe was isolated from-, and did not get along well with, the neighbours, right from the start. There is much mystery concerning it, including its beginnings. It seems more to have been expelled than chosen. And in the following editions of “The Holy Scriptures”, written by their scribes, who wrote whatever suited them arose, in the course of the centuries, and in more and more places, the commands “destroy completely”, “tear down”, “exterminate” etc.
The Israelites had withdrawn, then, from the Judeans’ racist beliefs and had mingled with the rest of Mankind. They “disappeared” in this way as a separate people, while the Judeans kept to themselves by strict racial laws.
In the course of time these were further sharpened and expanded to regulate even the most trivial daily details. The punishments for breaking the laws were severe, and common “Jews” came completely under the control of the scribes. It was this spiritual ghetto, which became the forerunner for the physical ghetto and for the antagonism and exclusion by others, of the Jews, as a retribution.”

There were twelve tribes, ten of which made up the Kingdom of the Israelites and the remaining two, the Kingdom of Judea consisting of the tribe of Judah and the smaller tribe of Benjamin. The Levites were the tribe of priests who inflicted themselves on all the tribes and sustained themselves on tithes from them. The Levites were keen to unite these two kingdoms for power reasons but this was rejected by the Israelites for all but twenty brief years. The bulk of the scriptures that were later compiled after the death of Jesus by the Pharisees (also Judean priests) to make up the Hebrew Bible were written by these Levitical priests from Judah. The books of the Prophets were mostly written by Israelites and often have a distinctly different 'voice' to them by and large reflecting the Israelite approach to life. Hence you have the Levites from Judea making up all these laws concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice and the Israelite prophets channelling God saying that he rejects their burnt offerings and wants instead contrite hearts. See Isaiah ch66: 1-4 and Hosea ch6: 6, for instances.

It was the Judean priests, the Pharisees, that Jesus would call snakes and vipers and the sons of satan. When talking to these priests about the scriptures, he referred to them as “your scriptures”

The “Ten Lost Tribes” are the ten tribes of Israel. They were, no doubt, not lost at all but remained where they were largely joining the rest of humanity and are very likely still there today but called Palestinians now. It is at least ironic, if not outright deceptive, that the Jewish homeland gained by the spiritual descendents of the Judeans should be named by them, “Israel”.

Meanwhile, back at the kibbutz, the Levites/Pharisees are controlling their flock by using that old standby recognised by every Catholic, guilt. And the chief antidote individually was an animal sacrifice performed by the priests (for a very affordable fee, you understand. And if you couldn't afford the modest fee, then there were, luckily for you, moneylenders on hand in the temple to help out).

Sometimes the whole tribe was the target of this guilt. Collective misfortunes were seen as 'punishments' from God for not carrying out his commandments to the letter. Never mind that some of these commandments were calls to dispossess neighbours of their land and to commit genocide against them. Failure to do so resulted in Gods attempts at genocide through proxies against the Judeans and being taken of into captivity and the loss of their homeland.

My mention of “proxies” prompts me to make a little diversion here. Why would an all powerful God need proxies to kill those of his creations he now hates? Why would he wish to visit the resulting dysfunction and the destructiveness of perpetrating violence and the inevitable PTSD and bloodlust on his 'Chosen Ones' for carrying out his agenda? Unless, of course, he hasn't the power to do so or he wanted to destroy 'his Chosen People', too, in the process. Or both. Either way, that would make him a liar, wouldn't it? The Prince of Lies, perhaps? Okay, we'll 'resume transmission', now.

One method to atone for these sins was the use of scapegoats. In each ceremony, two goats were used; one was sacrificed through being slaughtered to appease their God's desire for sacrificial death and the other 'set free' by being sent into the wilderness to carry their sins and guilt and blame away from the Jews and thus redeem themselves at the cost to two 'beasts'. One bears the punishment; the other bears the blame. The Talmud refers to non-Jews (Goyim) as being no higher than beasts. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.". For more quotes from the Talmud see this post at the Church of Nobody

The ideas of God's Chosen, dispossession of others' land, a later loss of the Jews' 'Homeland' through being expelled or made captive, genocide and scapegoating to get it back all go together and appear repeatedly throughout Jewish history. Two acts of genocide in recent history have been called “holocausts” (holocausts are burnt offerings to God to win favour, expunge guilt and win redemption). The first involved Armenian Christians as victims and the second involved European Jews the as victims. However, in both cases Jews or people calling themselves Jews but were Zionists, Donmeh (crypto-Jews) and/or Sabbateans have been alledged to have been behind the actions of the perpetrators in both cases and by so doing have enacted the traditional scapegoat sacrifice. The millions of victims in these cases were obviously representing the slaughtered goat/the offering and the manipulated perpetrators, Germans and Turks respectively, though hardly blameless, were set up as the scapegoats that were sent into the wilderness of universal approbation and carried the guilt of the 'priests' and their circle who were the prime movers of it all. This was done, so it is said, for the purpose of appeasing their God in the hope of regaining their homeland as a result. Whether or not that was the intention, history bears out its efficacy and Jewish leaders be they Hasidics, Zionists, Donmeh or even Sabbateans masquerading as Jews could not be unaware of this.

Would they deliberately enact a genocidal holocaust in the future?
Since these two holocausts, a homeland has been established for the Jews as the State of Israel, so the motivation is lacking now. Or is it? The present government of Israel refuses to publish its national borders and that may be because the 'homeland' desired by many Jews, known as Eretz-Israel(map), is described as stretching east to west from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers and north to the Litani river in Lebanon. Land as yet unconquered; but not for want of trying.

Knut Eriksen again from his summary of The Controversy of Zion,
“ It was only the few who knew the background of talmudic Zionism and Communism, who had a chance to understand such decisive events as the so-called “Six-days-war” and the later massive invasion of Lebanon i 1982. The invasion was supposed to do away with the PLO, it was said, but in reality it was simply a part of the old Great-Israel-plan (Eretz-Israel). Just as is todays invasion of Iraq”.

After this invasion many innocent Palestinians and Lebanese were killed (the slaughter/offering) and the Palestinian fighters were blamed for the Israelis' military invasion and their slaughter. The Palestinian fighters were guaranteed safe passage out of Lebanon if they disarmed (the scapegoat carrying the guilt into the wilderness). Subsequently, with no men under arms to protect them, the Palestinian women, children and the old in the Palestinian camps were massacred. The 'slaughtered goat/offering' in this case might be said to have been again the innocent Palestinians and this time the 'scapegoat carrying the guilt' was the blameworthy Christian Maronite militia who did the actual killing but were directed behind the scenes by the Israelis, and in particular, in the person of none other than Ariel Sharon (the officiating priest?) as found by an official Israeli inquiry.

We have this continuing pattern of genocides or mass murders perpetrated by a variety of people and with the end result always benefiting of the quest for, first, a Jewish State and, then, an expanding land and control. The continuing assault against the Gazans has been characterised as a slow genocide. Both World Wars have been characterised as ritual blood sacrifices and all these catastrophes have been helpful, in their way, to the Jews being granted their ever expanding homeland.

The Jews have religious teachings of burnt offerings and genocide being demanded of them throughout their religious scriptures to win this sometimes pathologically violent God's favour for the purposes of gaining, in the first place, their desired homeland and in the end, dominion over the whole world. This is their reward for obedience to this God's commands and proof of their redemption. To answer the question of whether any of this is premeditated we have this report from the Israeli paper Haaretz, (the Amalek were a people that God commanded the Jews to exterminate)-

“The first to draw publicly the analogy between modern times and bygone days was Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, at the funeral of the murder victims. Then there was the resounding article published by the head of the Tzomet Institute, Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, who clarified, "Amalek as a concept and as the object of our battle and our hostility exists in each and every generation," and that "this does not refer to the ethnic Amalek, but to all those in whom there burns a deep and abiding hatred of Israel on a national or religious basis. "The Holy One, Blessed Be He Himself, noted the rabbi, "with his own hands" confirmed the eternity of Amalek's hatred and the commandment to wage war against Amalek: "'Because the Lord has sworn by His throne.'" The hand of the Holy One, Blessed Be He, was raised in an oath on his throne that he will battle and be hostile to Amalek all over the world. We cannot, according to the rabbi, "flee from this Divine commandment even if we hide under the wings of 'the family of nations' and even if the commandment is difficult for us to bear and we have been discouraged." . . . . .
. . The rabbi of Safed, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, also "has no moral problem with quashing the wicked - destroying Amalek from beginning to end," and Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba also makes it clear that "whoever wants to overpower and destroy the Jewish people, the law of Amalek applies to him, with all that that entails."
(i.e. genocide as retaliation)

I think it is fairly safe to say that the idea is not lost on them. These ancient scriptures that the Israelis appeal to so often to justify their occupation of the land of Palestine and attacking their neighbours also promise them mastery of the whole world (Ps. 110). Do they intend to gain it the same way they seem to have gained their current (and ever expanding) State of Israel?

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate).

And to quote Maurice Samuel again-
"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own."

Do they intend to defy a bloodthirsty being they believe is God by not doing it the same way? "Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; and but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"(ISamuel15:3)
The whole chapter 15 is worth reading. It demonstrates the principle of obedience being higher than whatever you might else choose such as saving life that you were commanded to kill. And do you think devout adherents to the Hebrew Bible and believers in the efficacy of blood sacrifice are going to lightly disobey this God?

Just in case the lesson is not crystal for any mentally meandering adherents, there's always this from Leviticus ch10 (CEV)-
“1Nadab and Abihu were two of Aaron's sons, but they disobeyed the LORD by burning incense to him on a fire pan, when they were not supposed to.
2Suddenly the LORD sent fiery flames and burned them to death.
3Then Moses told Aaron that this was exactly what the LORD had meant when he said: " I demand respect from my priests and I will be praised by everyone"!
Aaron was speechless."

Me too!

Here is a just published commentary which takes up from the posts I linked at the top of my essay from TwelfthBough and Aangirfan.

Saving the good Israelis from the bad Sabbateans
from The Church Of Nobody which will add to AP's comments for y'all. 'Nobody' has a sardonic humour in which you can almost smell the gumleaves. So to any ex-pat Ozzies out there, "breathe deep, mate"!

And here are some links which I pondered about including at first and didn't. But here they are, after all, folks.

The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians
This is particularly for McJ and anyone else interested in an in depth treatment (575pages!) of this genocide. The author is Jewish.

The Talmud Unmasked
This is written by a Russian Catholic Priest in 1892

Babylonian Talmud
This link will take you to the Talmud itself plus Commentaries where you can check any quote.

I will refrain from commenting on these books. Nothing I could say will come close to what you will find therein.


Why are you bashing Islam in your rub against the Zionist-Jews?

Hello. I read through your article. I have no other comment besides the one noted in the Subject line based on your passing remark: "Similarly, Sabbateanism seems to have a symbiotic relationship with Judaism principally but with Islam and Freemasonry as well."

I won't speak for other items listed in that statment, but since I am a Muslim and my faith is Islam, I found your gratuitous reference to Islam in that statement offensive. It actually hampered my enjoying the rest of your article - for if in the area of my own familiarity I find you either ignorant or prejudiced at the very beginning of your article, what can I hope in the rest of it?

It appears that every Western savant is in these times an avowed expert on Islam, like Bernard Lewis, who even had himself onionted the "foremost western scholar of Islam" by his late protege Samuel Huntington before going on to pen his best-selling scholarly screed "Crisis of Islam Holy War and Unholy Terror".

In your narrative of the Jews' history in this article, are you now also a self-proclaimed western scholar of Islam to make that assertion? Why did you reference Islam in that statement entirely gratuitously? Do you know what that word "Islam" means? Or, like Bernard Lewis in his Crisis of Islam, you can write pages of crap defining it to suit your own predilection?

I have noticed some pious Western folks revolting against the screed of the Zionists and the hectoring hegmons, also showing a tendency to either denigrate all religions, or if pious Christian theists themselves, minimally also denigrating Islam for good measure. Here are two examples:

I invite you to explain your own reference to Islam. Is it because you have some profound knowledge of my religion that you associate it with "Sabbateanism", or is it just fashionable ignorance based on hours of internet education, or merely bigotry? It is possible that you know something I don't know - but being a Muslim, and without further convincing elaboration, I find it no less offensive than any screed discharged from Jewish-atheist-Rabbi Daniel Pipes, or the pious-holy-Christian-Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

While I can understand doctrinal warfare employed by the hectoring hegemons to keep the boogieman of "Islamofascism" alive - sustaining it for a lifetime of World War IV sure "requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification" - I really can't understand gratuitous Islam bashing from the supposed enemies of the hectoring hegemons.

They both, apparently, enjoy one free license in common - disparaging Islam.

I hope I have entirely mis-perceived it and look forward to your response. Please feel free to cc me on email as I don't normally read your website, and only came here after AP's fantastic recommendations for your work and seeing this article there.

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim

Welcome Zahir

This is you your first comment here so I have published it, though not your repeat posting of it. I'm sure even you will agree that once is enough.
As you can see, new commenters are moderated and that's because we have rules here, namely, respect for posters and commenters alike shown by not using personal insults including the use of words such as 'ignorant' of 'prejudiced', especially without any basis shown.

I see you have also associated me with others such as the disreputable Bernard Lewis and rightly calling his output "crap" but smearing me by association when there is none. This is a "strawman" argument and I would be extremely surprised indeed, having read some of you material, if you were not aware of this. So I can only assume you quite knowingly did that.

This is a common tactic of zionist hasbarats as is the practice of not addressing anything in the article except a word or phrase in the essay to gain 'entre' into the discussion. The hasbarat practice then is to supply lots of information leading on to ground you want to talk about, as you have done here as well. I can well imagine you have been bombarded at times by zionists and fellow travellers using the above techniques and have had to defend yourself against them. But if you use their tactics on others, you have become like them. Was it Abraham that said, "What I have feared has come upon me"?

You said, "It is possible that you know something I don't know(?)" I will take it you are limiting this to the field of Islam.
Short answer, yes, it is quite possible. Unless you are suggesting that you know everything there is to know. Are you seriously suggesting that? I will readily concede that you would know more about this field than me but that in no way precludes me knowing something you don't.

I won't be "feeling free" to sending you private emails because you don't read here, either. There is a superior tone to this 'offer'. Are you aware of that? Zionist hasbarats have a superior tone to all their communications, too. Again, I suggest you don't follow their example unless you want to do damage to your rightful cause of defending your fellow Muslims' beliefs and interests.

So to the point you used to begin; it hinges on me writing, "Sabbateanism seems to have a symbiotic relationship with . . . . Islam". It seems to me that you have not grasped what I was actually saying. Do you know what a "symbiotic relationship" is? It is, for the most part, parasitic on the part of usually one party and mutually destructive. This is the generally held view particularly in the fields of psychology and psychiatry of which I have some familiarity. (Biology holds a more "mutual" view of Symbiotic relationships.) It is not necessarily a condemnation on the "host" party, by any means. The co-operation may be entirely unwitting.

A more reasonable response from you might have been to ask me to elaborate on the statement I made. Regular commenters here know I welcome questions and go to some lengths to answer them. However, in response to your manner, I don't feel inclined to do so now but if you stop by here occasionally in the future you may well find the answer to that question. In the meantime, you might look at the Donmeh in Turkey to see how this sort of thing works.

You are welcome to post more comments, Zahir, but please remember the rules and that I have the 'delete' button smiling

newjesustimes's picture

what's to be the fate of the goy

i guess we are all Amalek sooner or later, unless we convert?
But i'd hope most modern day people who identify themselves as Jews would agree that this Talmud is largely foolishness. Although maybe I'm wrong. Have you read the articles by Lazlo Toth at ?
I'm looking at them now but they're riddled with these symbols in the place of quotations “
Maybe I should copy it here and clean that up...

Hi NJT, i guess we are all

i guess we are all Amalek sooner or later, unless we convert?

That's what some jews are telling us. I have to say that Judaism is as split and in conflict as much as Christianity is. They do, however, have the advantage of working much more closely together than Christians ever have when collectively under threat, it seems to me. Some individuals wear many hats too, and not all of them apparent, which makes it difficult to fathom at times what is being said and why. This is what AP's articles and my one here are trying to tease apart to show what is really going on.

But i'd hope most modern day people who identify themselves as Jews would agree that this Talmud is largely foolishness. Although maybe I'm wrong.

The Talmud is the most important religious text to the Jews. Like many Christians who dismiss the excesses of the Old Testament, they don't understand how fundamentally these religious texts have shaped our political as well as religious cultures and how these have, in turn, literally formed the way we think. Both books are based on the notion of superiority and that is the fundamental psychological error that leads to everybody, including the adherents to whatever 'superior' class of people being exploited, being used as fodder in wars and sacrifices in rituals be they in the backwoods on the night of a full moon or across continents for years at a time.

Have you read the articles by Lazlo Toth at ?

Not till today! I have just read two-
this one I agree with

this one, I have problems with-

I'm looking at them now but they're riddled with these symbols in the place of quotations “
Maybe I should copy it here and clean that up...

Go for it

newjesustimes's picture

here it is

in it's entirety. It's a bit lengthy, since i strung it all together into one document.
It's an interesting read smiling


It is indeed "a bit lengthy"! Thanks for doing all that, NJT. Well, there goes my reading time for today smiling. I'll come back to you later today - prolly tomorrow your time!

newjesustimes's picture

Lazlo & WTCDemo

Hi James -

Would it be better if I break Lazlo's article down into small chunks the way he had it at WTCDemo?

Speaking of WTCDemo, check out this related post from this week

On Lazlo

I think it might be more digestible in smaller chunks, NJT smiling
So far (still in Part 2) it accords with much of what I've read. At one point I'm thinking about Monty Python's "Life of Brian" and sure enough the author makes the same connection. Funny and tragic at the same time. Laugh or cry?

One part caught my eye and it is something that I was trying to emphasise in my essay that gets misunderstood every where including Lazlo's article is this-


These patterns of militant violence, religious fanaticism, and rebellion, and the serious political policy mistakes and miscalculations of ancient Jewish leadership " clearly illustrated in this brief overview of Jewish political history from the death of King Solomon in 926 BCE to the final fall of Jerusalem to Hadrian in 135 CE " seem to form a long historical parable of warning to the Jewish people to keep to the principles of their Faith, and in adherence to the wisdom of their sages, to keep a check on the militancy and materialistic lusts for power and domination that their leadership, and indeed all leaderships, can so often be prey to. In fact, renowned Israeli professor and historian Yehoshafat Harkabi in his book "Facing Reality" has echoed this idea and noted that the militant situation of Israel today closely parallels the militant fanaticism that existed in the Israel of the ancient past . . . .

The principles of their faith (advanced by the leaders) and the wisdom of their sages (the Prophets) are most often in conflict. There's a history of the leaders killing the Prophets. The principles of their faith are founded on this 'Chosen People of a blood thirsty God' teaching and its toxic notion of superiority and the attendant teaching that other peoples are no better than "beasts". It's the religious principles themselves that are the problem. Their psychopathic, megalomaniacal and therefore stupid leaders who over history repeatedly sacrifice their own (as well as others) are products of this religious teaching. As are the undeniably virulent offshoots that AP has just written about at Twelfthbough messiah marketing.

Leaders are the products of systems, not the other way round. Want a different output? Change the system because you can't change the input (human beings).
It is one of Daniel Quinn's important points that we fashion systems and alterations to them on the mistaken belief that people are better than they are or will be better than they are. The way we go about it now is like giving machine-guns to monkeys. This applies to every 'civilised' nation, of course.

Anyway, top find, NJT. I'm working my way through it. Unfortunately I'm a bit overloaded at the moment

Great article - 60 minutes last night

This was a very strong and well thought out article.
I had read Doug Reed's book several years ago and it's clear lucid and will never "age" out.
Quickly at the risk of straying off subject, last night on the newsshow 60 minutes Michael Lewis
,a financial author, was talking about his new book "The Big Short" about the packaging of "toxic"
loans and the money made from it. He discusses a former doctor last name Barry(sp) who
saw the debacle coming and bought insurance against the future losses and according to DR Barry
made north of 700 million $$ with his partners in their hedge fund.
Here's what I find disturbing- not so much the criminal minds who perpetrated the crime
but people like Lewis and Barry who profit from this mess.
Lewis apparently had already made a killing selling bonds before becoming a writer.
The show last night showed him living comfortably in posh Berkley Hills California
with his trophy wife Tabitha Soren ( she of the useless MTV network fame ).
So now he's glorifying TPTB for a nice price.
People like DR Barry instead of using their doctor skills to better their fellow man
join the orgy of "gotta have more"
There's a lot of problems out there and with willing footsoldiers like these two
TPTB must be having a field day.

Hi, RamblinMan

Glad you appreciated it.
We like to keep things on topic if we can, at least early on in the thread. Anyway . . . smiling
if the good doctor made a killing on the market downturn, then he must have been 'short selling' which in any other field of commerce would be classed as fraud. You might be interested to read my essay about it - Crashing the Market

Not too hard to make money this way if you are part of the inner circle. The bit of disinformation in the article you read will be making out that you can predict these things if you are smart enough. When if fact, it is simply down to getting 'the nod' from the crew that decide when they are going to crash it. Simple.

If you want to comment further on this or ask a question, could you do it on that thread? It keeps it simpler.

McJ's picture

James, I see you have been


I see you have been busy! I wondered what you had been up to. Writing this awesome post for us I see. I read this last night and was going to comment this morning when I came on and read the comment from Zahir. I felt like I had dropped into bizarro world. His comment was outrageously rude and totally uncalled for. I thought it was magnanimous of you to ascribe a possible reason for his behavior here. I did draft a comment in response but then thought the better of posting it because it was overly emotional. Your comment to him was much better. smiling

Anyways, thanks for this informative, well reasoned essay and all the links. You've outdone yourself. I think this was your best ever.

There has been lots of discussion about the subject of Israel and Palestine on our Canadian boards. Usually within a few minutes of anyone posting anything critical of Israel there are a handful of posters who arrive screaming antisemitism, followed by the more 'reasonable' posters who give false equivalency arguments and the 'they have been fighting over there for thousands of years' nonsense. I am encouraged that there appear to be more people informing themselves on this subject.

I am about to head out for some zzz's but I am going to give this another read because there are some points you made I want to comment on. Later....

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Thanks, McJ

thanks for the kind words, McJ. Some of the thoughts you will, no doubt, recognise from previous essays but hopefully better put this time. This was sparked by research into the Armenian Genocide which is one big ball of string; the unravelling seems to go on and on.

McJ's picture


James I am always amazed at how many times you and I are looking into the same subjects at the same time. smiling I just did some reading on the Armenian Genocide and watched this documentary - There are lots of other good watches on that site as well. I agree about the ball of string - it's a never ending unraveling.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Yeah, it's a bit spooky,

Yeah, it's a bit spooky, isn't it?!
Thanks for the link. I'll bookmark it for the start of my new months allocation of download when I have enough speed to watch vids for a day or two (if I can beat everybody else in the household to it, that is smiling ) which is about a week away.

I've got some links for you, too. I might put them up a bit later on the main page as an update.
Maybe you could write something up on the Armenian genocide if you have time? No pressure, though smiling

Light reading

Here ya go, McJ, I've left a link for you on the bottom of the essay. It ought to fix your weekend for you!

McJ's picture

'light' reading....

rolling on the floor laughing 575 pages!! Thanks James. smiling

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

McJ's picture

Armenian Genocide Documentary

I added the BBC documentary The Betrayed (The Armenian Genocide) to the forum.
I also linked to an audio file that I converted from the video. I thought it might be a little easier on your download time. smiling It's 45 mins. long. The documentary just touches on reasons for the mass deportation and slaughter of the Armenians. It focuses mostly on making the case that the genocide did happen and on the campaign by the Turkish government to deny it. It also documents that legislation was set to be introduced into the US Congress, which would have recognized the genocide (it would have passed), but was pulled at the last hour by Bill Clinton after pressure from the Turkish government.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Armenians on audio

Thanks very much for doing that, McJ. Much appreciated smiling

McJ's picture

Excerpted below are parts of

Excerpted below are parts of two comments left on an Armenian Weekly article titled "The Jews of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" by a poster named Sevan. The article is a review of a book written in Turkish by Rifat Bali. Bali's book argues that the Turkish government mobilized the Turkish Jewish population, to support their campaign against the Armenian initiatives to have the genocide recognized, by threatening them (the jews).

I don't know enough about this to discern if this poster knows what he is talking about but I'll add it here for your info. (It appears from his writing (and spelling) that English is not his primary language.)

"It’s an undeniable fact that Israel and Turkey are two twin Jewish states in the Middle East and even Muslim Turkish intellectuals recognize this fact.The Sabbateans and other Crypto Jews in Turkey founded the secular Republic of Turkey and by annihilating Christian subjects they became the kings and queens of the new Turkish Republic in all spheres like Business, Art, Military, Bureaucracy."
"Armenians and Greeks were older enemies for the Jews than the Arabs or Persians.Armenians and the Greeks were in constant rivalry against the Jews for the High positions in the Ottoman Empire.Armenians were only 10% in the city of İzmir but they were controlling 80% of the city’s commerce.They were the biggest exporters in that city.They were even more brilliant than the Greeks.The Turks who are not ignorant on this issue and it’s really hard to find them are surprised when they learn these facts and asking how could it be possible that the Empire liquidated its most sophisticated population?Well the answer is very easy.Sultan Mahmut II who can be called as the Peter the Great of the Ottoman Empire was financed by Armenian Bankers.As a reformator he saw that the Janissary Army was no longer in capacity to defend the Empire against modern standing armies.He treid to abolish it.Jewish bankers like Isaya Aciman or Behor Çelebi Carmona resisted against the Sultan’s decision because they were using the Janissaries to collect their money lendings.It was a kind of mafia during that period.The Sultan had enough of these people.The Janissary Order was abolished and the Jewish Bankers were hanged including Behor Çelebi Carmona who was a high figure in the Jewish community and the one of the most richest men in the Empire.Well the Jews never forgot this action.Still today in Turkey Jews commemorate the killing of Behor Carmona with a ceremony.After the elimination of Jewish Power the Armenians became the Kings of the Kings in the Empire until the Young Turk rule.Theodor Herzl writes in his memoirs that after the refusal by Sultan Abdülhamit to sell Palestine to the Jews,he contacted the Young Turks who were in exile in European cities like Paris.Another ‘coincidence’ is that the Young Turk newspaper was published by a famous Zionizt figure Wladimir Jabotinsky.Emmanuel Carasso, another jewish figure who helped the Young Turks to get international assistance can also be called as a ‘coincidence’"

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Who's who

The author makes repeated references to 'rabid anti-semitism' which makes me suspicious to start with. Anti-semitism is a term that the zionists have put into the lexicon to mislead and cover over the truth of many situations. It's on a par with "They hate us for our freedoms".

The trouble with investigating this is that it is not often clear who is representing whose interests.
Just take the Turkish government, for instance. It seems clear that it was influenced if not ruled by crypto-jewish interests, the so-called Young Turks during the genocide years. In the late twenties, some of these leaders, Carasso included, were put on trial in Turkey and convicted of these crimes in absentia. The Turkish government admitted that the genocide had taken place. But the next government promptly denied it all and every government since has done the same. Are we to conclude that every government since then represents the interests of the crypto-jews and their allies?

There's a couple of blog entries from Aangirfan recently that make more sense if you understand this crypto-jew/Sabbatean influence in Turkey. One is here and other here

And is this where they are going with it?

Head spinning stuff, no?!

McJ's picture

"The author makes repeated

"The author makes repeated references to 'rabid anti-semitism' which makes me suspicious to start with."
Yes, me as well. The poster also mentioned that the author of this book is Jewish.
So, if Turkey is controlled by 'crypto-Jewish' interests, who I wonder, is putting 'pressure' on the Jewish community to support the campaign against the Armenians? That is, if it is true that there is pressure being applied and I don't know the answer to that question. I'm sure it is complicated. smiling

"The trouble with investigating this is that it is not often clear who is representing whose interests."

Yes and then there is the Afghan-Turkey heroin trade, production and the money laundering to consider when we are speaking of representing interests. smiling

This is from "The Highjacking of a Nation Part 2: The Auctioning of Former Statesmen & Dime a Dozen Generals"written by Sibel Edmonds
"It is puzzling to observe that in reporting this major artery of terrorists’ funding, the U.S. mainstream media and political machine do not dare to go beyond the poppy fields of Afghanistan and the fairly insignificant low level Afghan warlords overseeing the crops. Think about it; we are talking about nearly $40 billion worth of products in the final stage. Do you believe that those primitive Afghan warlords, clad in shalvars, sporting long ragged beards, and walking with long sticks handle transportation, lab processing, more transportation, distribution, and sophisticated laundering of the proceeds? If yes, then think again. This multi billion-dollar industry requires highly sophisticated networks and people. So, who are the real lords of Afghanistan’s poppy fields?
For Al Qaeda’s network Turkey is a haven for its sources of funding. Turkish networks, along with Russians’, are the main players in these fields; they purchase the opium from Afghanistan and transport it through several Turkic speaking Central Asian states into Turkey, where the raw opium is processed into popular byproducts; then the network transports the final product into Western European and American markets via their partner networks in Albania. The networks’ banking arrangements in Turkey, Cyprus and Dubai are used to launder and recycle the proceeds, and various Turkish companies in Turkey and Central Asia are used to make this possible and seem legitimate. The Al Qaeda network also uses Turkey to obtain and transfer arms to its Central Asian bases, including Chechnya.
Since the 1950s Turkey has played a key role in channeling into Europe and the U.S. heroin produced in the "Golden Triangle" comprised of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. These operations are run by mafia groups closely controlled by the MIT (Turkish Intelligence Agency) and the military. According to statistics compiled in 1998, Turkey’s heroin trafficking brought in $25 billion in 1995 and $37.5 billion in 1996. That amount makes up nearly a quarter of Turkey’s GDP. Only criminal networks working in close cooperation with the police and the army could possibly organize trafficking on such a scale. The Turkish government, MIT and the Turkish military, not only sanctions, but also actively participates in and oversees the narcotics activities and networks."

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

trafficking rings

This is great info, McJ. I may borrow it at some point... AP

McJ's picture

Feel free AP

Feel free AP and btw welcome. smiling

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson


To James' point:

"They do, however, have the advantage of working much more closely together than Christians ever have when collectively under threat, it seems to me."

Indeed. I left a comment at nobody's to this effect earlier today, since he is also piling on this topic. The more the merrier I say. Anyway, I find that what happens is that whenever "the Jews" do something bad, like say for instance conduct a 60+ year genocide against the Palestinians, should the topic arise in polite company in Western society, the usual excuse, if you will, is that "not all Jews" believe in these crazy murderous Talmudic ideas. So you can't lump Jews all together and blame everybody when obviously, "not all Jews" agree with each other.

And of course this is true. There are True Torah Jews, for instance, who do not follow the Talmud but stick with the first five books of the Old Testament, which any Christian can read for himself or herself, and it's all pretty arcane stuff. And the thing is that most people who aren't Jews, and who even know what the Torah is, probably believe that Judaism is perfectly harmless, and that most Jews are just as boringly pseudo-religious as your typical Western pseudo-Christian or what-have-you. Meaning, they have no theological training to speak of, and true enough, many Jews don't seem all that religious. Therefore it's completely ridiculous and mean spirited and, you know, "anti-Semitic" to be blaming all Jews for things when "not all Jews" agree and therefore "not all Jews" should be held responsible for the actions of a few, and those few must be fringe. This is the man-on-the-street take as I have encountered it.

However, when one looks into Judaism a little deeper, you see that other books, the Talmud, the Cabala, the Zohar, etc. are considered very important. Some, not a few, consider them more important than the Torah. And these books are basically the teaching of men, rabbis, who have written down every possible interpretation for every possible rule. So that in essence, all the rules have so many meanings that there is no real authority in Judaism. It all depends who you ask. The rabbis -- the teachers, the authorities -- can debate endlessly. So while some groups will claim they are the "true Jews" and other groups will claim the same thing, how is anyone outside Judaism to know? They don't even agree inside Judaism. As a result, when something goes wrong, there is always some sub-group of Jews to blame -- those who agree with whatever rabbinical interpretation justified the bad action -- and everyone else gets to be "not all Jews" -- ie: not responsible. And all this disagreement may be sincere.

But in addition to all this disagreement, you add the fact that in Judaism you cannot really be excommunicated, no matter what you do. The end result is that for all those laws, Judaism is chaotic and essentially lawless. Anything can be justified and debated endlessly, and I believe that is absolutely by design. And because of this chaos and division and endless nitpicking, no one has the authority to toss a Jew out of Judaism (once a Jew always a Jew) no matter what loathsome thing he may do. There's always a corner to go to. A person might be shunned, but a Jew can only truly leave the tribe of his or her own accord.

As a result, the ability to be divided and chaotic turns into an asset, because the target of who is responsible within Jewry, from outside Judaism, is always moving. It will always be "some" Jews, but it is never "all" Jews. They never all agree on anything except, it seems, once a Jew always a Jew. That's the final authority: You Can't Leave. And in this way, I think the Jews have a very effective defense mechanism to escape accountability, by claiming that they are divided, when in the last analysis, they are not. It would be more accurate to say Jews are trapped, by their own hand.

And the proof, to my mind, is that Jews do not leave Judaism in utter disgust at what has been done in the name of "the Jews," ie: in *their* name. Where is the sense of collective shame? Other people leave their religions all the time, in disgust (see Catholicism), but it is as if Jews believe they can't. Or is it that they don't want to? Are they not ashamed by the Jewish genocide against the Palestinians, for one example? It seems they don't leave because they believe they are a race, not a religion. If it was just religion, they'd leave in disgust like anyone else and find another way to worship God. But it's not religion, it's this racist idea, once a Jew always a Jew, which controls them. They *are* their own God. And this idea has been bolstered by the amassing of great power and ruthlessness, and a racist way of thinking about non-Jews, so that if anyone does leave, seriously (a la Brother Nathanael) and not just for show, that person has just wrecked their upward career path no doubt and cut himself off from a very powerful social network.

It seems to be a bridge too far, then, to leave the tribe and be "just" a human being. Not special anymore. So instead, when something goes wrong, they say "not all Jews" are responsible.

Welcome AP!

Thanks for explaining all that AP. It is easy to say "I don't want to sound or, worse, be anti-semitic, so lets talk about something else." But the issues are getting more serious by the day and need to be faced squarely. So thanks for doing that.
To “collectively under threat”, I should have added, is often arranged by Jewish leaders themselves as a way of policing their 'flock'.

“But in addition to all this disagreement, you add the fact that in Judaism you cannot really be excommunicated, no matter what you do. The end result is that for all those laws, Judaism is chaotic and essentially lawless. Anything can be justified and debated endlessly, and I believe that is absolutely by design. And because of this chaos and division and endless nitpicking, no one has the authority to toss a Jew out of Judaism (once a Jew always a Jew) no matter what loathsome thing he may do. There's always a corner to go to. A person might be shunned, but a Jew can only truly leave the tribe of his or her own accord.”

Beautiful. It's one big cultural committee. It can wield authority but nobody is responsible when there is blame to be apportioned.

I think the point you make about never being thrown out and is an extremely valuable insight. This must encourage some to 'do their worst' because they won't be abandoned. In practical terms these days, they can always run to Israel for safety. And they do. Take away the social consequences and what is going to happen?

Carrot and stick.

There is also a very supportive business and social network that functions to accumulate wealth. And the Jews aren't the only ones to do this, by any means. Masons, for instance, and some Christian sects do the same thing and that is, they will sell to anyone but buy only from their own if at all possible. So the money coming in to their collective pockets starts to accumulate because it is not going out at anywhere near the same rate because it is circulating amongst themselves rather than leaking out through purchases of good from 'outsiders'. So if you have a business you are almost guaranteed a customer base. Add to this the banking system and access to capital in preference to others and you have a gravy train which is going to be very hard to walk away from.

Why is it that so many nations over the course of history have taken a dislike to Jews as a group?
There's a Yiddish saying that goes, “If three men call you a horse, buy a saddle”!


"It is easy to say "I don't want to sound or, worse, be anti-semitic, so lets talk about something else." But the issues are getting more serious by the day and need to be faced squarely."

Yes, this is the trouble. When Cast Lead was underway, I was very upset and talked about this freely among people I consider to be open minded. When would people speak up? In particular, when would American Jews speak up against the occupation, since it's harder (not impossible) for non-Jews to speak up about these issues unless Jews also speak up?

If it really bothers them, why don't they say so? I waited. It didn't happen in any organized way.

Jews are known for their organization. If they wanted to make a stink about Cast Lead, they could have. You know? The knife cuts both ways.

Is it fair to conclude that it didn't really bother Jews all that much, considering that there was no big hue and cry over the white phosphorous being dropped on the trapped Gazans, and the horrific actions of the IOF, targeting civilians, preventing people from burying their dead, preventing rescue workers from getting to the wounded, etc.? Even if -- theoretically -- you bought into the premise that Hamas was a threat and some military activity was justified (which I don't), most of the violence was completely gratuitous.

If so, what does it mean that Cast Lead was tacitly and in many cases overtly supported? Honestly?

One response to this line of reasoning was an indignant "not all Jews!" are responsible (implied: you anti-Semite!), they don't even know what's going on, as the very lovely person practically fell on the fainting couch from my harsh opinion. Another was "why do you care what happens to the Palestinians?" (implied: you anti-Semite!) as the person practically stormed out of the room. I had obviously "gone too far" by not believing in Jewish racism, by caring about the Palestinians.... who are clearly inferior laDUH! This is the twisted logic that I've heard from non Jews, reflecting years of racist hasbara conditioning of which they are scarcely aware.

But do Jews know all about Israel? I believe they do, even if "only" 1 of 4 American Jews have visited Israel, a number that needs to be improved from the Israeli perspective because it's too low. Israel wants those bonds tight, and when it's convenient to be organized, the Jews are organized like nobody's business. Why did American Jews remain conveniently "disorganized" when Cast Lead was underway? Perhaps because the American Jews needed to be "not all Jews" at that time. They needed to be the ones who had "no idea," getting their shitty non-news just like the rest of Americans, about what was happening in Gaza. Blameless.

In reality, it's precisely because I am not a racist that crimes against other human beings (my race) bother me. And the thing about this racist idea controlling Judaism, once a Jew always a Jew, is that it has no basis in fact. There is no Jewish "race." Nothing special about the DNA... nothing. There's no there there. I mean, why is it they Israelis are such big fans of transplant tourism, willing to take a body part from any poor goy and make it part of their body? Wouldn't you think the Jewish DNA would reject the offending organ? But lo, it's No Problem. The goy kidneys work just fine! So this whole idea of the so-called Jewish race just an idea, a bad idea, a lie, that has a hold on people, both Jews and non-Jews alike.

Old Testament validity/relevance


After printing and re-reading this article, one question came to mind.
I'd like to hear your take on the validity and relevance of the Old Testament.
More than one person has described the scriptures as "scrubbed" and maybe just
fairy tales for the benefit of the tribe.
The New Testament may also be full of deliberate contradictions.
What are your beliefs ?
A thank you to A. Peasant whose website led me here.


What do you mean by “validity and relevance”, RamblinMan? Do you mean “truthfulness” and “usefulness” (in terms of doing good)? I'll have to come back later tonight (my time) to answer this and your other questions. If you are not through this way in the meantime I will answer in the terms of truthfulness and usefulness as best I can.

Truthful and useful?

So is the Old Testament true?
Douglas Reed and many biblical scholars including present day israeli ones claim emphatically that the Torah (known as the Pentateuch to Christians) or the first five books of the Old Testament (a.k.a. The Hebrew Bible), was not written by Moses as claimed but by Levitical priests in the fifth century BC. It's a fairytale as you put it, RamblinMan. Archaeology in Egypt has turned up no evidence of a 'Jewish' slave population ever being present and, of course, no mention of the associated plagues and Pharoah's army being swallowed up by the Red Sea. And given that the OT's authority rests on itself internally i.e. “because God said so”, this has serious consequences. This is "not the basis for a sound form of government" (worldwide or otherwise) to quote Monty Python.

The rest of the books (39) are written at the time of the events being described as far as I know and not all of them were written by the Judeans. The prophets (Isaiah to Malachi) were largely Israelites who were also largely killed by the Judeans. The Hebrew Bible was assembled out of all the scriptures i.e. edited and compiled, by the Pharisees around the time of the sacking of Jerusalem (67AD?). These were the same Pharisees, removed one generation, who were responsible for the plot to kill Jesus. Yet Christian fundamentalist preachers would have you think that they were guided by the Holy Spirit in this editing and compilation process. I think not.

I think it would be reasonable to expect them to operate in accordance with their nature and interests i.e anything that furthered their power. The prophets were included in the Hebrew Bible maybe to entice the Israelites to adopt it. Otherwise I can't explain it. How much of it is true? Certainly not the Torah, anyway.

Is the Old Testament useful?
Given that it starts out as a fabricated power play and edited by power mad priests with a history of murder, my answer is "Not much”. And given that it teaches the psychologically toxic notion of superiority, I might be persuaded to say, “Not at all”.
Sure there may be truth in there somewhere but that applies to just about any book you could name, if one wants to get pedantic. To me the question is, “How useful is a boat that floats some of the time?”
As for the New Testament, and this is just my opinion and since you ask for it, I'll say this: There is an extraordinary amount of wisdom in the four Gospels and if you want a recommendation from me, I'd say, stick to them and the letters of John. John was the closest to Jesus and the apostle that most 'got it'.
Steer right away from Revelations. I'm with Martin Luther on that one. I don't know who wrote it but it sure wasn't John the Apostle as is claimed, that's for certain. And the description of Jesus matches the OT 'God' rather than Jesus of the Gospels. The 'God' of Revelation is a destructive being and I refer you back to my argument early on in my essay. It's even written in a classic style of Jewish scripture called "apocalyptic" (!) and John was no learned scribe, wise though he certainly was.

The New Testament was compiled under the auspices of the Emperor Constantine who took over the Christian Churches, combined them with a couple of occult religions, gave it a Roman bureaucratic structure and called it the Roman (Empire) Catholic (means "Universal" – i.e. 'one size fits all, like it or lump it') Church. Lots of scripture seizing and burning went on then and the Old Testament with its emphasis on power and obedience was formally included. Perhaps the epistles of Paul got a guernsey because Paul was an ex Pharisee and scribe (lawyer) and was sympathetic to the Old Testament scriptures. There's some very dodgy prescriptions in them, imnho.
I have written some on Constantine and the Church here-
and here's a run down on a few facts about Constantine the first Catholic Emperor and the early days of the Catholic Church from Aangirfan,- (nothing like starting out how you intend to continue!)

For more info on how the NT has been distorted, google 'Schofield bible + Oxford University Press', the bible of choice for Christian Zionists.

Ok, that's probably a lot more than you asked for, RamblinMan. Though the NT stuff is a bit off topic, we'll be getting around to it hopefully as the Sabbatean Saga continues and this is handy background.

NJT, tomorrow, mate! (good stuff from what I've read so far!)

Spot on


Thanks for your reply - I feel like a man who asked for a PBJ and received Filet Mignon !
Your answer is a print and keep.
Hope it was a help to others.


Thanks, Dave

Thanks, Dave. I hope you will keep in touch with us here.


I have a quick question. Have read your post James and half of comments. Almost all of this is new to me. are your links a good place to start or is there something simpler for a rather ignorant beginner. I am very interested in finding out more but it is bit overwhelming. thanks Debbie

Re help!

Hi Debbieanne.
The links are the best place I know to start. AP has put quite a bit of work into introducing the subject. Read them first then Aangirfan's I'd say. My piece here is meant as some background to the dynamics and concepts that are in play behind this movement (and other religions too, for that matter).
After those links, try google. As I come across more resources or as more is written, I'll post links here.
Good to hear from you, btw!

Thanks James

Thanks James

McJ's picture

Iran, Turkey near $5.5 billion gas deal

Iran, Turkey near $5.5 billion gas deal
Press TV
Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:37 EDT
"Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz says there is a "complete political support" in Ankara for signing a 5.5-billion-dollar gas deal with Iran.

Yildiz said that Turkish officials will make a final decision about investment in the Iranian giant South Pars gas field within two weeks.

"We will decide within two weeks on our final decision on the investment in Iran," Yildiz told Reuters on Tuesday.

He added that Turkish companies are carrying out feasibility studies in the gas field to prepare the ground for finalizing the deal.

"This project has complete political support, but companies are carrying out the talks ... If the feasibility is not high we will not continue," he said.

South Pars gas field is estimated to hold about 14 trillion cubic meters of gas, or about eight percent of total world reserves.

Turkey supports the idea of using Iranian gas as throughput for the European Union-backed Nabucco pipeline project aimed at reducing Europe's dependence on Russian gas.

Iran currently exports 25 million cubic meters of natural gas to Turkey per day and the figure could be increased to 30 million cubic meters a day if necessary.

Iran possesses the world's second largest gas reserves after Russia. Energy analysts believe Iran can reliably supply energy to Europe. "

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

The Nabucco pipeline is a

The Nabucco pipeline is a bit of an economic white elephant apparently, McJ, and I wonder if the Turkish government are playing games with all this
"Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz says there is a "complete political support" in Ankara for signing a 5.5-billion-dollar gas deal with Iran" and
"We will decide within two weeks on our final decision on the investment in Iran," Yildiz told Reuters on Tuesday.

Whatever it is, this pipeline has a lot riding on it (billions in money and also geo-political advantage) and I have to wonder if the Armenian genocide question is a factor behind Turkey's posturing (which I suppose is at back of your thinking, too, McJ)

Wheels within wheels within wheels!

McJ's picture

Well James...

Well James, I am glad I have you to help me think about these games.
Figuring out who's doing what with whom and for what reasons is mind boggling.

I'll give this a go and I may be way off base, but I'm sure you will steer me in the right direction if that is the case. smiling

Turkey is positioning itself to be the supplier of oil to the EU - an obvious advantage for them! The Nabucco Pipeline is the key for them to do this. However, in order for the project to be viable, Turkey needs Iranian oil. Turkey also wants to join the EU and continue profitable trading relationships. The EU is not likely to buy oil directly from Iran because they need to keep up the farce of the threat of a nuclear armed Iran via the US/Israel and EU sanctions on Iran. So to get around this tricky problem, Europe needs to be supplied by Iran via re-export from Turkey.

What to do, what to do? How can Turkey make the deal with Iran if the deal is perceived as going directly against their interests (ie. it is seen as damaging to their relationship with US/Israel and the EU)?

Fortunately for Turkey, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee has just adopted a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide (despite the 'saving face' opposition from the Obama Administration). Conveniently this has created a 'diplomatic incident', with Turkey reacting by recalling it's ambassador to the US. Now this gives Turkey a window of opportunity, and the reason it needs, to assert 'independence' from the US and sign a deal with Iran.

In the background, the Armenian leaders are helping out by making nice with the Turks and agreeing to let bygones be bygones. This should diffuse the tension between the US and Turkey because after all, the key players (the Turks and the Armenians) are deciding to just get over the whole messy genocide thing.

I haven't thought my way through how Russia and the myriad of other players fit in here however, Turkey has invited Russia to participate. ( Whatever is going down, I am sure the intent is for all the players to be free to get to the business of making money from that oil.
European Union-backed gas pipeline Nabucco was likely to begin operations in 2018, European Commissioner for energy Guenther Oettinger told Sueddeutsche Zeitung in an interview published on March 25.

"I hope we will make the final decision in 2010 to build the pipeline," he said. The odds of that happening were increasing, he said.

Contacted by the newspaper, a spokesperson for German utility giant RWE said that Nabucco should be "operational in 2014," as scheduled.

RWE is one of the six companies that own equal stakes in the pipeline, along with Turkey's Botas, Bulgarian Energy Holding, Romania's Transgaz, MOL in Hungary and OMV in Austria.

The 3300km pipeline would run from eastern Turkey to eastern Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary, pumping about eight billion cu m annually when it starts operation and 31 billion cu m when it reaches maximum capacity.

Construction is scheduled to begin in 2011 and the pipeline would deliver the first gas in 2014. Costs are estimated at 7.9 billion euro.

The biggest concern, however, remains where the gas would come from, with no firm supply contracts secured.
The leader of Armenian community in Turkey, who was received by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, described the incidents of 1915 as "mutual affliction of close friends who were made hostile to each other," saying, "there was no need to rake up the past", Anadolu Agency reported.

Following his meeting with Erdogan in Ankara, Bedros Sirinoglu said, " my grandfather died during the incidents of 1915. But there is no need to rake up the past and call it a genocide."

Turkish State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc was also present at the meeting.

The meeting came three weeks after a voting at the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee that adopted a resolution on Armenian allegations despite opposition from the Obama Administration and a similar voting of Swedish Parliament on March 11. They prompted Turkey to recall its ambassadors to United States and Sweden.

..."Incidents of 1915 sowed discord between two close friends who loved each other," Sirinoglu said.

"It was a row of a hundred years ago and it created mistrust. We have to forget it and look forward," he said.

And...this is an interesting little tidbit I found.
Partners in the Nabucco project, whose name is taken from the Babylonian king Nabucco, famously known as Nebuchadnezzar, which expelled the Jews from Babylon, have set up their dreams to ensure energy security for Europe."

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

It's all a little weird

To be totally 'francis' with you McJ, I haven't kept up with all the to-ings and fro-ings in Pipelinestan over the last few months. Your interpretation sounds, to me, 'on the money', though. The vote by the US Foreign Affairs Committee is still a gesture. The Congress vote is still an unknown. And those comments by the Armenian Turkish community leader are just plain weird. Seems to me that both he and the Turks are pointing their fingers at something Kosher without saying it (like me!).
There's an awful lot of feints and shadow boxing going on here, methinks. And Turkey is not in the same league (who is?!) as the US (and israel) when it comes to deceit.

That Nabucco pipeline is more like a pretzel, to me! It's political, not commercial. Mind you it probably could become commercial after it goes broke, which might be on the cards. I don't see any oil majors in this. Why not? Maybe they come along later and buy it at the foreclosure sale at 2c on the dollar. Maybe it is being set up for a similar fate as Iridium LLC that AP reported on over at TwelfthBough news. And that is why (from wikipedia)
The European Commission has awarded an EU project grant in the amount of 50% of the estimated total eligible cost of the feasibility study[8][9][10] and has also decided to allocate €200 million from the European Economic Recovery Plan.[45] To receive this financing, this grant should be committed by the end 2010"
to hurry hurry them along. And also why the governments are being roped into ratifying the deal to make them responsible for the shortfall and pony up for the financiers when it goes belly up. Maybe! But then I'm a distrusting sort of a coot smiling




my name is Helen Asmund from Canada, the greatest testimony i have ever seen in my life i want to use this great opportunity to thank prophet Tb Joshua the man of God.i was having a breast cancer over 5months, everyone around me run away from me even my husband who i think he loves me so much told me is over i cried and cried no body could help me out i went to the best hospital in Canada no solution, all hope was lost, on one faithful day as i was going online i saw a testimony of this great man of God Tb Joshua ( that people sharing about him how he has been helping people i never believed that this will work out but not withstanding there is nothing God can not do, so i decided to contact his Email: i explain all my problems to him he told me not to worry about if really i believe in God the most high i shall be healed. he told me what to do i quickly follow up with his instruction i never let money be my problem. within the next 2day my illness and pains were healed, my brothers and sisters there is nothing God can not do if you have not given your life to Christ please try and do so once again his if you have any problem similar to this you can contact him and your problem shall be solve, i will not stop sharing his name as a testimony because he brings me joy and happiness now i am happy my husband is back. any problem regarding as follow you can contact him God almighty is great
(1) If you want your ex back. (After they have shown their weak character)
(2) if you always have bad dreams. (We'll sell you happy dreams)
(3) You want to be promoted in your office. (Be the top psychopath)
(4) You want women/men to run after you. (Pick pockets and steal purses)
(5) If you want a child. (Join the priesthood)
(6) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever. (Enroll in our short course in psychopathy)

AND REMEMBER, DON'T SEND MONEY - WE'LL BILL YOU (steak knives not included)

McJ's picture

Methinks someone may have

laughing out loud Methinks someone may have used their editorial license to improve the content before publishing that comment. wink Wink

Amazing, how we are still getting quality spam for our amusement.

Hmmmmm . . . . .

I guess that narrows the field a bit puzzled

McJ's picture

Yup, to about 1.

laughing out loud Yup, to about 1.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.