Thursday, 31 July 2014

Thanks to the Counterjihad movement, people in the western world now know a lot more about Islamic ideology than we did before. We can readily perceive how the contempt for the kuffar that is enshrined in the core texts of Islam feeds the iniquitous Muslim behaviour that we see on our news bulletins every day. And we have learned to be wary of the systematic deceit Muslims employ to prevent us finding out about the true nature of their "religion". Much less well known, however, is how Jewish religious texts contain similarly contemptuous attitudes towards the goyim, and that generations of Jewish scholars have engaged in a systematic effort to conceal this fact from non-Jews. Since I don't think Pam, Vlad & co. will be enlightening us about this any time soon, I will do it here.

This program of Jewish Taqiyya is discussed in the extract from the book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" quoted below, written by the Jewish author Israel Shalak, who was a Holocaust survivor and a chemistry professor.

The first mechanism I shall discuss is that of surreptitious defiance, combined with outward compliance. As explained above, talmudic passages directed against Christianity or against non-Jews had to go or to be modified - the pressure was too strong. This is what was done: a few of the most offensive passages were bodily removed from all editions printed in Europe after the mid-16th century. In all other passages, the expressions 'Gentile', 'non-Jew', 'stranger' (goy, eino yehudi, nokhri) - which appear in all early manuscripts and printings as well as in all editions published in Islamic countries were replaced by terms such as 'idolator', 'heathen' or even 'Canaanite' or 'Samaritan',terms which could be explained away but which a Jewish reader could recognize as euphemisms for the old expressions. 
As the attack mounted, so the defence became more elaborate, sometimes with lasting tragic results. During certain periods the Tsarist Russian censorship became stricter and, seeing the above mentioned euphemisms for what they were, forbade them too. Thereupon the rabbinical authorities substituted the terms 'Arab' or 'Muslim' (in Hebrew, Yishma'eli - which means both) or occasionally 'Egyptian', correctly calculating that the Tsarist authorities would not object to this kind of abuse. 
At the same time, lists of Talmudic Omissions were circulated in manuscript form, which explained all the new terms and pointed out all the omissions. At times, a general disclaimer was printed before the title page of each volume of talmudic literature, solemnly declaring, sometimes on oath, that all hostile expressions in that volume are intended only against the idolators of antiquity, or even against the long-vanished Canaanites, rather than against 'the peoples in whose land we live'. After the British conquest of India, some rabbis hit on the subterfuge of claiming that any particularly outrageous derogatory expression used by them is only intended against the Indians. Occasionally the aborigines of Australia were also added as whippingboys. 
Needless to say, all this was a calculated lie from beginning to end; and following the establishment of the State of Israel, once the rabbis felt secure, all the offensive passages and expressions were restored without hesitation in all new editions. (Because of the enormous cost which a new edition involves, a considerable part of the talmudic literature, including the Talmud itself, is still being reprinted from the old editions. For this reason, the above mentioned Talmudic Omissions have now been published in Israel in a cheap printed edition, under the title Hesronot Shas.) So now one can read quite freely - and Jewish children are actually taught - passages such as that (18) which commands every Jew, whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the [24] mothers of the dead (19) if it is non-Jewish. In the old editions the curse was omitted, or one of the euphemisms was substituted for 'Gentiles'. But in the new Israeli edition of Rabbi Adin Steinsalz (complete with Hebrew explanations and glosses to the Aramaic parts of the text, so that schoolchildren should be in no doubt as to what they are supposed to say) the unambiguous words 'Gentiles' and 'strangers' have been restored. 
Under external pressure, the rabbis deceptively eliminated or modified certain passages - but not the actual practices which are prescribed in them. It is a fact which must be remembered, not least by Jews themselves, that for centuries our totalitarian society has employed barbaric and inhumane customs to poison the minds of its members, and it is still doing so. (These inhumane customs cannot be explained away as mere reaction to antisemitism or persecution of Jews: they are gratuitous barbarities directed against each and every human being. A pious Jew arriving for the first time in Australia, say, and chancing to pass near an Aboriginal graveyard, must - as an act of worship of 'God' - curse the mothers of the dead buried there.) Without facing this real social fact, we all become parties to the deception and accomplices to the process of poisoning the present and future generations, with all the consequences of this process.

The Deception Continues

Modern scholars of Judaism have not only continued the deception, but have actually improved upon the old rabbinical methods, both in impudence and in mendacity. I omit here the various histories of antisemitism, as unworthy of serious consideration, and shall give just three particular examples and one general example of the more modern 'scholarly' deceptions. In 1962, a part of the Maimonidean Code referred to above, the so-called Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. (20) The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: 'It is a duty to exterminate them with one's own hands.' In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: 'It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them.' But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of 'infidels' who must be exterminated: 'Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoq and Baitos (21) and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot'. Not one word of this appears in [25] the English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this glaring deception. 
The second example comes from the USA, again from an English translation of a book by Maimonides. Apart from his work on the codification of the Talmud, he was also a philosopher and his Guide to the Perplexed is justly considered to be the greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy and is widely read and used even today. Unfortunately, in addition to his attitude towards non-Jews generally and Christians in particular, Maimonides was also an anti-Black racist. Towards the end of the Guide, in a crucial chapter (book III, chapter 51) he discusses how various sections of humanity can attain the supreme religious value, the true worship of God. Among those who are incapable of even approaching this are: "Some of the Turks [i.e., the Mongol race] and the nomads in the North, and the Blacks and the nomads in the South, and those who resemble them in our climates. And their nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to my opinion they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the image and the resemblance of a man more than a monkey does." 
Now, what does one do with such a passage in a most important and necessary work of Judaism? Face the truth and its consequences? God forbid! Admit (as so many Christian scholars, for example, have done in similar circumstances) that a very important Jewish authority held also rabid anti-Black views, and by this admission make an attempt at self-education in real humanity? Perish the thought. I can almost imagine Jewish scholars in the USA consulting among themselves, 'What is to be done?' - for the book had to be translated, due to the decline in the knowledge of Hebrew among American Jews. Whether by consultation or by individual inspiration, a happy solution' was found: in the popular American translation of the Guide by one Friedlander, first published as far back as 1925 and since then reprinted in many editions, including several in paperback, the Hebrew word Kushim, which means Blacks, was simply transliterated and appears as 'Kushites', a word which means nothing to those who have no knowledge of Hebrew, or to whom an obliging rabbi will not give an oral explanation. (22) 
During all these years, not a word has been said to point out the initial deception or the social facts underlying its continuation - and this throughout the excitement of Martin Luther King's campaigns, which were supported by so many rabbis, not to mention other Jewish figures, some of whom must have been aware of the anti-Black racist attitude which forms part of their Jewish heritage. Surely one is driven to the hypothesis that quite a few of Martin Luther King's rabbinical supporters were either anti-Black racists who supported him for tactical reasons of 'Jewish interest' (wishing to win Black support for American Jewry and for Israel's policies) or were accomplished hypocrites, to the point of schizophrenia, capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of rabid racism to a proclaimed attachment to an anti-racist struggle - and back - and back again. 
The third example comes from a work which has far less serious scholarly intent - but is all the more popular for that: The Joys of Yiddish by Leo Rosten. This lighthearted work - first published in the USA in 1968, and reprinted in many editions, including several times as a Penguin paperback - is a kind of glossary of Yiddish words often used by Jews or even non-Jews in English-speaking countries. For each entry, in addition to a detailed definition and more or less amusing anecdotes illustrating its use, there is also an etymology stating (quite accurately, on the whole) the language from which the word came into Yiddish and its meaning in that language. The entry Shaygets - whose main meaning is 'a Gentile boy or young man’ - is an exception: there the etymology cryptically states 'Hebrew Origin', without giving the form or meaning of the original Hebrew word. However, under the entry Shiksa - the feminine form of Shaygets - the author does give the original Hebrew word, sheqetz (or, in his transliteration, sheques) and defines its Hebrew meaning as 'blemish'. This is a bare-faced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines shegetz as follows: 'unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination (colloquial - pronounced shaygets) wretch, unruly youngster; Gentile youngster'. 
My final, more general example is, if possible, even more shocking than the others. It concerns the attitude of the Hassidic movement towards non-Jews. Hassidism - a continuation (and debasement!) of Jewish mysticism - is still a living movement, with hundreds of thousands of active adherents who are fanatically devoted to their 'holy rabbis', some of whom have acquired a very considerable political influence in Israel, among the leaders of most parties and even more so in the higher echelons of the army. What, then, are the views of this movement concerning non-Jews? As an example, let us take the famous Hatanya, fundamental book of the Habbad movement, one of the most important branches of Hassidism. According to this book, all non-Jews are totally satanic creatures 'in whom there is absolutely nothing good'. Even a non-Jewish embryo is qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very existence of a non-Jew is essential', whereas all of creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews. 
This book is circulated in countless editions, and its ideas are further propagated in the numerous 'discourses' of the present hereditary Führer of Habbad, the so-called Lubavitcher rabbi, M.M. Schneerssohn, who leads this powerful worldwide organization from his New York headquarters. In Israel these ideas are widely disseminated among the public at large, in the schools and in the army. (According to the testimony of Shulamit Aloni, Member of the Knesset, this Habbad propaganda was particularly stepped up before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in March 1978, in order to induce military doctors and nurses to withhold medical help from 'Gentile wounded'. This Nazi-like advice did not refer specifically to Arabs or Palestinians, but simply to 'Gentiles', goyim.) A former Israeli President, Shazar, was an ardent adherent of Habbad, and many top Israeli and American politicians - headed by Prime Minister Begin - publicly courted and supported it. This, in spite of the considerable unpopularity of the Lubavitcher rabbi - in Israel he is widely criticized because he refuses to come to the Holy Land even for a visit and keeps himself in New York for obscure messianic reasons, while in New York his anti-Black attitude is notorious. 
The fact that, despite these pragmatic difficulties, Habbad can be publicly supported by so many top political figures owes much to the thoroughly disingenuous and misleading treatment by almost all scholars who have written about the Hassidic movement and its Habbad branch. This applies particularly to all who have written or are writing about it in English. They suppress the glaring evidence of the old Hassidic texts as well as the latter-day political implications that follow from them, which stare in the face of even a casual reader of the Israeli Hebrew press, in whose pages the Lubavitcher rabbi and other Hassidic leaders constantly publish the most rabid bloodthirsty statements and exhortations against all Arabs. 
A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of the deception, was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic movement (including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of Hassidism concerning non-Jews. The crime of deception is all the greater in view of the fact that Buber's eulogies of Hassidism were first published in German during the period of the rise of German nationalism and the accession of Nazism to power. But while ostensibly opposing Nazism, Buber glorified a movement holding and actually teaching doctrines about non-Jews not unlike the Nazi doctrines about Jews. 
One could of course argue that the Hassidic Jews of seventy or fifty years ago were the victims, and a 'white lie' favoring a victim is excusable. But the consequences of deception are incalculable. Buber's works were translated into Hebrew, were made a powerful element of the Hebrew education in Israel, have greatly increased the power of the blood-thirsty Hassidic leaders, and have thus been an important factor in the rise of Israeli chauvinism and hate of all non-Jews. If we think about the many human beings who died of their wounds because Israeli army nurses, incited by Hassidic propaganda, refused to tend them, then a heavy onus for their blood lies on the head of Martin Buber.

Source: Jewish History, Jewish Religion

8 comments:

  1. Thanks Cheradenine, just the other day I was wondering what to call the art of Jewish lying, I had already refered to Muslim Taqiyya, in the end I discarded Davidic Deception, Rabbinical Ruse, Semitic Swindle, Talmudic Trick and settled for Levitical Liarrhea.
    Now I just noted another one -- Hasidic Hoax

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't usually peruse the comments at JW because it's not disqus. But I happened to check out this thread. Lo and behold the topic of the word "Goyim" gets discussed because a Jew decides to use the word then others go on to claim it is just a word for 'Nation'.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/belgium-doctor-refuses-to-help-90-year-old-woman-because-she-is-jewish-go-to-gaza/comment-page-1#comment-1095048

    el-cid
    July 31, 2014 at 7:45 am
    Let me explain something. The ONLY action that is meaningful here is for European leaders and other Western leaders to recognize what is happening and to speak out against it strongly and frequently. That is unlikely to happen.

    If they do not do that, all the European Jews had better make Aliyah. Better to stand together than to be hanged separately. Nothing we do will stop the natural hatred of the Goyem against us. Every action is interpreted as an evil act.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Florida, USA - Lets see if I got this right. One group will saw your head off, the other group will spit while passing a cemetery.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Quote: "In 1962, a part of the Maimonidean Code referred to above, the so-called Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text." "... the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of 'infidels' who must be exterminated: 'Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, ..."

    Infidels defined as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils would not be found in original Jewish doctrine given Judaism predates the existence of those individuals. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#Summary

      Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:

      Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a-b)
      Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
      As a torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
      As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 193a/b; Ber 17b)
      As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
      Jesus' punishment in hell (b Git 56b, 57a)
      Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
      Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

      Delete
  5. Maimonides lived in the 12th century AD. Many of the components of what currently passes for Judaism post-date Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Florida

    It's more like one will saw your head off; the other will open the gate to the one who will saw your head off.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Florida:How about we put this in terms much favoured by the "counterjihad", who often state that whilst Moslems who wage violent Jihad as an obvious, immediate danger, those who wage the 'softer', more insidious Jihad of undermining our societies, legal systems, moral standards, etc from within are the greater, long-term danger? Judaism --- by its denial of our common humanity, seriously discriminatory system, perverted 'morality', sanctioned deceit, parasitism at the expense of 'host' societies, and goal of a world 'repaired' to further Jewish peoples and their interests {tikkun olam}, is the predecessor to Islam which in its core texts, doctrines and 'practices', affirms the connections between these two ideologies which are at war with Christianity, the very opposite of them both.

    ReplyDelete