Holy Moses, what is all this?


As a reaction to the BBC’s “putting the Hamas side word for word” yesterday, I wrote:

Which Israel was it?  Given that there are three sides of politics – whoever the combatants are and then Them, who was ordering the atrocities?  Have you ever looked at Jewish belief?  There is the religious type, the secular Jew and then the Jewish Kabbalah that Madonna so adores, enough to mock a crucifix at a Moscow “concert”.

This prompted Mark Wadsworth to say he doesn’t do conspiracy theories and he’s quite right to a point.  Nor do I.  I prefer to research something and look at the evidence either way, as regular readers know.

So what is the evidence in the case of the Jews?  How could Hitler’s officers escort a Rothschild across the border out of Germany and go on to murder 6 million Jews?

There are some interesting snippets from various sites which throw light on this.  Robert Wolfe writes:

Some see Zionism as an outgrowth of Judaism, others as its antithesis. In my view, Zionism is Judaism. Judaism is of course a relatively modern concept. Traditionally there was no such thing as Judaism but only the religion of the Jews.  And once people began to argue over the real nature of the religion of the Jews, Judaism was born.

With so many variants – Reconstructionist, Orthodox, Conservative and so on, Wolfe maintains that looking at the Jewish religion post 70AD history:

It was about the expectation that if the Jews performed the mitzvot correctly, the Messiah would come and restore the Jews to the land of their birth. This was the faith which sustained the Jewish people during the long centuries of exile, segregation and persecution.

If there was a difference among Jews, it was between those who passively awaited the coming of the Messiah and those who sought to “force the end” by actions intended to bring about the ingathering of the exiles even without divine intervention.

From the 13th century onwards, those who sought to “force the end” were identified with the teachings of Kabbalah. And central to Kabbalah was a text known as the “Zohar”, which taught that only in the land of Israel could the religion of the Jews reach its full stature.

Starting in the late 15th century in connection with the expulsion from Spain and Portugal and the rise of the Ottoman empire, literally tens of thousands of Kabbalists, most of them Sephardim, did in fact settle in the land of Israel in the “four holy cities” of Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron.

However, the Zionist movement which actually succeeded in bringing about the ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel was predominantly secular in character. Why was this? It was because the religious Zionists could not free themselves from the belief in miracles.

The Kabbalists who settled in the land of Israel continuerd to await the coming of the Messiah once they were there. They failed to develop a realistic program for cultivating the land or defending themselves against Arab aggression because they expected God and the Messiah to solve these problems for them.

The only form of Zionism that could actually succeed was one which had entirely abandoned the expectation of miracles and relied solely on its own strength and capabilities.

So, in a way, Wolfe has shot himself in the foot because he is admitting that the secular Jew is not actually a Jew, placing the State as the summum bonum and abandoning the religious aspect of why they were in the Holy Land in the first place.

G. Neuburger explains about Jews and Zionism:

Who is a Jew? A Jew is anyone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in conformity with Halacha, Jewish religious law.  Apart from the Zionists, the only ones who consistently considered the Jews a race were the Nazis. And they only served to prove the stupidity and irrationality of racism.

There was no way to prove racially whether a Mrs. Muller or a Mr. Meyer were Jews or Aryans (the Nazi term for non-Jewish Germans. The only way to decide whether a person was Jewish was to trace the religious affiliation of the parents or grandparents. So much for the this racial nonsense.

One means of misleading many Jews and all too many non-Jews is the Zionist misuse of names and symbols sacred in Judaism. They use the holy name Israel for their Zionist state. They have named their land acquisition fund with a term that traditionally implies the reward for piety, good deeds, and charitable work. They have adopted as a state symbol the menorah (candlebrum).

What hypocrisy, what perversion it is to have the Israeli army fight under an emblem, the meaning of which is explained in the Tenach (on the occasion of a previous return to the Holy Land) as, “not with armed force and not with power, but in My spirit says the Lord of Hosts.”

The infamous founder of political Zionism, may his name be cursed, who only discovered his own Jewishness because of anti-Semitism displayed at the Dreyfus trial in France, proposed various solutions to what he called the “Jewish problem.” At one point he proposed to resettle the Jews in Uganda. At another he proposed to convert them to Catholicism. He finally hit on the idea of a Judenstaat, an exclusive Jewish state.

Thus from its very beginning Zionism was a result of Anti-Semitism and indeed is completely compatible with it, because Zionists and anti-Semites had (and have) a common goal: To bring all Jews from their places of domicile to the Zionist state, thus uprooting Jewish communities that had existed for hundreds and even thousands of years.

So there are conflicting views here and as a non-Jew [I think], I’m confused.  What is clear is that there is a secular, Statist Judaism which is the one I called Them, in control of Israel at the moment, there are the old Kabbalists who await the Messiah and then there are the ordinary practising Jews.

It is therefore wise to do research from many sources in order to formulate one’s view and the lack of research comes out in this worrying story from the Telegraph today about a particularly brutal murderer sentenced to death:

It later emerged that while deciding whether he should be given the death penalty, jurors consulted the Bible. Four jury members admitted that several copies had been in the jury room and that highlighted passages were passed around.

At one point, a juror reportedly read aloud from a copy, including the passage: “And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.”

The point of the story was for us to have sympathy for a poor chap who was sentenced on the basis of a discredited and bloodthirsty religion – Christianity.  Most Telegraph readers would conclude: “The sooner we’re rid of this religious nonsense, the better,” thereby lumping all modes of thought and philosophy under the same banner to be eliminated or at least separated from the State.  The BBC article, in fact, goes on to make just that point about the separation of religion and State.

There’s only one small pesky problem – that quote is not Christian, it is Jewish.

It comes from Numbers 35:16 and that is one of the five books of the Torah, the Jewish book which is accompanied by the Talmud and other texts in the Jewish religion.  It is included in the Old Testament as a historical document, whereas the tenets of the Christian religion are based on the New Testament and refer to the Old Testament insofar as they are quoted by JC and later by apostles.

The attempts, throughout history, to ascribe violence to Christianity or to use it to justify violence, as in using it to give execution its legitimacy, with a touch of brutality, is not based on any understanding of scripture whatsoever.  Like the post on Jackson Browne and how people believe innuendo and turn it into “fact”, it’s probably as well to do a bit of research and have those facts right in the first place.

Otherwise we have the beginnings of lynch mob mentality which believes whatever people with their own destructive agendas wish you to believe, especially if homespun phrases and rushes to judgement are part and parcel of it.

My references to Them are no flights of fancy.  They are based on just such research as the above – even minimal research turns up the same type of person at the top who is committed to instability and who sees the gathering of the coins as the summum bonum in life, to the exclusion of heritage, nation or religion, such people, as I mentioned in the other post, as Tony Blair.  In terms of heritage, nation and religion, the man is a traitor, pure and simple.

Such people are the ones in control in each nation at the moment.  Scum always rises.  The problem is, good people also rise, until they’re either waylaid, diverted or marginalized in the dog-eat-dog atmosphere in the upper echelons.

Sorry if this offends.

5 comments for “Holy Moses, what is all this?

  1. October 16, 2009 at 10:34

    Knowing how much inaccurate rubbish can be written in even such recent accounts of events as today’s newspapers and books, I have never understood how anyone, anywhere could possibly base any aspect of their life on words written down thousands of years ago by who knows whom, with who knows what agenda to promote. But I do know that, whatever the merits of accepting such ancient guidance at face value (which could be debated endlessly back and forth) it generally leads to trouble. If only we could all wake up to a bright new dawn, say “Oh. Hello!” to each other, and start to ponder a fair way to proceed from here.

  2. October 16, 2009 at 13:38

    Thanks, Andrew.

    Now, there is a commenter who is welcome but is not listening to me. He or she, as I said in the comments section of another post, can’t use the moniker he/she did [a series of letters] because the system is putting it straight to spam. I was lucky to find the comment and they’re all going to spam.

    Today’s was:

    “And all the lot you quoted, and your thoughts, are absolutely incorrect!”

    Fine, not a problem. Now, please specify which thoughts in particular [take, say, three or four of them and fisk them point by point]. I’m more than happy to change my view if shown to be wrong but you need to specify, not make a general catch-all comment.

    However, to do that, you’ll need a name the system will pass.

  3. October 16, 2009 at 14:36

    Hi James. It sounds like you have attracted one of the “You are incorrect because I say so.” Brigade. Or perhaps the “You are incorrect because [my] God said so” Squad. Good luck. And good luck with your RL issues too (which you referred to elsewhere), they do intrude sometime, don’t they?

  4. October 16, 2009 at 17:23

    This is the problem with Anonymous people. It might be my old visitors from the other side, the Anons and so I’m loathe to delete them but on the other hand, they use different emails each time and different IP addresses yet the same name. Have to be treated as Spam.

Comments are closed.