Friday, April 11, 2014
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Jews Brought the "Holocaust" Upon Themselves?
A recent proclamation by a Russian TV anchor that “Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves” has sparked
outrage throughout the world. What
exactly did this anchor mean by this and is there any truth to the claim? To understand this, we will need to examine
the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in the modern world, what Jews
believe, Jewish influence on modern Russian history, and Jewish influence on
Weimar Germany.
The Jew as a Revolutionary
Since the
time that they choose to spare the life of the condemned revolutionary Barabbas
over Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish people have always been instigators and
supporters of revolutionary movements.
Historically, this can be explained by the Jewish people’s rejection of Logos,
Jesus Christ. As Christendom developed,
which sought to bring about the kingship of Christ on earth, the Jews naturally
rebelled. Why should society be arranged
around what in their view was a false Messiah?
As opposed to the Muslims, who attacked Christendom in open war from the
outside, the Jews fought from the inside with a revolutionary spirit.
Jews joined forces
with heretics during the Albigensian crises, the Hussite revolution, the Reformation,
and at the birth of modern England. They
joined forces with revolutionaries during the enlightenment… We also see the
conflict between the Church and Judaism working itself out at the birth of the
Spanish Inquisition, the spread of the Polish empire and the Chmielnicki
rebellion that began to break up the empire.
(JRS p. 21)
How can one
define a Jew? Before the coming of Christ,
a Jew was a member of the ethnic group that descended from Abraham. As the Gospel of St. John makes clear, after
the coming of Christ, a Jew is one who is a member of that ethnic group (or
associates themselves with that group) and also rejects Jesus as the
Messiah. According to adherents of
Judaism (and the State of Israel today), a Jew is no longer a Jew once he
converts to Christianity. Thus there is
a fundamental distinction that needs to be made between the Jews of the Old Covenant
and the Jews of the New Covenant, namely that the Jews of old were God’s chosen
people while the Jews since the time of Christ are rejecters of the Word of
God. In Christian society, this
naturally alienated them from the rest of the population. Another distinction needs to be made—Jews of
the Old Covenant were a fairly diverse group of followers of the Law of Moses
and the prophets and patriarchs of the Old Testament. The Jewish religion after the death of Christ
and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 became a rabbinic religion based on
the teachings of the Talmud. The Talmud
accurately demonstrates that Jews see themselves as “outsiders” and morally superior than non-Jews. Thus, they have the
right, even the obligation, to rebel against the inferior majority oppressors. The
Talmud, which is a written collection of the oral traditions of Jewish elders
(i.e. the Pharisaical sect, whom Jesus denounced) and later rabbis, has come to
surpass the Scripture in terms authority.
Thus, rabbis are able to use the Talmud as a “hedge around the law” of
Scripture. This “Hedge around the law” is
a generic euphemism
invoked to cover falsification and abrogation of the Biblical text under a
benign, or at the least, a bland heading.
When attempting to understand some escape clause or demented loophole in
the meaning of a Biblical text, one discovers that the distortion can be under
the heading “make a hedge around the law”…
Certain Christians
well understood the mechanics of Judaism’s scriptural nullification. The Puritan exegete John Owen (1616-1683),
quoting the antiquarian and philologist John Selden’s (1584-1654) description
of the Gezera Shava: “It is a most common thing among the
Talmudists to seek for some support for their additional customs from some words
of the Scriptures, and, as it were, to try to hedge them up behind some
Biblical word, interpretation or analogy.
Those even tolerably familiar with their works will know this well. So the original words are twisted and
distorted with great boldness to give some seeming confirmation to their
customs, far out of the sense of the original.”
The “hedge around
the law” is known inside Jusaism for what it truly is: “eis
la’asos leHashem heifeiru Torascha” (a bending of the rules of the Torah in
order to protect it.) This is how the
“hedge around the law” has actually been intended to function across centuries,
by the leaders of historic Judaism:
distorting God’s Word to suit the rabbis’ distorted version of what God
says and decrees, on the pretext that the distortion is a form of “protection.”
(JD p. 173-174)
Teachings of the Talmud that may give rise
to feelings of aversion and distrust of Jews
Talmudic
teachings naturally give rise to detestation and distrust between Jews and
non-Jews; its teachings clearly show that Jews are superior to gentiles and
that Jews have the right and obligation to treat gentiles in a manner
confirming to this notion. Below are
some examples of teachings contained in the Babylonian Talmud that give rise to
mutual distrust of Jews and gentiles.
1.
The Talmud teaches that Jews are superior to
gentiles and that gentiles are sub-human
·
If a
heathen [gentile] smites a Jew, he is worthy of death…He who smites an
Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence. (Sanhedrin 58b)
·
A heathen
[gentile] who keeps a day of rest deserves death (Sanhedrin 58b)
·
Where a
suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen [gentile], if you can justify
the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our
law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him
and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges [trickery] to circumvent
him. (Baba Kamma 113a, emphasis added)
·
A Jew need not pay a gentile wages owed: …[the
law] applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage. One Cuthean[1]
from another, or a Cuthean from an
Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted. (Sanhedrin 57a)
·
…thus it
may be inferred that the All Merciful declared their [gentile] children to be
legally fatherless, for [so indeed it is also] written, Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue
of horses. (Yebamoth 98a)
·
You are called
Adam ["man"], but [gentiles] are not called Adam ["man"].
(Kerithoth 6b, emphasis added)
·
In Mosaic Law, touching a human corpse
makes one unclean. The Talmud teaches
that this does not apply to the bodies of non-Jews since they are not human: …the graves of idolaters [gentiles] do not
impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel, for it is said, And ye My sheep the
sheep of My pasture, are men; you are called men but the [non-Jews] are not
called men. (Yebamoth 61a). The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it
is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; only ye are
designated 'men'. (Baba Mezia 114b)
2.
The Talmud teaches Jews that gentiles are not
their neighbors nor brothers
·
A Jew does not need to return a lost item of a
gentile: …it is to your brother that you
make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen [gentile]. (Baba
Kamma 113b)
·
[Thou
shalt not oppress] thy neighbor, but not an Amalekite [gentile]...One gives
permission in this regard to his [referring to gentiles] oppression. (Baba
Mezia 111b)
·
He who
invites a heathen [gentile] into his house and attends to him, causes his
children to go into exile. (Sanhedrin 104a)
·
All the
charity and kindness that the heathen [gentile] do is counted sin to them,
because they only do it in order that their dominion may be prolonged. (Baba
Bathra 10b)
·
One should
not place cattle in heathens’ [gentiles’] inns, because they are suspected of
immoral practice with them. A woman
should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of lewdness, nor
should a man be alone with them, because they are suspected of shedding
blood. (Abodah Zarah 22a)
Jewish Involvement in the Russian
Revolution
It can be accurately
stated that Jews were the driving force behind every revolution during the 19th
and 20th centuries. The below words were
written by Winston Churchill, hardly an extreme “anti-Semite,” in 1920:
This movement among
the Jews [The Russian Revolution] is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to
Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma
Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of
civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested
development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily
growing.
It played, as a
modern writer, Mrs. [Nesta] Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely
recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every
subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of
extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe
and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have
become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual
bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the
most part atheistical Jews. It is
certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin [who was actually
part Jewish], the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and
driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.
Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate
Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be
compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red
Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek—all Jews.
In the Soviet
institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the
principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions
for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable
cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief
period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in
Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to
prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are
many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the
part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers is the population is
astonishing. (Quoted in SBC p. 97-99)
It is not
just gentiles who noted the Jewish role in these revolutions; there are many
Jewish individuals and organizations that boast of the role that their people
played in the casting off of the Ancien
Régime. For example, the New York Rabbi
J. L. Magnes spoke the following words in 1919:
When the Jew applies
his thought, his whole soul to the cause of the workers and the despoiled, of
the disinherited of this world, his fundamental quality is that he goes to the
root of things. In Germany he becomes a
Marx and a Lasalle, a Haas and an Edward Bernstein; in Austria Victor Adler, Friedrich
Adler; in Russia, Trotsky. Compare for
an instant the present situation in Germany and Russia: the revolution there
has liberated creative forces, and admire the quantity of Jews who were there
ready for active and immediate service. Revolutionaries, Socialists, Mensheviks,
Bolsheviks, Majority or Minority Socialists, whatever the name one assigns to
them, all are Jews and one finds them as the chiefs of the workers in all
revolutionary parties. (Quoted in FJ p. 128, emphasis added)
While the
role of Judaism in the French Revolution was masked by the (largely Jewish)
Freemasons, its role in the revolution in Russia, where Freemasonry was
outlawed, is very clear. From the
beginning of the revolutionary movements to the murder of the royal family to
the establishment of the revolutionary government, Jews played the chief
role. Jews in the high command of the
Russian Commiuist Party included Maxim Litvinov, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev,
Jacob Sverdlov, Lazar Kananovich, and Karl Radek, along with many others. According to a US Senate subcommittee
investigation of the Russian Revolution in December of 1919, 371 of the 388
members of the Bolshevik central government were Jews (most of who immigrated
to Russia after the fall of the Czar). The
following table, produced by the association, Unity in Russia, in 1920 shows
the breakdown of the number of Jews in the Soviet bureaucracy. (FJ p. 130-31)
Why were so
many Jews planners, actors, collaborators, and supporters of the Russian
Revolution? To answer that question, we
merely need to understand what is behind the underlying Jewish revolutionary
spirit and the teaching of the Talmud as explained above. Organized Judaism is essentially
anti-Christian, anti-establishment, and supremacist—thus it is revolutionary in
essence. The Russian revolutionary M.
Lokotj sums it up: (FJ p.140)
Bolshevism, this
symbol of chaos and of the spirit of destruction, is above all an
anti-Christian and anti-social conception.
This present
destructive tendency is clearly advantageous for only one national and
religious entity: Judaism. The fact that Jews are the most active
element in present-day revolutions as well as in revolutionary socialism, that
they draw to themselves the power forced from the peoples of other nations by
revolution, is a fact in itself, independent of the question of knowing if that
comes from world-wide Judaism, from Free Masonry or by an elementary evolution
brought about by Jewish national solidarity and accumulation of capital in the
hands of Jewish bankers.
The contest is
becoming more definite. The domination
of revolutionary Judaism in Russia and the open support given to this Jewish
Bolshevism by Judaism the world over finally clear up the situation, show the
cards and put the question of the battle of Christianity against Judaism, of
the National State against the International, that is to say, in reality,
against Jewish world power.
Jewish Involvement in Weimar Germany
The edict of
March 11, 1812 granted the Jews of Prussia (which constituted the largest segment
of the German Reich in terms of population and territory) rights of
citizenship. Although Jews were
restricted from practicing certain occupations and from holding official
offices until 1869, Jewish influence increased greatly throughout the 19th
century. By the early 20th
century, Jewish domination of German politics, sciences, and culture reached a
point that many Germans called for restrictions on Jewish power. The Jews were viewed as a corrupting foreign
influence within the Reich that spread bolshevism and the degeneration of German
culture and politics. Already in 1848,
Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish Prime Minister of Britain, said the following:
The world is governed
by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not behind
the scenes…That mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany,
and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so
little is yet known in England, is developing entirely under the auspices of the
Jews. (FJ p. 120)
In 1925,
Jews made up just over 1.05% of the Prussian population. The majority of Prussian Jews lived in cities
and worked in commerce/business; very few Jews worked in agriculture. According to the 1925 Prussian vocational
census, 17.11% of the total population of workers was employed in commerce and
business; 58.8% of Jewish workers worked in this industry (18% of which were
foreign Jews). Of 147 members of the
directorate or committees on the Stock Exchange, 116 (almost 80%) were Jews!
(JDWG 13). 4.35% of Jews worked in “health
and hygienic vocations” as opposed to just 1.88% of the entire population. 5.94% of Jews were employed in public
administration while the population as a whole was 4.85%. On the other hand, 29.47% of the working population
was employed in agriculture while only 1.74% of Jews were agricultural workers.
40.94% of the population was employed in
“industry and handicraft”—only 25% of Jews were. Keeping in mind that Jews only made up
slightly over 1% of the Prussian population, the Jews made up a large
proportion of the following professions:
independent doctors: 17.9%; independent dentists: 14.8%; independent chemists:
6.9%; independent artists: 48%; independent lawyers: 27%; editors: 4.6%;
actors: 7.5%; theatrical stage managers: 11%.
In Berlin, the numbers are even more striking. In 1925, Jews made up
47.9% of all doctors in the city; dentists: 37.5%; chemists: 32.2%; lawyers:
50.2%; artists: 7.5%; editors: 8.5%; actors: 12.3%; theatrical stage managers:
14.2%. These statistics make clear that
there was a significant difference between the average Jew and the average
gentile within the republic. While most
non-Jews worked in agriculture or manual labor, most Jews worked in the
professions of distributers/middlemen.
Jews were highly overrepresented in influential and high-paying
professions.
Jewish influence
on German culture and morals is hardly less striking. Jews were at the front of the assault on the
prohibition of abortion and contraception.
They were largely behind the attack on the traditional view of family
and marriage and were promulgators of “free love” and pornography. For example, the Jew Magnus Hirschfeld’s
Institute for Sexual Science took aim at the traditional role of sex. Some of Hirschfeld’s writings included: “The Homosexual Question as Judged by our
Contemporaries”, “What the Public Ought to Know about the Third Sex”, “Sexual
Transitions”, “The Wear and Other Erotic Impulse to Dress”, “The Homosexuality
of Man and Woman”, “Sexology”, and “A History of the Morals of the World War”
(JDWG p. 31-32).
…on May 15, 1897,
Hirschfeld met with Spohr, the lawyer Eduard Oberg, and the writer Franz Josef
von Bulow to found the world’s first homosexual-rights organization, the Wissenschaftlich-humanitares Kommittee. It was as head of this committee that
Hirschfeld, who was homosexual himself, known in the gay milieu of Berlin as “Tante
Magnesia,” would work for the next thirty-three years for the overturn of
Paragraph 175, the law criminalizing sodomy…
Hirschfeld’s
magazine for sexual research was titles Die
Aufklarung or, in English, The
Enlightenment, giving some indication of its intellectual orientation and,
beyond that, the Enlightenment’s hidden sexual agenda as well, an agenda that
now espoused homosexuality as its cause célèbre. When Hirschfeld addressed the First
International Conference for Sexual Reform Based on Sexual Science, held in
Berlin in 1921, he reminded his audience that the term “sexual science” derived
from Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man
and Ernst Haeckel’s Naturliche
Schopfungsgeschichte. “Nothing which
is natural,” he told his audience “can escape the laws of nature.” The statement situated Hirschfeld as the link
which connected the Marquis de Sade to Alfred Kinsey, in the Enlightenment’s
continuing attempt to destabilize morals and replace them with biology and
hygienic technology. During the Weimar
years, Hirschfeld’s name was synonymous in the popular mind with the moral
decline of Germany, often because of the fact that he testified as an expert at
high-profile sodomy trials, like the Eulenberg affair, but in no small measure
because the Institute for Sex Science in Berlin had become a Mecca for anyone
of homosexual persuasion throughout Europe and North America. (LD p. 193-4)
According to
E. Michael Jones, anti-Semitism was not historically characteristic of Germany,
but rather was “fanned into a white heat by the perception that Jews were in
the forefront of corrupting German morals through Kulturbolschewismus and the stranglehold they had on the
instruments of culture. No one was more
responsible for giving this impression than Magnus Hirschfeld, who seemed to
embody everything wrong with the Weimar Republic in the eyes of the average
German” (LD p. 195-6). “…the resentment among the population at large, which
the Nazis exploited so effectively, was just as real too, and as a result, the
irony of the pink triangle room of the Holocaust Museum becomes too large to
ignore. Historically, Germany was not
known as an anti-Semitic country. Proof
of this is the fact that so many Jews lived in Germany at the time. Germany was enlightened, cultured, and, therefore,
to Jews who brought the Enlightenment, a bulwark against prejudice. The decadence of the Weimar Republic changed
all that, primarily because of its own excesses. As with their manipulation of the revulsion
at homosexuality among the population at large, so also the prosecution of
homosexuals became, under the Nazis, a matter of political expedience” (LD p. 200).
This makes
clear that the Jewish domination of German industry, commerce, and the influential
professions as well as the Jewish contribution to the breakdown of traditional
morals turned the public at large against the Jews. This allowed the Nazis to come to power
peacefully and democratically.
Conclusion
Thus we come
back to the question: did the Jews bring
the “Holocaust” upon themselves? While
we cannot overstate the fact that the persecution of the innocent, no matter
who they are, is unjust, we can also understand why Jews throughout history,
and in particularly in Germany, were subject to persecution. When a society is threatened by an outside
corrupting force, it is natural for its inhabitants to look for ways to suppress
it. The actions of the Jewish elite have
naturally led to the persecution of the Jews as a whole. While we do not buy into the “official”
Holocaust story, it is beyond doubt that the Nazis murdered hundreds of
thousands of innocent Jews (among others) during their reign. At the same time, we must also not divorce
the actions of the Nazis from the actions of Jewish revolutionaries that preceded
them. In this sense, the Nazi action was
indeed a reaction (albeit an overreaction) to Jewish revolutionary action.
References
FJ: Freemasonry
and Judaism by Vicomte Leon de Poncins
JD: Judaism
Discovered by Michael Hoffman
JDWG: Jewish
Domination of Weimar Germany by Eckart Verlag
JRS: The
Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by E. Michael
Jones
LD: Libido
Dominandi by E. Michael Jones
SBC: The
Secret Behind Communism by David Duke
[1] “In
the printed edition of the Talmud, words like "goy" or "nokhri",
two terms meaning non-Jew, were changed by censors to the word “Cuthean” that
came to refer to any idolaters, without relation to the original Cutheans.” http://www.schechter.edu/AskTheRabbi.aspx?ID=477
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)