Semitic Controversies (Volume 1, Number 1 [Part I])

Editor’s Foreword


Welcome to the new look Semitic Controversies, a bi-monthly periodical of news and intelligent thought regarding the jews. Your first reaction upon reading these words is probably surprise given the candid statement I have just made above. However please be assured that this is a publication that is dedicated to giving a truly alternative and intelligent differing perspective on the news, history and thought regarding our current times. We are not interested in trying to convince you about a lurid conspiracy emanating from the headquarters of the United Nations and nor are we interested in trying to suggest to you that the jews are inhuman child-eating monsters similar to those many of us, myself included, once thought lived under our beds.

What Semitic Controversies is here to do is to challenge you and bring you an alternate view on world events allowing you to make up your own mind regarding national and world news and events. Necessarily we will focus our attention on the jews as a people, because they are a people that little is really known about despite much being written about them for public consumption. Most of what you have read about the jews has I suspect been very flattering to them and their importance and contribution to civilisation. We at Semitic Controversies do not believe in this vision of the jews as a perfect people and seek to know them as they are rather than how they and their supporters portray them to be.

We have no interest in lying about the jews, but neither do we have a vested interest in making them out to be victimised or unjustly treated when they have not actually been victimised or unjustly treated. However if they were or have been victimised or unjustly treated, which in some instances in their history they have, then we acknowledge that fact. However what are doing here is to review the jews as a people and giving you, as a member of the folk, the opportunity to hear a different, we think more accurate, side of the story. Since, as the old proverb says, there are two sides to every story and you have heard one side of that story. Now please allow us to tell our side of the story as well.

In Semitic Controversies we will often use the terms anti-Semitic and anti-Semitism, particularly in second part of each edition, but is necessary to realise we use these terms to mean somebody who is opposed to Semites. We include both Arabs and the jews, not just the jews, in that term since both Arabs and jews are genetically close to each other (even the ones who look as ostensibly European as you or me) and neither the Arabs or the jews have North America’s or Europe’s interests at heart, but rather their own.

I hope that you find Semitic Controversies an informative publication to read and that it challenges you as an individual to think about things and consider an alternative point of view. Please remember that Semitic Controversies is absolutely free and that we will never ask for any donation or subscription from you: all that we ask is a fair hearing.

Yours truly,

Karl Radl,

Editor of Semitic Controversies Magazine,



News Headlines


Former AIG Chairman Maurice ‘Hank’ Greenberg sues the American Taxpayer


On the 4th of March 2009 the Guardian’s Alan Clark reporting from New York City informed the Guardian’s readership that the jewish former Chairman of the disaster-laden insurance group, AIG, had decided to, in his capacity as a major shareholder, sue his own former company for ‘misrepresenting itself to shareholders’ (i.e. Greenberg)[1]. AIG has gone down in world history has having the largest quarterly loss of all time when it said it lost 62 billion dollars and then has had to be bailed out by the American taxpayer fours to the total amount of 170 billion dollars of public money resulting in a 80 percent taxpayer stake in AIG.

Greenberg accuses AIG of wiping out 2 billion dollars of his personal fortune and is seeking restitution for the loss from the company and some of its senior executives and directors such as former CEO Martin Sullivan. He also claims AIG’s ‘material misrepresentations and omissions’ meant that he bought a considerable number of AIG shares as his ‘retirement package’. However let us think about that for a moment: Greenberg is suing his own former company for his own incompetence and/or bad luck in purchasing AIG shares with his own fortune.

You would think that if you have 2 billion dollars to spend on a ‘retirement package’, as Greenberg did, then you would not be looking for a ‘retirement package’ at all, but rather put the money in a bank managed portfolio, take out a small proportion of it buy a luxury home in Hawaii and leave you enough money to live comfortably on for the rest of your life. Not to mention donating a portion to worthy causes, such as helping feed, clothe and house the poor in New York City, since nobody can reasonably spend 2 billion dollars in a lifetime let alone when they are 83!

Not Hank Greenberg however: he decided he was going to try and make a lot more money.

For what purpose we might ask? He had at least 2 billion dollars!

The answer is simple: sheer greed. In that Greenberg decided he was going to place a large portion of his ‘retirement package’ in AIG as shares in the company presumably hoping to make a considerable return both on share price fluctuations and shareholder dividends distributed by his former company. Greenberg was greedy and he received appropriate judgement as such since he lost the money, which he had sought to make even more money with.

Greenberg however is under strong scrutiny regarding this claim since Greenberg himself was forced to resign in 2005 over allegations of off-balance sheet transactions (i.e. fraud and misrepresenting the financial position of AIG [which he is now trying to sue AIG for!]), which were an indicator of things to come at AIG. Since these off-balance sheet transactions very likely were the beginnings or the maturing of what Ben Bernanke, the jewish chairman of the Federal Reserve, has called ‘huge numbers of irresponsible bets’.

This in itself would be suspicious, but when we consider that Greenberg was the Chairman of AIG between 1968 and 2005 it begins to look like a case of fraud on Greenberg’s part. In that a company does not simply go from one of the world’s biggest companies to making a 62 billion dollar loss in a quarter over the course of three years. This type of commercial change in fortune takes many years, a decade or more, to achieve and with Greenberg having formed the financial products unit, which caused much of the loss, in his time as Chairman and set its business strategy. This same division alone, according to the Examiner, gave the Obama campaign 138,928 dollars in donations and yet is now being protected and molly-coddled by the Obama administration[2] despite its pretend ‘outrage’ over the AIG bonuses that it looked the other way about until there was a public outcry.

Greenberg’s further accusation that after he left AIG a ‘freewheeling’ culture developed also seems completely untenable if we consider that for such a culture of corporate irresponsibility to develop in the first place it must have many years to incubate itself within the company with gradually increasing levels of risk being used in transactions. Then over time this builds up into the considerable imbalance that caused AIG to lose 62 billion dollars in a single quarter. This cannot be built up quickly in even the most pro-risk of environments since brokers will not take more risks than any need to in any transaction in order to secure their bonuses, salary increases and the promotion possibilities for that year. Otherwise said brokers are unlikely to get either unless they are very lucky or astute, which seems extremely unlikely when spread out over a single business unit let alone an entire company of the size of AIG.

Thus Greenberg can hardly blame anyone, but himself for his losses (and is also as a result must bare a considerable amount of the responsibility for this commercial disaster). Since Greenberg would have well known what the strategy was and presumably just how high risk it was, but still he invested 2 billion dollars in his own company as a calculated risk since he either thought to make even more money quickly or he knew the bubble was going to burst and foresaw the possibility of a large legal suit against the US taxpayer who were almost certain to prop up AIG financially by buying it out should it go close to bankruptcy.

As to which of these theories is correct is something we cannot know for certain, but we can suggest that it is one of the two. Since at best Greenberg made a very greedy and ill-timed mistake and at worst Greenberg knowingly bought AIG shares in preparation to launch a suit against the US taxpayer owned AIG.

What business has Hank Greenberg in launching a legal action looking for recompense on losses that are at least his own fault?

It was Greenberg’s personal capital, Greenberg’s personal decision and as a former insider at the highest level for decades he had the information and the contacts to know better. So why must the US taxpayer fund Hank Greenberg’s mistakes? After all he must be held at least partially accountable for the losses at AIG and the resulting need for 170 billion dollars worth of American taxpayer’s money to prop up the company he created and whose downfall he was partially involved in.

So why has Greenberg launched this legal suit?

We come back again to the same answers: utter greed.

Greenberg shouldn’t be trying to clear up, he should be locked up!



Obama Administration gives 1 billion dollars to Jewish Charities


On the 20th March 2009 the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix[3] reported on some of the ways in which the jewish community in Arizona is going to be spending some of the 1 billion dollars that President Obama allotted specifically to jewish social support in his February 2009 Stimulus bill as reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on the 17th of February 2009[4]. The total allotted in the Phoenix area alone is $50,000 and is split out as follows:

‘The Helping Hands Program of Jewish Family & Children's Service, which offers short-term financial assistance to Jewish individuals and families experiencing financial hardship, has been awarded $20,000. Jewish Free Loan's Tzedakah Fund, which provides emergency interest-free loans for Jews who need help paying for rent, utilities, medical bills or other basic necessities, also received $20,000.

The Valley of the Sun Jewish Community Center in Scottsdale and the Barness Family Jewish Community Center in Chandler each received $5,000 to support early childhood education scholarships to families experiencing financial hardship.’[5]

We note here that all the money has not gone into providing what you could be deemed essential services to help jewish families and individuals in times of crisis, but rather into giving jews, and only jews mind you, interest-free loans and offering short term financial assistance. While it is hard to begrudge anyone a helping hand at this time of economic hardship: we have to note that if there was a free loans fund for Europeans only, in order to stop illegal immigrants from queuing up to several streets away for what they regard as ‘free money’, would be attacked as ‘racist’, ‘nazi-like’ and so forth. However when jews have such a fund for jews alone: it is suddenly not ‘racist’ or ‘nazi-like’.

What we have to realise here is that this is not a religious foundation in the sense of a Catholic charity where the recipients have to be religious Catholics. Jews that apply for loans only have to be jews under jewish religious law, or halakha, which means that born jews (i.e. with a jewish mother or a jewish father of a priestly line) who are non-observant or are converts to other religions. The definition of a jew to jews is a biological one and not so much to do with whether the born jew in question is observant or not.

So therefore is this not a double standard on the part of the jewish community? In that some jews, most like converts, would happily use Catholic and other religious social relief agencies, but yet know that if they can also get help from jewish social relief agencies, because they were born as jews. This would thus allow them to be able to claim social relief from two (or more) agencies at once by registering at a jewish agency and also at a Christian agency for example. What is there to stop them doing so: considering that the jewish agency uses a biological definition of who a jew is and a Christian organisation would use a religious definition (although Christian organisations may well open their doors to non-Christians as well as part of fulfilling the mission of Christ)?

What can be done about this travesty?

The answer is that there is not much that can be done: since that a family or individual has registered with two different agencies of differing faiths is hard to evidence, especially since jewish social relief agencies are notorious for being unforthcoming about who they are helping. The only way to stop such a problem would be for non-jewish social relief agencies to refuse jews, even if converts, aid on the grounds that they could get the same aid from jewish social relief organisations who have just received 1 billion dollars from the Obama administration for the very purpose of helping support jews during the deep economic depression that we have now entered.

Regarding the split I have cited above: we can also wonder as to why 10,000 dollars is being allotted to ‘early childhood education scholarships’ for these are not essential by any means. How can this be considered to be essential relief since that is just giving jewish children opportunities, which a non-jewish child of European descent would not have. Why cannot jewish children go to public schools like other children? Why is American taxpayers money going towards funding jewish children to go to jewish schools: when surely the jewish community should foot the bill for such a scheme not the American taxpayer.

The double standard here is both astounding and worrying at the same time in that 10,000 dollars could have been used to feed dozens of hungry families in New York City or in Phoenix for a considerable period of, but rather is being used to fund jewish children going to jewish schools. We cannot help but find that completely disturbing. When Catholic families wish to send their children to Catholic schools more often than not they have to pay to do so and that means sacrifice on the part of the Catholic family to do so. So then why must Catholic families sacrifice, scrimp and save to allow their children to be educated at Catholic schools, while jewish families can get taxpayer-funded scholarships to jewish schools?

We can only suggest this as a government funded discrimination against non-jews to the benefit of jews. Since the funding for this scheme has been given by the Obama administration as part of its ‘Stimulus’ package for the Medicaid program. One has to wonder why the Obama administration would give 1 billion out of 87 billion dollars to jews so that they can have this special ‘social relief’ that I have cited above. Of course: this money is for jew-only social relief services and is not for non-jews, but importantly these jews still have access to all the other benefits in the social relief system, but yet they still receive a very large amount of American taxpayer's money for their own jewish-specific programs.

For an administration that preaches inclusion and anti-discrimination: the Obama administration is very discriminatory against non-jews and those of European descent, especially in its allocation of funds and services, which primarily go to jews and other non-Europeans such as Mexicans, Negroes and American Indians. This unfortunately does not bode will for the many European families who are left out of the Obama administrations largesse, because they worked hard and own their own homes, but now have been left close to destitute by irresponsible financial companies, which seem on the face of it to have predominately jewish leadership and owners. I shall leave you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions from this…



National News


Bernard Madoff’s Accountant on Fraud Charge


Bernard Madoff’s former jewish accountant, David Friehling, the owner of Friehling & Horowitz, has been charged for aiding and abetting Madoff’s Ponzi scheme the BBC reported on the 18th of March 2009[6]. Friehling was arraigned on fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and four counts of filing false audit reports. Madoff has always insisted that he acted alone in his destructive financial transactions, but this has always seemed unlikely and Friehling as Madoff’s accountant is unlikely to have not known about the scheme. The charge by prosecutors merely confirms what many have unfortunately suspected since the Madoff Ponzi scheme was revealed to the public: that the corruption was more widespread than just Bernard Madoff.

We would not be surprised if it was discovered that there were other apparently financially astute individuals involved on the inside of this scheme since the scheme itself allowed Madoff and anyone on the inside of it to make very large sums of money very quickly. We can only state that we hope that all the perpetrators of this fraud are brought to justice.

One question that has been on lips recently regarding the Madoff case has been as to why he hasn’t tried to strike a deal with US prosecutors regarding testimony as to the others who were involved. Madoff simply repeats that he is ‘sorry’ and then takes all the dubious credit for managing one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history and one of the most destructive.

The reason Madoff didn’t turn in Friehling and his other potential jewish accomplices is two fold.

Firstly: we expect US prosecutors do not wish to cut a deal with Madoff, but rather make an example of him, because of the damage he has caused to many wealthy, often jewish, individuals and institutions.

Secondly: we suspect that Madoff wishes to be seen as a financial genius who single-handedly master-minded one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history and was able to single-handedly tip the world’s top economies from growth to recession. This wouldn’t be true of course, but Madoff wishes to take the credit so he can flatter his own ego and go down in history as a genius albeit an evil one in the eye of millions. Thus allowing him to be remembered for something that he is not, i.e. a genius, and gaining for Madoff in his eyes the status that he craves.

I would suggest the thing to be done with Madoff and his wife, who abided and abetted in his conduct, to give them a trial with the death penalty as the possible sentence. The death penalty should be on the table, because of the extremely destructive nature of their actions and to serve as a warning to others planning other such dishonest schemes, which hurt the American people. Only when there is a real punishment in place, as opposed to the current slap on the wrist, for such individuals can we hope to make con men think twice about their actions. All of Madoff’s money should then go towards social relief for the poor, the homeless, the destitute and those who do not have millions of dollars who have been left near bankruptcy, directly or indirectly, by Bernard Madoff and not to replace the lost money of the, largely jewish, individuals and organisations the collapse of his Ponzi scheme left out of pocket.



Head of American Jewish Committee libels the United States


David Harris, the jewish head of the influential American Jewish Committee, testified on the 19th of March 2009 to the House of Representatives that the United States had a hand in the supposed deaths of hundreds of thousands of jews during the ‘holocaust’ in World War Two[7]. Harris was speaking in support of legislation introduced by Democratic Representative Robert Wexler of Florida, which seeks to create a special category of refugee policy, i.e. preferred status, in regards to jews fleeing Europe for asylum in the United States.

Harris states that because of ‘anti-Semitic prejudice’ America refused many jews the chance to immigrate to the United States and therefore caused their deaths indirectly and that because of this the United States has a responsibility to the jewish people to aid them in any way the jewish people see fit. Harris is supporting a policy, which would give jews preferred status as refugees as opposed to others: surely this anti-gentile is as bad or worse than the discrimination that he is alleging caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of jews. So why does David Harris support discrimination in favour of jews with an argument about the discrimination in favour of jews.

Either David Harris is a hypocrite or is an advocate of something much more sinister, but the question still remains: why jews?



Anti-Defamation League attacks Sheriff who is accused of anti-Immigrant Bias


The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix on the 20th of March 2009 reported that the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, an organisation that only recruits jewish members yet champions ‘anti-discrimination’ political positions and was the subject of much controversy in 1993 when it was found to have been compiling dossiers with confidential information from security and police informants on American politicans, citizens, corporations and organisations (this was settled out of court by the ADL in 1999), has welcomed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund’s suit against Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office on the grounds of ‘racial profiling’[8].

The controversy stems from the Sheriff’s use of a local law, which allows the department to arrest individuals on suspicion of breaching federal immigration law. The system, implemented through a policy of arrest suspects first and then find out if they are illegal or legal migrants, is controversial, because it takes a tough approach to the problem of undocumented illegal immigrants, which have in recently years overwhelmed Arizona and many other states. The charge by these ‘civil rights’ organisations: is that the Sheriff’s Office is ‘racially profiling’ suspects.

We can answer this accusation rather simply: how is the Sheriff’s Office supposed not to ‘racially profile’ suspects when the illegal immigrants are to be found in Arizona are from central and south America. It is self-evident from the fact that Arizona is near Mexico and not Europe or China that almost all illegal immigrants are going to be of Mexican or Latin American origin so therefore those groups are going to be by far the most targeted by the Sheriff’s Office. This simple fact should be understandable, but apparently not for the Anti-Defamation League, its Mexican friends or the borderline Communist ACLU.

What does these organisations want the Sheriff’s Office to do: arrest a few hundred Europeans whom they know are very unlikely to in the United States illegally in order to make the numbers balance? Is this kind of act congruent with ‘civil liberties’ as well as not being ‘racial profiling’?

I very much doubt it, but never-the-less these organisations wish to force their views onto a Sheriff’s Office, which is a doing a good job in difficult circumstances to keep the flood of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Latin America at bay. So why are these organisations persecuting this Sheriff’s Office?

We suspect it is because they are ideologically oriented towards making sure that American industry turns to cheaper Mexican and Latin American labourers rather than native European labour. The question that remains is as to why these organisations are allowed to get away with such actions?

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions from the Anti-Defamation League’s actions…



Political News


The Lobby Falters by John Mearsheimer[9]


(Editors Note: It is not my practice to reprint articles and certainly not from copyright publications, but in this case I am making an exception. Since Professor Mearsheimer’s short article for the London Review of Books is so excellent a summation on this issue than I wish to allow you to read it for yourself. Please note for copyright purposes that Semitic Controversies is a completely free publication and exercises no interest in or claim on the copyright for this article, which belongs to the London Review of Books, but we do wish for it to more widely read: hence our republication of it here. The following is Professor Mearsheimer’s work and I have not added to or amended it in anyway.)

Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates: Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but he has publicly criticised Israeli policy and America’s special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that ‘as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.’ Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalise the intelligence community, which had been very politicised in the Bush years.

Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama. The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman’s views of the Middle East, he said, ‘are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship’. Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.

The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’) wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer. ‘I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,’ Schumer said, ‘and I am glad they did the right thing.’ It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman’s finances. In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment ‘beyond the pale’. Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama’s pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.

The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman’s resignation. The Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organisation ‘took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it’. The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman’s resignation was something dreamed up by ‘Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists’.

In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hardline supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac. Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwards: ‘Of course I recognise that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.’ Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen’s role in bringing Freeman down.

On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair. There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: ‘The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.’

Freeman’s critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close – maybe even improper – ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn’t stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it. Israel’s supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.

Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position? Here’s one reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.

An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.

When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’

Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.



Business News


Madoff’s Former Clients to get IRS Assistance


The New York Times of the 19th of March 2009 has reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRC) will be allowing those who made losses at the hands of the jewish investment fraudster, Bernard Madoff, to claim a tax deduction based on the quantity of their losses[10]. The plan was announced by the jewish Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Douglas Shulman, who stated that the Madoff case was ‘tragic’ and this case raised a substantial number of ‘tax issues’. The plan is ostensibly to allow those who made substantial losses to submit their tax returns without having to worry about the aftershocks that might still be felt in their finances as a result of the Madoff scandal.

What is of note to us here is that of the 13,000 Madoff clients this will only apply to the big losers, such as the banks, but most particularly the large amount of wealthy jews and jewish institutions who, like Maurice Greenberg with his AIG shares, tried to ‘get rich quick’. Notable examples include Yeshiva University, which reported a loss of 400 million dollars, and Elie Wiesel’s foundation, which had its entire endowment all but wiped out[11].

Wiesel in particular is now appealing for non-jews to re-fund his foundation to promote ‘holocaust education’, but then we must ask why Wiesel, who has admitted to the rape and murder of German girls in the first (Yiddish) edition of his work, ‘Night’[12], wishes to educate Americans about the ‘holocaust’ since what possible real value does such education have for Americans? Surely their time would be better spent learning about the Renaissance, classical Rome or ancient Greece than the jewish ‘holocaust’? The American taxpayers should allow jews, or Wiesel himself, to fund Wiesel’s fund if they so wish, but should not give any of their hard-earned money to help ‘holocaust education’, but rather on feeding, clothing and looking after their families at this troubling time.

What is particularly interesting about this IRS leniency is that it essentially allows those who suffered heavily at the hands of Madoff to write off large amounts of taxes, which they would have had to pay, on income that they never received. This as you will well be able to imagine is extremely open to abuse since who is to say that you wouldn’t have received much more income from Madoff’s Ponzi scheme than you would have actually done. Although we suspect and hope the highly professional IRS will stop some of these claims we are doubtful due to scale of the work and investigation required that the IRS will be able to stop all or even a majority of these dubious tax-exempt claims.

We can reasonably suggest that there will be a large number of wealthy jewish individuals and organisations sitting down with their accounts trying to find a loophole in this generous act in order to regain as much of their wealth as possible by declaring their losses with Madoff were higher than they were in order to gain tax-exempt status on more of their income/fortune.

What is also notable is that the Stanford investment fraud scheme, which cost investors some 8 billion dollars, will not according to the New York Times be receiving the same treatment. Why we might ask would the two schemes not receive the same treatment? The excuse quoted in the New York Times article is that with Madoff there was criminality involved and with Stanford there is no evidence of criminality being involved.

But hang on a moment: the New York Times quoted Shulman as stating then this measure was necessary due to the ‘tax issues’ that were raised by the Madoff scheme collapsing for investors, and thus warranted a tax exemption. However with the similar Stanford scheme, which again collapsed leaving investors considerably out of pocket, these same ‘tax issues’ are not a problem. This seems rather odd in so far as there are two Ponzi schemes both of which result in massive losses for investors, but yet one set of investors are given tax breaks, while the other set are not.
We have no concrete information as to why this might, but it might be reasonably suggested to be because one set of investors (the Madoff investors) contain a large number of jews, but the other set contain far less jews and more non-jews (the Stanford investors). Since that would seem to be the only difference: however we will endeavour to bring you updates regarding this double standard in each issues as we investigate.



Ex-KB Home CEO on Fraud Charge


Bruce Karatz, the jewish former Chairman and Chief Executive of KB Home from 1986 to 2006, has been indicted in front of a grand jury on charges of manipulating stock options the Los Angeles Times revealed on the 6th of March 2009[13]. Karatz is accused of gaining an additional 232 million dollars to his fortune by illegally manipulating his retirement package by backdating his stock options to a date when they much lower in value. To give some perspective as to the scale of Karatz’s gain on his shares the Los Angeles Times reports that he made a profit of between 1.63 and 4.56 dollars per share and when you translate that up into the tens if not hundreds of thousands of shares that Karatz owns it becomes evident just how corrupt Karatz’s use of this practice was.

This is in itself a legal practice, but when granting these backdated stock options a company, such as KB Home, must account for them in an honest and open way, pay taxes on them and report the backdating to shareholders. Karatz as you might expect, along with several other key shareholders, did not do this meaning that when the backdating was publicly revealed (ten years after the practice was begun) KB Home was forced to adjust its accounts by 70 million dollars, because of Karatz’s personal avarice and greed. Karatz stole from KB Home, the other shareholders and the American taxpayer, because he wanted to increase his personal fortune and simply didn’t care who he hurt to do so.

To give some further perspective to Karatz’s avarice and greed we need only look at his take home pay in 2005, the penultimate last year he was chairman and CEO of KB Home, was 6.3 million dollars and that year he also made an additional 150 million dollars for himself mainly using his backdated stock options for that year. It forces us to wonder just how much money Karatz actually has?

In so far as he was head of KB Home for twenty years and has had an exorbitant pay scale with huge bonuses (judging from the 150 million dollars he managed to earn in addition to his income from KB Home in 2005) so it would be reasonable to suggest he has at least 500 million dollars to his name. So what one immediately asks, as with Maurice ‘Hank’ Greenberg’s case that we reported on earlier in this issue, why did this jewish man try to get even more money when he could have happily retired and then spent a portion of his money on helping the poor, the homeless and the hungry, especially those struggling to cope with the world wide economic depression that we now in the thrall of.

Karatz has, predictably, denied the allegations declaring through his lawyer, John Keker, as follows:

‘We are disappointed that during this economic collapse the government chooses to waste its resources on backdated options, an issue that has long ago been fixed at KB Home and generally in the corporate world.’[14]

In this statement we can see that Karatz is seeking to create a conspiracy theory that the government is trying to use him as a scapegoat. It might seem like the prepared statement that we have just quoted sounds rational, but then we must wonder what the implications of taking it at face value are. In so far as it is suggests to the reader that Karatz is being unfairly prosecuted in a matter which has been long resolved and that precious government resources and taxpayers money is being used to take revenge on some in the ‘corporate world’. Thus we see the implication of Karatz’s words being that there is a conspiracy against him personally and that he is just the victim of malicious tongues and minds in the government. Thus Karatz portrays himself as a completely innocent and upstanding businessman who is being persecuted because of the economic climate. Therefore trying to deflect any responsibility for what he did onto the US government.

It is worth noting that the matter is evidently not ‘resolved with KB Home’ since Karatz has lost them 70 million dollars and has only paid 13 million dollars back to KB Home from his backdating gains of 232 million dollars. So there is quite a lot of unfinished business with Karatz since he still owes the American taxpayer and KB Home a large amount of money that he is seeking to keep for himself.

It would seem to be a reoccurring trend in so far as men and women of jewish descent seem to be particularly enthralled by avarice and greed coupled with a belief that they ‘shouldn’t be prosecuted’ since they ‘have done nothing wrong’ and are the victims of ‘persecution’ and ‘conspiracies’. Indeed: perhaps they haven’t done anything wrong in their eyes, because after all they are the ‘Chosen people’ and are in their own religion and culture supposedly a cut above the rest of the world.

We await the results of Karatz’s trial with interest and we can only hope that justice will be done.



Agriprocessors owners maintain they are the victims of ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy’


Jim Clarity, an attorney representing the jewish former owners of Agriprocessors kosher meat-packing plant in Iowa (in particular jewish Rubashkin family), which is the largest kosher meat-packing plant in the United States, has, according to the Daily Iowan of the 10th of March 2009, been trying to defend his indefensible jewish clients by claiming that they are facing anti-Semitic persecution and comparing their situation that of the jews of Poland when faced with the ‘holocaust’[15]. The jewish men who formerly owned the now bankrupt Agriprocessors are charged with a long list of offences, which include document fraud, identity theft, bank fraud, money laundering and harbouring illegal immigrants. There have been also charges of sexual and physical abuse, the non-payment of wages and the refusal of medical attention to employees.

In addition to these charges the Village Voice of 2nd of December 2008[16] has suggested that the Rubashkin’s, right across the numerous companies they owned, engaged in anti-competitive mafia-like practices, including threats of physical violence, manipulation of the kosher certification system, collusion to prevent suppliers supplying their competitors. In addition even this Agriprocessors have been indicted for 9,000 counts of breaking the laws relating to the use of child labour. Also Agriprocessors were fined a total of 600,000 dollars for polluting Iowa’s sewage system by dumping the wastewater from their slaughterhouses into the sewers and considerably increasing the burden on the taxpayer who had to pay for the lengthy and costly cleaning of the water concerned before it could be used again.

Further to this Agriprocessors was found in 2006 to have been bribing USDA inspectors with free meat and then proceeded to try and defend itself by declaring that both People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the USDA Secretary General was attacking them as part of an ‘anti-Semitic libel about kosher slaughter being torture’[17].

Clarity perpetuates this idea of yet another conspiracy against jews in his arguments that the people of the state of Iowa are ‘anti-Semitic’ and that the Rubashkins will not receive a fair trial because of this ‘anti-Semitic prejudice’. One wonders how Mr. Clarity has the bare-faced cheek to suggest that the people of Iowa would not give the Rubashkins a fair trial considering that the Rubashkin’s have hurt, endangered, abused and now libelled the American taxpayers of Iowa with their slanderous accusations. The people have Iowa have as much right as any other state to try the Rubashkins!

We also should consider the fact that the story of the Agriprocessors was national news a number of times during the last few years and that therefore if we are to follow Clarity’s logic: the entire American people cannot give the Rubashkins a fair trial, because they are steeped in ‘anti-Semitic prejudice’. Perhaps Clarity wishes to apply for his clients to be tried in Israel, only to be acquitted on the technicality that their crimes were outside Israel jurisdiction. We suspect even if tried in Israel the Rubashkins would still be complaining about an ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy’ and maintaining that they ‘did nothing wrong’ and/or ‘it wasn’t their fault’.

We would expect at least one member of this jewish family to stand up and say: ‘Yes, we did it. We apologise to you and honestly wish to make a mends.’ However no such honest statement or commitment has been forthcoming and this jewish family has merely declared that there is an ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy’ against them and that they should not be treated as any other citizen would be, because they are jews and therefore the victim of eternal injustices (even when they are the ones committing the injustices).

No: the good people of Iowa, and indeed of America, deserve justice and the Rubashkins must have justice meted out to them for their unfathomable crimes in supporting illegal immigrants, abusing the people of Iowa and corrupting state and federal officials.

The lesson here is that when you see kosher produce in the supermarket or your locals shops then think of Agriprocessors and what they did to the good people of Iowa as well as that they supported the illegal immigrant invasion of America. When you buy kosher you are supporting the illegal immigrant invasion of America: so please do not buy any kosher products and support your local butchers, bakers, farmers and shopkeepers as much as possible by buying only non-kosher brands.



Mortgage Broker in 216 Million Dollar Fraud


Jewish mortgage broker, Bruce Friedman, has been charged with defrauding his investors of 216 million dollars in Los Angeles according to the ‘Jewish Journal’ of the 5th of March 2009[18]. Mortgage payers and investors money was diverted to fund Friedman’s risky personal financial ventures and at least 17 million dollars of this money was further misdirected into supporting Friedman’s luxurious lifestyle. This money was used in the words of the ‘Jewish Journal’ to purchase ‘luxury home, cars, vacations, jewelry, and designer clothing for himself and an alleged girlfriend.’[19]

Little more by way of analysis needs to be added here, but we might again ask the question: why are so many of these financial fraudsters, who victimise the American people, abuse their trust with their mortgages, steal their children’s college funds and then claim that they are being ‘unreasonably persecuted’, jews? It cannot help but make you wonder: why?



Crime in the News


Hasid in New York Rape and Child Pornography case given Lenient Sentence


David Silverman, a 23 year old Hasidic jew, has been found guilty of rape, sodomy and child endangerment charges by a New York court the New York Post of the 20th of March 2009[20] has reported. Silverman and two jewish friends befriended and groomed three non-jewish girls, aged 14 to 15, from Westchester County on Myspace convincing them to meet at an illegal club. Silverman and his two jewish friends then proceeded to get the three underage girls drunk and then raped them in a depraved orgy, which they filmed for their personal pleasure and to further degrade the underage girls.

We can also reasonably suggest that the film of the event was meant to act as a threat so that if the girls told the police or their parents the film would be placed on the internet to be viewed by millions resulting in extreme embarrassment for the girls and their families resulting in the complete destruction of the good reputation of both the girls and their families.

Silverman was, at the time, in a rebellious phase and had temporarily abandoned his Hasidic upbringing and had tattooed himself as well as having both his ears pierced. It is not stated whether Silverman’s fellows jews were similarly attired, but we may reasonably presume that they were. Hence the girls would have been unlikely to realise that the men who had groomed them to be raped were actually jews who would later then deny having done anything wrong as if it were the most natural thing in the world.

Silverman, when confronted and accused about the rape, consistently maintained that he had not had sexual intercourse with the gentile girls as he was now a Hasidic jew and such acts are viewed as acts of impurity limiting the chances of a Hasidic jews chances of a good brokered marriage. Silverman further stated that he was too devout a jew to deal with the charges of rape and child pornography that were made against him claiming that he was just ‘too holy’ to engage in such behaviour.

This extremely egotistical defence on Silverman’s part combined an attempt at justifying while denying his actions in so far as by suggesting he was ‘too holy’ to deal with charges and be prosecuted. Hence Silverman invokes Judaism as a rationale for both his actions and his inability to stand trial. Yet Silverman also stated that he didn’t perform the actions: when we combine this with his invocation of Judaism then we come up with the following simple, but very disturbing formulation on Silverman’s part:

1) I did not commit the acts that I am charged with.

2) If I did commit the acts I am charged with then these acts are justified by Judaism and because of this I am too holy to be prosecuted.

It is notable that this second formulation was only given when the police found a number of separate videos of the rape of the drunk underage girls on now supposedly ‘too holy’ Silverman’s computer, which he had kept as a trophy of the rapes as well to allow him to keep the girl’s silent. It is also likely that Silverman in his private moments re-watched the rapes of these children for his own personal enjoyment when he was supposed to be denying himself such dubious ‘pleasures’.

Silverman’s two jewish associates however have not been apprehended are intimated to be hiding in Israel protected by their families and friends from having to face trial and punishment for their actions. You might be expect Israel to be actively co-operating in America’s hunt for these two child rapists, but apparently co-operation from the Israeli police has not been forthcoming. We have to wonder why the United States’ ‘key ally’ in the Middle East won’t hand over two jewish child rapists to American justice. It does make you wonder just how much of an ‘ally’ Israel is: does it not?

What we have not sign, again very disturbingly, is a condemnation of Silverman from his Hasidic leaders, which would expect considering they wouldn’t wish to be associated with a jewish man who had raped three underage non-jewish girls and then proceeded to keep a film of it now that he was actively involved in Hasidim once again. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions from this apparent silent consent on the part of the Hasidim towards the rape over underage gentile girls: since this speaks for itself.

However perhaps even worse than silent consent is that Silverman will only receive a light sentence of 1 to 4 years in prison, with the likelihood of reductions for time served and parole, but according to the 1995 Department of Justice study on rape cases. The average sentence for a convicted rapist was 11.8 years and the average time served was 5.8 years[21]. Yet Silverman will be only be sentenced to a maximum of a third of the average sentence and two thirds of the average time served for the sentence!

This is an absolutely astounding figure considering that Silverman has raped three underage girls and video of the rapes, clearly showing Silverman’s participation in the rapes themselves as well as the filming of them, was found in his possession. We can only suggest that the New York judiciary are giving Silverman a light sentence, because they are frightened of being accused by the Hasidic community of ‘anti-Semitism’ in a similar strategy to that used by Agriprocessors attorney, Jim Clarity, discussed earlier in this issue.



News from Israel


The Israeli Elections


It has been a tumultuous month in the state of Israel with the Israeli elections to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, showing a marginal victory of one seat for the Kadima party (28 seats in the Knesset), which was followed closely by the Likud party (27 seats in the Knesset). What has been talked about in most of the papers this month has not been so much whether two jewish parties, varying only in their emphasis of which types of jew that they will grant favours to and what their rhetoric is on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather the ‘surprise breakthrough’ of a viciously anti-gentile party: Yisrael Beiteinu (15 seats in the Knesset).

Due to the lack of a clear victor in the Israeli elections there was a choice for Israeli President Shimon Peres to make. That choice was who to ask to form the next Israeli government. Although Kadima technically ‘won’ the Israeli election: they have less of an ability to create a coalition government since the majority of other parties who have won seats in the Knesset are on or close to the Israeli ‘far right’. Yisrael Beiteinu simply are the largest of these parties such as Shas (11 seats in the Knesset), which draws its support from ultra-Orthodox and Sephardi jews; National Union (4 seats in the Knesset), which draws its support from Israeli ultra-Nationalists and settlers (of which Yisrael Beiteinu was a part); Jewish Home (3 seats in the Knesset), which draws its support from religious Zionists; and United Torah Judaism (5 seats in the Knesset), which draws its support from religious ultra-Nationalists and religious Israeli settlers.

When we total up these figures out of the 120 seats in the Knesset then 27 seats belong to the traditional Israeli ‘right’, while 37 seats belong to the numerous factions of the Israeli ‘far right’, which adds up to 65 seats in the Knesset which means that approximately 54 percent of the Knesset members of any potential governing coalition, if Kadima and Likud do not reach a political deal, would from members of virulently anti-gentile and often openly genocidal political parties.

On the political ‘left’ in addition to the ‘centre left’ Kadima party (28 seats in the Knesset) there is the socialistically inclined Labour party (13 seats in the Knesset), the Israeli Social Democratic party ‘Meretz’ (3 seats in the Knesset), the Israeli Arab parties ‘Balad’ (3 seats in the Knesset) and the United Arab List ‘Ta’al’ (4 seats in the Knesset) as well as the redoubtable Israeli communist party: ‘Hadash’ (4 seats in the Knesset). When we total up these figures we find that out of the 120 seats in the Knesset: 41 seats (34 percent) belong to the traditional Israeli ‘left’, while 7 seats (6 percent) belong to Israeli Arabs and the remaining 10 seats (8 percent) are divided between the three parties representing the various and nefarious forms of jewish communism in Israel.

A deal between Kadima and Likud seems possible, but unlikely when we note that Kadima leader and current Israeli foreign minister the former Mossad ‘house sitter’ Tzipi Lvini has made part of her requirement for a coalition government that Likud accept a ‘two state solution’ to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would go explicitly against Likud’s hard-line Zionist ideology, grassroots opinion and the very principles upon which Likud rested its election campaign. It would also mean that the Israeli ‘far right’ would be increasingly alienated from Likud, because such a ‘two state solution’ is viciously rejected by these parties who campaign for the brutal repression and sometimes for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (and often Arabs in general). Therefore Benjamin Netanyahu (or ‘Bibi’ as he is known in Israel) can realistically either chose to ally with the Israeli ‘far right’ or choose to compromise and join with Kadima and Labour to form a government.

Whether Netanyahu will compromise with Kadima and another party such as Labour is uncertain, but was confirmed on the 16th of March 2009 that a deal has been struck with Yisrael Beiteinu so that Avigdor Lieberman, a former Moldovan night club bouncer and minister in Ariel Sharon’s 2001 coalition government whom is currently being investigated for fraud by Israeli police, could become the next Israeli foreign minister as well as deputy prime minister if no compromise deal is struck between Kadima and Likud.

The deal between Yisrael Beiteinu and Likud could result in 5 cabinet minister posts for Yisrael Beiteinu’s MKs: foreign affairs, internal security, infrastructure, tourism and immigrant’s integration, which are all key ministerial posts in any Israeli government. This indicates just how powerful Yisrael Beiteinu’s bargaining position with Likud in fact is, because in order to Yisrael Beiteinu’s co-operation as the third largest party in the Knesset could make or break the solid ‘right wing’ coalition that Netanyahu and Likud wish to establish at present. This power to make or break the coalition, as well as the importance of the positions extorted from Netanyahu by Lieberman also means that Lieberman has a considerable influence on policy in general suggesting that there will be an increase in hard-line rhetoric and brutal repression both of those European and American well-intended but ultimately mistaken peace activists who have gone to Israel to try to convince the jews of Israel not to kill anything or anybody who gets in their way.

This is an interesting development in Israeli politics in so far as this breakthrough victory for the ‘far right’ in Israel against their traditional rivals on the ‘right’, Likud, indicates an increasing polarisation and the shift of Israeli society away from the façade that Israel is not a genocidal state using the holocaust industry to deflect any and all criticism to the idea of a militant Revisionist Zionist state dedicated to maintaining Israel’s hegemony over the Middle East by ensuring increasingly close links with jewish lobbyists for Israel in both North America and Europe. The idea that jews are the victims of anti-Semitism will increasingly begin to fade and the shift to the correct perception that the jews are the cause of anti-Semitic feeling will begin to take place. This will not take place without a fight unfortunately however since Israel’s paid lobbyists and the other jews around the world, Zionist or anti-Zionist, will cry wolf that there is a ‘second holocaust’ in the air in vain attempts to divert criticism from their person by raising the phantom spectre of a proven historical nonsense.

Further to this it was announced on the 24th of March 2009 that the Labour Party, lead by Ehud Barak, will provisionally join Netanyahu’s Likud coalition with Yisrael Beiteinu and the Shas Party[22]. It has been rumoured that Barak will continue in the position of Defence Minister that he also held in the departing Kadima ruling coalition. Barack was directly responsible for the atrocities deliberately committed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and even though the Labour party is politically inclined towards socialism: it is also quite ‘right wing’ in terms of defence and Israel’s national pride.

It is notoriously hard to accurately predict the future, but we might reasonably suggest that what course Israel will take in the near future will be dictated by the world events surrounding the largely jewish-created economic downturn, but also by a militant ideology, which would easily result in Israel threatening Europe and North America with its nuclear weapons if it does not get its way as well as advocating that its jewish support base in North America and Europe use its influence to fight against any measure, no matter how slight, which contradicts with Israel’s regional and global aspirations to be a superpower to match the common idea among jews that they are superior to gentiles are entitled to do or be anything they please regardless of the methods that they use to get to that proposed end.

In short: the world needs to do something about not only Israel, but the jewish Diaspora in general since without the jewish Diaspora and its explicit choice to help Israel either by defending its genocidal actions, supporting Israel by its general jewish advocacy, the regular complaints about the lack of ‘holocaust education’, the diverting of the American taxpayers money to jewish support groups as well as then Israeli government then Israel and the jewish people would not have been able to actively campaign to use American and European soldiers to fight a war on Israel’s behalf in the Middle East.



Moshe Katsav and the Rape of Tel Aviv


Former Israeli President Moshe Katsav has, in the latest twist of the saga of the rape charges laid by four jewesses that he employed while he was President of Israel, gone into hysterics once and again is suggesting that there is an active conspiracy against him inside the Israeli police, judiciary and the media. Now, while we might agree that some jews act conspiratorially, is Katsav seriously suggesting that these four jewesses suddenly made up these stories about him that were concordant enough for the attorney general of Israel in 2007, Menachem Mazuz, to state publicly that there was enough evidence to bring charges against the Israeli head of state!

After all on the 23rd of January 2007, when these rape charges were thought corroborated enough to bring charges, Katsev’s lawyers stated, according to the BBC, that Katsav ‘was innocent and charges would be dropped after the attorney general heard Mr Katsav's side of the story’[23] and ‘the president [Katsav] believes that everyone will see that he is the victim of false charges’[24]. Evidently Mazuz decided that whatever excuses, threats or generous financial offer that Katsav made to him were simply not good enough and proceeded with the investigation and preparing the prosecution for the time when Katsav was no longer in office and protected by an immunity from being charged with crimes under Israeli law.

This was followed on the 29th June 2007 by Katsav’s resignation as the President and Head of State of Israel after he pleaded guilty, after having made a plea bargain, on the 28th June 2007 to two charges of sexual misconduct on condition that the two rape charges were dropped and that he escapes any jail time since rape carries a maximum sentence of 16 years in prison in Israel. At the time of this development Katsav’s lawyer, Zion Amir, was quoted by the BBC as suggesting that Katsav had been through enough.[25]

Then on the 28th April 2008, in a relatively innovative move on Katsav’s part, he announced that he was abandoning the controversial plea bargain and was going to prove his innocence. The Associated Press reported that this change of heart was due to Katsav’s lawyers having persuaded the former Israeli President that the Israeli authorities didn’t have enough evidence to convict him of the crimes. We suspect that this sudden tout face on the part of Katsav’s lawyers is due to their wish to charge their sweating client as many shekels as possible regardless of the outcome without any actual care as to whether Katsav actually has a fighting chance of being judged innocent of the charges or as to whether their client is innocent or guilty.

However Katsav’s latest claim that he is not only innocent, but there is an active conspiracy against him, suggests that he is becoming increasingly unhinged and is in denial about any sexual indiscretions he may have committed. Since if there was no basis for even the minor charges in 2007 then why did Katsav agree to a plea bargain and resign in the first place?

If Katsav was innocent it would have been a simple matter to prove himself as such, but because he is very likely not innocent and is cannibalised by his fellow jews: in the form of his lawyers. Who don’t care who they represent as long as they can make the maximum amount of income for that representation: similar to their kin in Europe and North America who are equally, if not more, unscrupulous and self-interested.

This absolutely deplorable behaviour also demonstrates the jewish mentality, that is represented in jews the world over, in that they refuse to take responsibility for any act they have committed and instead blame others or a conspiracy for the charge or allegation. However what the case of Moshe Katsav does show is that jews are not interested in anyone else’s, even other jews, well-being, but only in the fulfilment of their own ego as found in this case by Katsav’s denial of any responsibility and his suggestion of a conspiracy against him. Since if these allegations were true would tarnish his image and if he can escape responsibility his ego will be increased by either his self-portrayal as a victim or as being clever enough as to be able to have got away with rape and sexual misconduct whilst in the most senior position in the Israeli government!

In order to externalise, and be rid of, any guilt he feels Katsav suggests that there has been a conspiracy against him in order that if he is successful in his defence he can win egoistic domination over his enemies in the Israeli government by either making a return to politics on the platform of a victim of a great injustice and/or by launching a legal suit against the four jewesses and various other organisations that have supported them. We also note in passing that Katsav’s predecessor in the office of President of Israel, Ezer Weizman, resigned his position after having been found to have accepted certain ‘gifts’ or as we would say in more straightforward parlance: bribes.

We can only conclude on this basis that Israeli politics is extremely sleazy and corrupt with jewish politicians being prone to endemic amounts of sleaze, corruption, bribery, imagined conspiracies, rape and general sexual abuse. Another example we can cite in this regard is the potential new foreign minister and deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, who is under investigation by the Israeli police on suspicion of participating in fraud. No wonder Lieberman is so anxious to get into a position of public office where he cannot be prosecuted until his term is up as well as potentially try to get to investigation quashed!

We are forced to wonder just how many jews there are outside of Israel who are engaging in such activities of rape and sexual misconduct towards non-jewish and jewish female co-workers and employees. Let alone the amount of jews who are involved in various forms of fraud, bribery and corruption that goes largely unreported in the mainstream media. The question that forms on our lips is yet again: why?



American Peace Activist Critical after being Shot by Israeli Troops


On the 13th of March 2009 an American peace activist, Tristan Anderson, engaging in a peaceful demonstration against an illegal small-scale Israeli annexation of the West Bank was shot in the forehead with a tear gas canister by Israeli troops. The Israeli troops allege that stones were thrown and that this ‘justifies’ their use of riot equipment on a 400 person demonstration and the resulting ‘accident’.

The Associated Press reports that Anderson is critical condition in hospital and one of Anderson’s fellow peace activists, Ulrika Jensen, at the protest in the town of Naalin describes the damage as being ‘large hole in the front of his head, and his brain was visible.’[26] This level of damage, which is more consistent with a close range shot with such a weapon, is suggested to have occurred when Israeli troops fired tear gas canisters into the crowd of protesters from a nearby hill to disperse it

This seems quite unlikely given that tear gas canisters are often used to disperse violent crowds from such a range, but do not cause near fatal injuries such as these. It is also very unlikely that a tear gas canister shot from a hill could actually strike someone in the forehead given that it would descending from a reasonable height and would have to fired directly into the crowd (with the obvious intention to wound) to do so and then should not able to cause such damage. Since tear gas canisters are fired up and away from the main centres of crowd concentration to force crowd dispersal and avoid injuries rather than at the centre of the crowd in the manner of a grenade launcher. We can only speculate given that details regarding this event are still sketchy and more detailed information regarding the incident has not been forthcoming. However the Israeli government’s explanation of how such an ‘accident’ occurred seems at best unlikely and at worst an outright lie.

What makes the Israeli sequence of events less likely is that this was in an area where such protests are very frequent and although Israel claims this is an area where ‘no demonstrations are allowed’ they have not moved to take substantial action to prevent them. This suggests that Israel was well able to handle such protests in the same area on many other occasions: so how did such an ‘accident’ take place in a known area of operations, which could have been sealed off if the IDF wished to do so. We however can reasonably suspect that an individual soldier, probably acting on his own initiative and personal hatred of gentiles in general, and Europeans in particular, decided to ‘teach Anderson a lesson’.

This tragic event is very similar to the murder of, the American citizen, Rachel Corrie in 2003 by an IDF soldier using a bulldozer to run over her. The jewish soldier driving claimed he ‘didn’t see’ Corrie, but this was later shown to not be the case. The Israeli government and the IDF however ruled and have maintained that Corrie’s murder was yet another ‘tragic accident’. We have to wonder just how many ‘tragic accidents’ there are going to be involving American and European peace demonstrators being killed by IDF personnel in Israel. Yet at no time have the soldiers who have murdered European and American citizens been properly disciplined by the Israelis, but rather received a slap on the wrist and sent back to active service.

Notable also is the singular lack of coverage of the incident by the media worldwide, despite being syndicated by the Associated Press, the story did not appear on any large media outlet outside Israel other than the New York Daily News[27] and MSNBC. The story was not even mentioned on the BBC or on the BBC’s website. Neither is it mentioned in/on any other English language paper/mainstream media website.

This is remarkable, because jewish supporters of Israel consistently allege that these outlets constantly ‘misrepresent’ and take every opportunity to ‘demonize’ Israel. Well surely if these media organisations were interested in doing that then this news story would receive widespread news coverage, but yet it has not even been mentioned in numerous English language media outlets. Perhaps, because these news outlets are not actually anti-Israel, but rather generally pro-Israel, but because of their liberal ideology feel understandably compelled to publish accounts of the reality of Israel’s actions rather than a shallow and easily spotted regurgitation of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s or the IDF’s media bulletins. As for example Fox News does when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a fairly regular basis.

So once again we can see that jews are literally inventing conspiracies where there are none. In order to satisfy the jewish egoistic need for self-importance since if you are being actively conspired against then you must be important. This is what jews crave the most: the idea that they are supremely important and are so important that in order to get rid of their importance there are active conspiracies all around the world trying to vilify jews and Israel.

It is time to hold jews, in general, accountable for their actions and not allow this double standard that jews bewail when it is against them to be maintained. No longer must we be misdirected by conspiracy theories invented out of whole cloth by jews trying to defend the indefensible!



The Modesty Police: in Iran? No: in Israel.


You’ve heard all about the intolerance towards uncovered women in Islamic countries and the subsequent beatings and extra-judicial measures to which they have been subjected. Indeed I suspect you have heard jews consistently talking about how Islam is a backward and barbaric religion and indeed they would be right: it is. It is also correct to state that Islam and Arab culture in general encourages barbarity and outrages towards women regardless of race and religion. However: what you haven’t heard jews talk about is the jewish version of the Islamic religious militias and police who have called themselves: the modesty police or the mishmar hazniyut.

This repressive and thoroughly medieval attitude towards women is most in evidence among ultra-Orthodox jews, or as they are known in the jewish community: the haredi, where there is a long tradition of community enforced modesty (Tzniut in Hebrew) among men and women. The haredi men are well known the world over as the stereotype of the jew in that they believe it is a religious necessity, deriving from the 613 commandments (mitzvoth) of the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), to wear all black and white clothing showing as little skin as possible combined with either a caftan or a black hat and grow long side-locks of hair, which fall like ringlets down their faces.

The haredi women like the men are expected to cover up modestly: this involves the woman covering up in a plain wide-fitting garment and usually wearing a wig (or among lax communities tying hair up in a scarf is accepted much as is normal in the Orthodox jewish tradition). They are not permitted to show any skin other than that of their hands and face sometimes even to their husbands, which is represented by the act in strict haredi circles of have sex through a hole in a sheet in order to prevent the couple thinking ‘impure thoughts’ about each other during the sexual act (as well as negating the possibility of the jewish man making himself ritually impure by the accidental discharge of bodily fluids on his person). Haredi women are also given a much inferior level of status to haredi men and have to sit behind a special curtain with their children when they attend synagogue services.

In an opinion column in the Israeli newspaper, ‘The Jerusalem Post’, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz writes about a recent trial involving four members of the ‘Modesty Police’[28]. Who broke into a 31 year old jewish divorcee’s home and savagely beat her, because they wanted her to move out of the neighbourhood since she was in their view ‘immodest’. We can suspect all this jewish woman did was wear clothes of a colour other than black, grey or white and/or a not so loose fitting garment or even merely show her hair without the required wig.

Such beatings are not as Horowitz is forced to admit, although indirectly, uncommon in the jewish community with Horowitz talking about instances of haredi jews beating ‘women for sitting in the "wrong" sections of buses[29]’ and ‘physically assaulting peaceful citizens who do not dress according to their standards - observant or otherwise’[30]. Despite this Horowitz doesn’t actually disapprove of the idea of the enforcement of modesty onto jewish men and women, but only disagrees with the idea that it should involve physically beating up those who do not comply with his and the haredi community’s dress code and code of conduct.

In a troubling development in the case cited we find that three of the four defendants who had beat the woman in her house were acquitted on legal technicalities. This would indicate that the Israel legal system condones this kind of treatment of women in the same vein as Sharia law in conservative and radical Islam.

There is a necessary comparison to be made between the haredi practices and those preached by conservative and radical Islam since these practices are fairly similar. Conservative and radical Islamists preach that women should wear the jelbab (a full length loose one-piece dress) and hijab (an extended headscarf allowing only the face to be exposed), while advocating a despotic system of male-based rule based on their religion. While haredi jews preach that women should wear modest kosher clothing (similar to jelbab, but without the colour) and cover their hair using wig (similar to the hijab, but less flattering to the woman since the wigs are plain and uniform). Haredi jews also confer additional regulations upon women in so far as they should only wear modest jewellery and ostensible displays of wealth of any kind are forbidden as idolatrous.

We often hear of jews complaining about the appalling treatment of women by what they call ‘Islamofascism’, but which we may, less rhetorically, call conservative and radical Islam. However we do not hear these same jews, which includes nearly all those who are in the anti-Islam movement, campaigning about the brutal repression of jewish women in haredi communities both in Israel and around the world. Indeed: there is barely a word said about it outside Israel and even then such issues are rarely discussed and only brief allusions made about the secrecy and medieval nature of the haredi groups, which control entire neighbourhoods in both in Israel and in cities around the world.

Why aren’t America and Europe’s conservative and patriotic politicians talking about this issue as well rather than just talking about conservative and radical Islam’s barbarity? Why aren’t European politicians, such as a Dutch MP Geert Wilders the creator of the anti-Islam film ‘Fitna’, talking and making films about this: as well as conservative and radical Islam’s stance on women?

The reason for this is painfully simple: in so far as the anti-Islam movement has been co-opted by jews who have sought to associate themselves, by the use of donations, personal/intellectual flattery and personal/intellectual association, with it in order to maximise their own personal gain out of directing this movement for the defence and support of Israel and the propagandising of American and European conservatives and patriots for the jewish and Israeli causes.

Conservative and patriotic Americans must understand that the jews are as bad as, in both their religious theory and practice, the medieval attitudes and punishments towards women that conservative and radical Islamists use. The difference is that the attitudes and punishments enacted by conservative and radical Islamists are talked about in the newspapers and the mainstream media, but the media is strangely silent on these same issues when they regard jews.

The double standard inherent within this position enacted by both the media and the jews themselves is breath-taking in its audacity and astonishing it is lack of humanity. It can only leave you wondering: why?



Head of International Women Trafficking Ring sought in Tel Aviv


Israel police are hunting the head of a massive Israeli-based international trafficking and prostitution ring, Jacky Yazady, and his son Golan Yazady in Tel Aviv the Israeli newspaper ‘Haaretz’ has reported[31]. Yazady and his son are thought to be ring leaders behind the recently raided ring, which is suggested to have transported thousands of women living in the former Soviet Union. The women were lured from the former Soviet Union by promises that they would work as dancers or waitresses in Israel for good wages. Once the girls had arrived in Israel they were forced into prostitution after having their passports taken away and then if they tried to escape or even if they succeeded they were subject to vicious and brutal reprisals.

Another jewish leader in the ring, Rami Saban of Moshav Magadim, is suspected to have organised a hit and run assassination of an Eastern European woman who had escaped his lecherous clutches. Saban is also thought to have brought Belorussian mercenaries to Israel to kill another Israeli international crime ring boss: Nissim Alperon.

The Israeli police have so far this year raided 71 brothels in Israel alone up from 20 last year suggesting that the recent pressure put on Israel by Russia to do something about the trade in European women used as prostitutes and sex slaves by Israeli jews has had a limited impact.

During two recent police raids in Israel more than 35 members of the internationally-operating ring have been arrested, including Saban, but we can reasonably suspect that there are many other jewish members of the ring, other than the Yazadys, at large in Israel and abroad. That it has taken this long for Israel to do something about this criminal network operating with its full knowledge inside its borders beggars belief and forces a familiar question to our lips: why?

Perhaps it is because with Israel’s ‘modesty police’ on the rampage: pious jewish men feel the need to use prostitutes in times when their wife and other concubines are religiously unclean in their menstruation period or as it is called in Judaism: niddah? We will leave you to draw your own conclusions about this jewish and Israeli practice and the international crime rings operating out of Israel…



A Senior Rabbi demands the Pope removes his Crucifix at the Western Wall


Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, the jewish rabbi in charge of the Western Wall, on 16th of March 2009 told ‘The Jerusalem Post’ in a telephone interview that Pope Benedict XVI that he will not allow him to wear a cross or a crucifix when he is to visit the Western Wall on the 12th of May 2009[32]. Rabinovitch stated as follows:

‘My position is that it is not fitting to enter the Western Wall area with religious symbols, including a cross, I feel the same way about a Jew putting on a tallit and phylacteries and going into a church.’[33]

Well Rabinovitch may hold this position, but it isn’t a logically consistent one. Since the cross or crucifix that a Christian wears is not an object of prayer, but is a mark of their faith. The objects that Rabinovitch cites are devices used in prayer by jews in a Synagogue and are akin to the Catholic rosary rather than the cross or crucifix worn about the neck as a mark of faith by Catholics. I would agree that a Catholic performing the Rosary inside a Synagogue would be out of place, but that is not what we are talking about here. The Pope, the leader of the largest Christian denomination in the world, is being asked to remove the symbol of his own and his Church faith, because, as Rabinovitch later reveals, ‘crosses are a symbol that hurt Jewish feelings.’[34]

So then it can be reasonably suggested that the jewish hatred for the cross is at the bottom of this outrageous demand made to the Pope by this self-aggrandising rabbi. How can Rabinovitch make such a demand with a straight face considering the fact that numerous Popes, when they have met with rabbis and given them audiences, have not asked rabbis to remove their yarlmukes, which are the approximation of the Christian personal cross or crucifix hung around the neck. This is also not the first time that Rabinovitch has acted in such a way towards Christian clergy since in November 2007 he forbade a group of Austrian Bishops to visit the site unless they removed or hide their crosses or crucifixes (the Bishops understandably refused). Rabinovitch performed a similar action in May 2008 when he forbade a mixed group of Irish priests from both Protestant and Catholic Christian denominations from visiting the site on precisely the same pretext (the Priests also understandably refused). Therefore this rabbi’s demand must stem only from his feelings of hatred towards Christianity (why would he be so strident otherwise?) as much as having ‘hurt jewish feelings’?

Well can we not say that the jews have hurt Christian feelings enough throughout history. Have not the jews participated in numerous crimes against Catholics in history?

Did not Orthodox jews, lead by their deputy mayor, in the Israeli town of Or-Yehuda, near Tel Aviv, pile up and burn hundreds of copies of the New Testament while laughing and dancing on the 20th of May 2008[35]?

Have not jewish organisations constantly attacked Christian organisations? Have not jewish organisations, academics and authors libelled the Catholic Church numerous times accusing it complicity in the genocide of jews throughout history?

Have not the jews demanded that the Bible be rewritten to phase out any negative role for the jews in the Passion of Jesus Christ?

Where are the unreserved apologies, let alone the material compensation as the jews demand from the Catholic Church for her alleged historic ‘crimes’, from the jews for all these acts?

We suspect that none will ever be forth-coming and that whatever consolatory overturns the jews might make to try and stop ‘public relations disasters’ that the jews do not mean what they say. We note that Ephraim Zuroff, the chief ‘Nazi hunter’ of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, actually supported the destruction, or as he tries to phrase it ‘disposal’, of these copies of the New Testament when he stated:

‘It would have been preferable to find another way to dispose of the books and materials – but the main problem, the missionaries, remains.’[36]

So Dr. Zuroff is actually supporting this destruction of copies of the Old Testament and is far more concerned with method of the disposal rather than the offence this has caused to Christians around the world! Can you imagine Rabinovitch’s and/or Zuroff's reaction if Christians collected up copies of the Babylonian Talmud and then burned them in the street? The Church would never hear the end of it and jail terms would be demanded for all perpetrators, but yet when the jews engage in such an action there is no sincere apology and indeed only mumbles about ‘the texts should have been disposed of differently’. The double standard for jews and Christians is open for all to see and should be the subject of public outcry.

Events like this have given and will continue to give the Pope and the Catholic Church many reasons to strongly dislike them both in the past and present, but because we are Christians we have forgiven them their attacks on the Church, but can we idly sit by and let the jews demand that our Pope removes his personal crucifix to satisfy their hyper-sensitive feelings? Is it not time that the Catholic Church and our Pope said enough is enough and stood up to the jews and demanded the apologies that they have demanded the Popes and the Church to give them to us for their libels and crimes against the Church?



A Little Humour


The NJDC’s Latest Advert of the 19th of March 2009


I recently received the following email message in my mailbox and I thought it would give a chuckle to those readers who, like me, are thoroughly opposed to President Obama’s administration and are outside of the cult of personality that surrounds the President and his family. This email is from the National Democratic Jewish Council (or NDJC for short) and is soliciting donations for their coffers. As they are lobbyists by profession the NDJC exercise considerable influence on Capitol Hill although, like the Republican Jewish Congress’ (or RJC for short) influence on President George W. Bush and his policy-making, you don’t hear about them in the mainstream media very often.

The NJDC’s solicitation for my (and your) money, which I received on the 19th of March 2009, reads as follows:

‘Dear NJDC Supporter,

It is such an exciting time to be in Washington! For the first time in 14 years, the Democrats control the White House and have majorities in the House and Senate. Now is not the time to be complacent.

Our country is demanding change. After the last eight years of failed Bush administration policies, the real work needs to be done. It is crucial that an organization like the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) be at the forefront demanding that solutions conform to our Jewish Democratic values. We must also act to counter Republican smears and rapidly respond to attacks within our community.

Show your support for NJDC by activating your 2009 membership. As a member of NJDC, you will receive invitations to special events and exclusive members-only information. General annual membership to NJDC is only $50.

Due to overwhelming success, we have extended the lapel pin offer. Join or renew your membership by Friday, March 20, and receive a free limited edition commemorative NJDC Obama Inauguration lapel pin*.

Help NJDC during this critical time. Become a member today, and get your commemorative Obama pin.’

Well I am sure you are convinced that you want the United States to be influenced by ‘Jewish Democratic values’ after that magnificent display of greed at a time of extreme economic hardship. Unfortunately although I tried join this democratic organisation so I could get the commemorative Obama pin, it was discovered that I wasn’t jewish so I was excluded on grounds of race. I was bitterly disappointed since I thought the jewish people having been through so much trial, racial discrimination and hardship would allow me to join a jewish organisation.

The NDJC have left me completely heartbroken as you can well imagine.



Entertainment News


Bob Dylan’s Objectionable Odour


It has been reported by Reuters that neighbours of Robert Allen Zimmerman (or Shabtai Zisel ben Avraham), better known as Bob Dylan, in Malibu are reportedly the subject of an extraordinary menace: an outdoor toilet used by Zimmerman’s security staff[37], which is causing a thoroughly disgusting stench to waft over his neighbour’s, David and Cindy Emminger, house causing them and their children understandable discomfort and disgust.

The jewish mayor of Malibu, Andrew Stern, has declared that he will do nothing about this situation suggesting that other neighbours ‘aren’t objecting’. We would expect the Mayor of so prosperous a city such as Malibu would be more than happy to take up this issue, but unfortunately since Mr. Zimmerman is so very rich and so very famous as well as jewish: it is just not the done thing to ask him to spend a few hundreds dollars to install a self-contained toilet connected to the sewage system.

After all what is a rich jew to do: spend his money to help his neighbours live without gut-wrenching smells from his own outside toilet?

Don’t be daft.



Lindsey Lohan and the Results of Homosexuality


It was reported in the Israeli newspaper, ‘Haaretz’, on the 2nd of March 2009 that Catholic actress Lindsey Lohan is considering converting to Judaism in order to ‘show her commitment’ to her jewish ‘girlfriend’: Samantha Ronson[38]. Her father commented that Lohan had explored the Church of Scientology and Cabala before deciding to investigate Judaism. However her father seems to think Cabala is a religion in and of itself when in actuality it has long been the mystical angle of Judaism practised by the most repressive jewish sects, which has been popularised by a number of renegade rabbis who have sought to make money at the cost of ruining well-meaning people’s lives by popularising the doctrines to celebrities with unfortunately more money than common sense (much like the Church of Scientology as it happens).

However unfortunately this dabbling of Lohan’s which we suspect derived from her homosexual dabbling, despite claims that she is ‘bi-sexual’, shows that Lohan has become yet another celebrity victim who has fallen prey to a jewish individual who is after increasing their fortune. We can show this by the report that Ronson is paid a considerable amount more for her appearances as a DJ now by event organisers, because of the likelihood that Lohan will turn up and therefore it is and always has been in Ronson’s great financial interest to have a relationship with a well-known celebrity such as Lohan and the fact that it is a lesbian relationship only acts as a further drawer for today’s youth unfortunately corrupted by an alien or by a lack of responsible morality.



Amy Winehouse on yet another Assault Charge


The BBC has reported that Amy Winehouse, the jewish chart topping singer, has denied assaulting a fan at a charity concert in London on the 28th of September 2009 in her 17th of March 2009 court appearance[39] where she is charged with common assault. This is only the latest of criminal and civil charges brought against Winehouse who has been made famously for her drunken brawls, drug-fuelled antics and gutter mouth.

Notably Winehouse was late to this court appearance and when film of her attending the court was released suggesting, by virtue of Winehouse nearly walking into a large stone building several times and being completely unaware of her surroundings, that she was either drunk or had taken a concoction of illegal drugs before the court appearance.

If a defendant in a normal court case had turned up drunk or drug-addled to court then the Judge would have been well within his rights to detain them as they were not fit to stand trial. Yet this was not the case with Amy Winehouse and we must wonder why there is one rule for her and one rule for the rest of us…

It is also notable that despite Winehouse’s well known and well documented antics with drugs and alcohol that the police are yet to take action against her or her suppliers. We would have thought that the British Constabulary would have sought to make an example of Winehouse in order to demonstrate to the public, who are becoming increasingly concerned about this double standard in the law, that they are tough on crime and not soft on certain individuals, like Winehouse, because they belong to special interest groups.



Notes:


[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/04/aig-us-economy-business
[2] http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
[3] http://jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?090320+help
[4] http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/17/1003063/stimulus-bill-gives-1-billion-to-jewish-social-service-providers
[5] http://jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?090320+help
[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7951005.stm
[7]http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=2818289&content_id=%7b449C17DC-5ABF-4821-8CFA-F0953896CA99%7d&notoc=1
[8] http://jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?090320+adl
[9] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html
[10] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/18madoff.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
[11] http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/madofffraudstatement.aspx
[12] See Naomi Seidman’s 1996 article, ‘Elie Wiesel and the scandal of Jewish Rage’, which originally appeared in Jewish Social Studies and can be found online at the following address: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/tiroirs/tiroirEW/WieselMauriac.html.
[13] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-karatz6-2009mar06,0,6937523.story
[14] Ibid.
[15] http://www.dailyiowan.com/2009/03/10/Opinions/10500.html
[16] http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-12-03/news/the-fall-of-the-house-of-rubashkin/
[17]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/national/10kosher.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
[18] http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/more_mini-madoffs_valley_jew_accused_of_massive_real_estate_fraud_20090305/
[19] Ibid.
[20http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202009/news/regionalnews/hasidic_teen_rape_perv_guilty_160475.htm
[21] Lawrence Greenfeld, 1995, ‘Selected Findings Number 4: Prison Sentences and Time Served for Violence’. This is available at the following address: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/psatsfv.txt.
[22] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7960599.stm
[23] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6291345.stm
[24] Ibid.
[25] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6252340.stm
[26] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29680577/
[27] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/03/14/2009-03-14_us_activist_tristan_anderson_hanging_by_.html
[28]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237114854016&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069755.html
[32]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237114844980&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/28/bible.burning/index.html
[36] http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=18519
[37] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29741941/?gt1=43001
[38] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067800.html
[39] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7948137.stm

Semitic Controversies (Volume 1, Number 1 [Part II])

Editor’s Column

Our First Issue

The anti-Semitic movement today is at a crossroads in time, it can decide to go three different ways with its critique of jews: it can carry straight on as it has done till the present time using the same style of arguments as it did at the height of its power, it can turn to the left towards simple anti-Zionism or it can turn to the right to create a new critique of jews.

Carrying on with anti-Semitic critique in the same manner as our anti-Semitic forefathers is simply not an option since this critique is strongly divergent from the factual literature , and uses outdated intellectual conceptions and methodologies in its critique. These have been abandoned by scholars for the weaknesses inherent within them. When our anti-Semitic forefathers wrote these original arguments then they were endorsed by a portion of scholars and were arguable facts based on the available evidence. Albeit since then new evidence has come to light, evidence which has been simply ignored or condemned out of hand by anti-Semites . This is not being true to the anti-Semitic tradition of our forefathers.

They created a critique that was both appealing to the intellectuals and the folk at large: it was intellectually credible, rooted in the evidence then available, and it used cutting-edge conceptions and methodologies. Anti-Semitism has continued using these same arguments and methods to the present day, but had our anti-Semitic forefathers done this then they would still be using the Christian anti-Semitic conception and would be denying that race was a factor in the jewish question. We must in our opposition to the Semitic peoples look for a new way and update our thought accordingly.

However what new way remains the question: as I have said there are two general possibilities. The first of these possibilities is that anti-Semitism takes a left turn and becomes wholly absorbed in the anti-Zionist movement, but this possibility does not bode well for anti-Semitism. Since being absorbed by the anti-Zionist movement would mean that anti-Semitism, as is demonstrated by the increasingly confused logic used against the jews by modern anti-Semites, would lose it's anti-Semitic angle and simply become subsumed by anti-Zionism. This would increasingly blur the line between jews and Zionists until such a point that it becomes merely those who are Zionists and those who are anti-Zionists , with no distinction of jew or gentile but rather two different positions on Israel. Within this possibility the jews have been victorious. In so far as they are now free to change sides to the anti-Zionist position without confrontation from anti-Semitism. Since now anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism, it does not recognise the jew as a jew, but merely as an individual who is either Zionist or anti-Zionist. So therefore if anti-Semitism wishes to take the left turn to anti-Zionism then it will be absorbed and neutralised as an anti-thesis to the jews.

If anti-Semitism takes the other possibility: a right turn to a new kind of anti-Semitism it would be potentially more dangerous but the gains would be greater. This right turn would recognise the roots of the anti-Semitic movement, but it would also call for and develop a new form of anti-Semitism. One which systematically goes over the thought of the past and compares the situation we have today to this older process so that it can be continuously be updated in this new online epoch.

The danger inherent in this move is simply that it would be easy for anti-Semitism, when taking this turn, to fall into internal conflict between proponents carrying on with the traditional anti-Semitic thought and the proponents of the left turn to anti-Zionism seeking to derail it. This could lead to a sustained period of infighting between the factions, which then could ,by virtue of its protracted nature, lead to anti-Semitism missing the opportunity to re-invent itself on its pathway to the right.

However, the possibilities that this right turn brings are considerable in that it will allow anti-Semitism to split off of the many positions and interpretations that have traditionally bogged it down . An example of this is the conception that the jews are participating in an active conspiracy and the serial use of the long debunked Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is proof of the said conspiracy. The right turn , on the other hand, will allow and encourage anti-Semitism to come up with new conceptions of the jewish problem, ones which are rooted in the science and knowledge of today rather than yesterday Instead it would develop new methodologies for commencing the founding of a school of Jewish Studies that applies a critical perspective on the subject and most important of all the chance to return to the domain of being intellectually respectable.

This, I sincerely believe is the key to anti-Semitism’s future success in that rather than trying to change the name of anti-Semitism , by re-branding it as anti-Zionism or anti-Judaism, what is needed is to change the perception of anti-Semitism. This involves making an honest, non-conspiratorial and intellectually convincing case against the jews as a people. If this is accomplished then what will occur is that the jewish conception of and propaganda concerning anti-Semitism as a chimerical and irrational beast that belongs to the lunatic fringe and the dustbin of history is incorrect and that anti-Semitism is a relevant, timely and rational political position built on the available evidence and the willingness to out-wit and out-debate on the subject of jews.

I hope that the new incarnation of Semitic Controversies as a monthly forum of intellectual, although not academic, anti-Semitic thought will help to foster this right turn to a new golden age for anti-Semitic thought and that it will aid in founding the school of Jewish Studies critical of the Jews as a people.

Let our watch words be these:

‘If you deal with the reality of the jew then the world will applaud your thought and actions. If you treat the jew as an evil, inhuman fantasy then the world will have justified contempt for your thought and actions.’

A Critical Look at Jewish Law

Legal Inequality between Jews and Gentiles


There are many critiques of Judaism and the Talmud on the internet, as well as in the published literature, that heavily rest on an inaccurate use of quotes without their context and the necessary examples of Judaic law to back up the intended meaning of the presentation. This kind of ill-conceived and counter-productive methodology only adds more leverage to those presenting anti-Semitic critique as wholly irrational and bigoted.

Therefore, it is within this article that I aim to provide a critical look at Judaism and the Talmud not only through its values of differentiation between jews and non-jews, but also to add examples of jewish law together with some commentary, on certain parts, by one of the more authoritative and widely accepted authors on Judaism: Rabbi Jacob Neusner[1].

Basic jewish law (halakah, as given by the Mishnah) divides the world in two: Israel and non-Israel, and in general the jewish law given only deals with gentiles (non-jews) when issuing controls and rules on how an israelite and Israel itself should interact with them. Let us begin by looking at a passage that defines the value of this difference:

‘All Israelites have a share in the world to come, as it is said, 'Your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever: the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified (Isa: 60:21).’[2]

Before we look at Neusner's commentary on the above passage, I would like to quote another comment by him:

‘For while the Israelite is defined as the portion of humanity that rises from the grave to eternal life, the gentile is defined solely in practical terms of how the israelite intersects with the gentile on specified occasions or in particular transactions... But to the comparable issue – What is justice for the portion of humanity excluded from life eternal and left to rot in the grave? - the law speaks only implicitly... Then of what does justice consist? How shall we explain the distinction within the genus, humanity, into two species, Israelites and gentiles?

...

In addition, a practical issue of justice in Israelite-pagan relationships flows from the distinction between life and death, Israel and the nations, and should not be missed. How shall we find justice in the present status of Israel, subordinated as it is to the gentiles? For if God rules as a sovereign over all humanity, and if the two species of humanity compete, where is the justice in the fact that one species, the gentiles, presently dominates the other, Israel? It follows that to make sense of and to justify world order the subordinated status of both species, the gentiles in the age to come and, Israel in the present age, has to be explained and the same explanation must govern both...

But when it comes to the law of the Mishnah, ”Israel” is defined with the reference to the end of days; Israel is comprised of all those who will emerge victorious over death.’[3]

It is apparent from these quotes that one of the fundamental differences in Judaism between Israel and the rest of mankind can be defined as life and death, with the jews inheriting the world and being divinely blessed to be God's elect to return to Eden, while the nations, or the non-jews, will become subordinated to God, through the actions of the jews.

Here is the commentary, by Neusner, on the initial quote from the Mishnah:

‘I maintain that this passage provides a juridical, practical definition of ”Israel” on which courts will act in practical ways. So one may fairly ask, exactly how does this statement that all Israel has 'a portion in the world to come' serve to define Israel? We may in response manipulate the opening declaration, reversing (1) the subject of ”all israelites” and (2) the predicate, ”have a portion in the world to come” as follows: (2) ”all who have a share in the world to come” are (1) ”Israelites”. And -simple logic requires- all who do not have a portion in the world to come logically cannot fall into the category ”Israelites” as framed in that sentence.’[4]

Now, we have not only a working and accepted definition of what it fundamentally means, in Judaism, to belong to Israel and to not belong to Israel. We also have a rather stark impression of Judaism being centred on and expressed for its genealogically defined people with little interest in an equal setting for other people but rather, as we shall see, one of inequality with jews as the governing elite.

Let us take another passage from the Mishnah, relating to the above, in its definition of gentiles:

‘do not leave cattle in gentile's inns, because they are suspect in regard to bestiality.
And a woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspect in regard to fornication.
And a man should not be alone with them, because they are suspect in regard to bloodshed.’[5]

Neusner's commentary on this passage clarifies the following:

‘The basic theory of gentiles, all of them assumed to be idolaters, is, first, gentiles always and everywhere and under any circumstance are going to perform an act of worship for one or another of their gods. Second, gentiles are represented as thoroughly depraved (not being regenerated by the Torah), so they will murder, fornicate, or steal at any chance they get; they routinely commit bestiality, incest, and various other forbidden acts of sexual congress. Here is how the Mishnah law expresses these premises: do not leave cattle in gentile's inns, because they are suspect in regard to bestiality. And a woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspect in regard to fornication. And a man should not be alone with them, because they are suspect in regard to bloodshed.’[6]

To further show that this is not a controversial view within Judaism but rather a commonly applied one , I will quote from another contemporary book on Judaism, aptly named ‘On Judaism’, by the highly regarded Rabbi Emanuel Feldman:

‘I do believe that if, theoretically, there had never been any Judaism in the world, we would today rarely encounter this phenomena [righteous gentiles] of people who call themselves unbelievers and yet lead relatively decent and moral lives. On the contrary, we would all be devouring each other.'[7]

'These are legitimate descriptions of the Jewish condition. God explicitly tells us in Leviticus 20:26, va'avdil etchem; "I have separated you from among the peoples to be Mine..." Yes, it is part of God's overall plan for mankind that the Jewish people should remain separate. The fact is that to be a holy people in a world that disdains holiness means to be a separate people.

It's interesting that the world seem to recognize this Jewish differentness intuitively. Even the assimilating Jew - who does not wear distinctively Jewish dress and does not practice anything distinctively Jewish, who is a citizen of the world and faithfully lives be the ways of society around him - even he is nevertheless pointed to as a Jew, as someone different from "the rest of us". This makes the assimilator very unhappy, but it probably makes God very happy, because jewish otherness is all part of His plan.’[8]

One of the weaker aspects of much 'anti-Semitic' critique of Judaism and jews is found in the methodology used. Those who offer such critique usually either give quotes without their context and without adding the legislative and/or historical background in order to make a well-defended case. That or or they use a segment of quotes and instances lodged in between their own lengthy theories and interpretations of what the given matters mean. So, it is with that intention in mind that I seek to add as little of my own theories to these matters at this point. The passages and the given commentary suffice to highlight the values of seemingly unabashed Judaic sentiment and law.

The lengthy passage that follows describes what moral order is working on behalf of the previously mentioned idea of Israel, the jews, equates Life whereas non-Israel, the non-jews, equates death.

I quote:

‘The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say to them: 'Wherewith have you occupied yourselves?' They will reply: 'O Lord of the Universe, we have established many market-places, we have erected many baths, we have accumulated much gold and silver, and all this we did only for the sake of Israel, that they might [have leisure] for occupying themselves with the study of the Torah.' The Holy One, blessed be He, will say in reply: 'You foolish ones among peoples, all that which you have done, you have only done to satisfy your own desires.

You have established marketplaces to place courtesans therein; baths, to revel in them; [as to the distribution of] silver and gold, that is mine, as it is written: Mine is the silver and Mine is the gold, saith the Lord of Hosts; are there any among you who have been declaring this?' And 'this' is nought else than the Torah, as it is said: And this is the Law which Moses set before the children of Israel. They will then depart crushed in spirit. On the departure of the Kingdom of Rome, Persia will step forth. (Why Persia next? — Because they are next in importance. And how do we know this? — Because it is written: And behold another beast, a second like to a bear; and R. Joseph learned that this refers to the Persians, who eat and drink greedily like the bear, are fleshly like the bear, have shaggy hair like the bear, and are restless like the bear.)

The Holy One, blessed be He, will ask of them: 'Wherewith have ye occupied yourselves?'; and they will reply 'Sovereign of the Universe, we have built many bridges, we have captured many cities, we have waged many wars, and all this for the sake of Israel, that they might engage in the study of the Torah. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them: 'You foolish ones among peoples, you have built bridges in order to extract toll, you have subdued cities, so as to impose forced labour; as to waging war, I am the Lord of battles, as it is said: The Lord is a man of war; are there any amongst you who have been declaring this?' and 'this' means nought else than the Torah, as it is said: And this is the Law which Moses set before the Children of Israel. They, too' will then depart crushed in spirit. (But why should the Persians, having seen that the Romans achieved nought, step forward at all? — They will say to themselves: 'The Romans have destroyed the Temple, whereas we have built it.') And so will every nation fare in turn.’[9]

As the above can appear a bit difficult to derive any sentiment from, let us see how Neusner clarifies it:

‘The claim of Rome -to support Israel in Torah study- is rejected on the grounds that the Romans did not exhibit the right attitude, always a dynamic force in the theology.
...
As native categories, Rome and Persia are singled out ,”all the other nations” play no role. Once more the law's theology reaches into its deepest thought on the power of intentionality, showing that what people want is what they get.
...
The basic thesis is identical: the gentiles cannot accept the Torah because to do so they would have to deny their very character... Now the gentiles are not just Rome and Persia. There are others. The claim is, it is natural for the gentiles (not just Rome and Persia) to violate some of the Ten Commandments – specifically, not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal- yet these are essential to the Torah. So, the reason that the gentiles rejected the Torah is that it prohibits deeds that the gentiles do by their very nature. The subtext here is that Israel ultimately is changed by the Torah, so that Israel exhibits traits nurtured by God and imparted by their encounter within the Torah.’[10]

Now, I am not trying to further the idea that gentiles in Judaism are completely unable to gain eternal life by God's grace. There are two ways for a gentile to be accepted as righteous by Judaism. One is for the gentile to convert, however, as we shall see, they are not regarded as equal with jews even then. The other option is to follow the seven laws of Noah. I've clarified these laws before in a previous article:

‘The Seven Laws of Noah acts as a simplified extension of the essential commandments that God seeks all mankind to keep, which has since then been recognized as the only necessary laws a gentile must keep in order to gain share of Olam Haba (the hereafter).’[11]

What would be examples of the Noahide gentile not being served the same benefits from judaic law as the jew?

Well, if for example, a jew murders a jew or someone else: then in jewish law there will are at least two witnesses required in order for capital punishment to be meted out. Whereas if, for example, a noahide jew (a gentile follower of the seven noahide laws) murders a jew only one witness is required. I quote the relevant passage regarding this in the Babylonian Talmud:

‘R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars'2 Book of Aggada:3 A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require;4 this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen].5 At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given;6 And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness;7 at the hand of man:8 but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify.’[12].

The reader might observe that the above does not specifically talk, in this context, about noachian laws, however this passage is taken from the context of Sanhedrin 56-60 where it discussed transgression and rendering of noahide laws for the noahide. However, let us quote a more accessible and easier to understand source:

‘The many formalities of procedure essential when the accused is an Israelite need not be observed in the case of the Noachid. The latter may be convicted on the testimony of one witness, even on that of relatives, but not on that of a woman. He need have had no warning ("hatra'ah") from the witnesses; and a single judge may pass sentence on him (ib. 57a, b; "Yad," l.c. ix. 14). With regard to idolatry, he can be found guilty only if he worshiped an idol in the regular form in which that particular deity is usually worshiped; while in the case of blasphemy he may be found guilty, even when he has blasphemed with one of the attributes of God's name—an action which, if committed by an Israelite, would not be regarded as criminal’[13]

The jewish law for a similar case is not equal, as is derived from the law given here:

‘At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.’[14]

The above is a rather clear distinction between an example of laws: one standard on capital punishment set forth by jews for jews and another standard set forth by jews for the gentile community that it seeks to encompass under ’righteous living’.

Let us look at an example of legal differentiation between the convert and the 'full' jew. I will now aim to show that, in Judaism, a jew by birth cannot dilute his blood by marrying a mamzer, but a convert can.

‘Mamzer’ is basically equivalent to a jewish person who is the offspring of a forbidden relationship between jews, such as from adulterous or incestuous relationship, and this derogatory status was and is traditionally inherited in Judaism.

In the Old Testament: it is oft been translated from the Hebrew as ‘bastard’ though the Oral Torah comments that this not exactly what a mamzer is meant to denote. This is traditionally derived from the Written Torah's take in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Zechariah 9.

The infamous Rabbi Maimonides, or Rambam as he is commonly known, in his authoritative codification of jewish law, the ‘Mishneh Torah’, defines a mamzer as follows:

‘Who is considered a mamzer as designated in the Torah? The offspring by any of the forbidden unions, except by a menstruant, whose child is considered impaired, but not a mamzer. If a man has intercourse with a woman of any of the forbidden unions, whether by force or by consent, whether willfully or by error, the child born of that union is regarded as a mamzer, and both male and female are eternally forbidden to marry into Israel.’[15]

Therefore Maimonides rules that anyone who has inherited mamzerism is not allowed to marry a born jew, while a convert to Judaism is permitted to marry some born jews. A mamzer can marry a gentile bondsmaid, gentile slave or a convert to judaism, but not a born jew.

What evidence exists to this rather unequal treatment of supposedly recognized members of the jewish congregation?

In the Babylonian Talmud it is established that a proselyte may marry a mamzer or he may marry a shetuki (a potential mamzer or a jew whose ancestral lineage is in doubt):

‘A proselyte, a freed slave and a halal are permitted to [marry] a priest's daughter.’ This supports Rab. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Fit women [sc. daughters of priests] were not admonished against being married to the unfit.(see footnote 11)

R. Zera lectured in Mahuza: A proselyte may marry a mamzereth. Thereupon everyone pelted him with stones. Said Raba: Is there anyone who lectures thus in a place where proselytes abound!' [16]

Footnote 11 says:

‘11) I.E., to those who may not marry into the priesthood. Thus, whereas a priest may not marry the daughter of a halal, freedman or proselyte, the daughter of a priest may marry one of these. This does not refer to the ordinary unfit, such as mamzerim or Nethinim.’[17]

Another quote, where the legality is of the decision is cited directly from the Mishnah (one of the basic sources of jewish law of halakha):

‘MISHNAH. TEN GENEALOGICAL CLASSES WENT UP FROM BABYLON: PRIESTS, LEVITES, ISRAELITES, HALALIM, PROSELYTES, FREEDMEN, MAMZERIM, NETHINIM, SHETHUKI AND FOUNDLINGS.

Priests, Levites and Israelites may intermarry with each other.

Levites, Israelites, Halalim, Proselytes and freedmen may intermarry.

Proselytes and freedmen, mamzerism and nethinim, shetuki and foundlings, are all permitted may intermarry.'[18]

More jewish law prohibiting of marriage/union with mamzer/bastards of jews is found in another tractate in the Babylonian Talmud (on both a and b folios: I have only cited the b folio below for the sake of simplicity):

‘MISHNAH. BASTARDS AND NETHINIM ARE INELIGIBLE, AND THEIR
INELIGIBILITY IS FOR ALL TIME, WHETHER THEY BE MALES OR FEMALES.’[19]

We also see this in the online edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia under: ‘Illegitimacy’.

I quote:

‘The real mamzer ("waddai"), who may not intermarry with Israelites; "even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord" (Deut. xxiii. 2). He may, however, marry a woman who is of the same status or a proselyte.’[20]

I have now demonstrated how Judaism has traditionally established that mamzers are not to be permitted to marry a born jew. Where-as a proselyte/convert can marry some born jews and how gentiles are not, even upon entering into Israel with embrace of the Torah (i.e. converting to Judaism), considered equals to born jews in Judaism.

The inequality of mankind in Judaic thought, with the jewish people being the divinely-favoured elite, is evident in light of what I have demonstrated from the given passages aligned with the authoritative and accepted jewish interpretation of them. However in this article: I would much rather the case of these sentiments of superiority having been spoken by an accepted yet uncontroversial authority on Judaism. So let us end our discussion with a jewish defence and definition of their claim of superiority from such an authority:

‘David: I do not want to repeat what is obviously a cliché, but doesn't chosenness imply superiority? Do we actually consider ourselves superior to the rest of mankind?

Rabbi Emanuel Feldman: That is another false supposition. Superiority per se is not an evil. Certain athletes are superior to others; certain musicians are superior to others; certain doctors are superior to others...

The fact is that certain nations are superior to others in specific areas of endeavor. Yes, we believe that the Jewish people is chosen for its mission by God because it possesses certain God given talents; a clear vision and knowledge of God and how He wants mankind to live on His earth, and the ability to connect with God and with the sacred in life... The Jewish people was seen by God as having certain qualities – steadfastness, spiritual resilience, courage, faith, self-discipline – which made us the most suitable agent for bringing the concepts of God and holiness into the world. That is to say our national character.’[21]


The Mind of Reva Mann

An Analysis of a Jewish Mind


In ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’[22] Reva Mann has given the world a fascinating look at the jewish psychology and how jews interact with each other. Although the work itself is simply a generalised autobiography what intrigues and fascinates is that Mann, despite writing with a generous amount of hindsight, expresses her own feelings and thoughts quite explicitly. By explicitly I mean language choice in that throughout ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ Mann discusses sexual intercourse and her thoughts concerning it and other lewd and bawdy acts. Hence ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ is not for those with a weak stomach for lewd language and is certainly not suitable for children to read. In this vein Mann gives us a perhaps unique insight into the mind of a jewish woman who is trying to find her way in the strange modern jewish world.

What makes Mann’s book more notable than other books in this genre is that Mann is the grand daughter of the second (Ashkenazi) Chief Rabbi of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman, and that she has, as she describes in ‘The Rabbi’s daughter’, swung between two extremes in jewish culture: The absolute hedonists and the strictest Hassidic sects. She herself had been brought up in a modern religious jewish household in London by her father, who was a rabbi there. This breadth of experience gives Mann’s thoughts and description of thoughts and feelings a wider application and thus enables one to dispense with the usual counter-arguments regarding such autobiographies in that they only cover one aspect of what is oft-called the ‘jewish experience’.

What I will do in this essay is analyse what Mann has written from the perspective of understanding why she has said what she has said, what it means and how we can fundamentally understand Mann as an example of jewish nature. We use Mann thus not only as an individual analysis, but as a gateway towards beginning to understand the mentality behind the external jewish façade, which is a hollow construct and does not stand up to rigorous investigation. Much of what you will read may seem strange and maybe slightly crazy; however, as strange and crazy as it may sound these are, to the best of my ability to understand them, the underlying thoughts and the mindset of Reva Mann.

Mann begins her story after she had decided that she wanted a ‘Torah-true’ life and that her old materialistic habits in pursuit of gratification were not what she wished to engage in anymore. We find her at the beginning of her book in a Hassidic religious school for jewish women: where she is reading the books relating to jewish law and lore (in this case ‘The Laws of Repentance’ by Maimonides or Rambam as he is better known). She particularly brings up the comparison to her past old life when she used to wear bikinis and when she first moved to Israel. She tells of us how she longs to wear her bikini again and to lose weight: since as she tells us she has put on a lot of weight due to all the sticky ‘kogel’ cakes that she eats at Shabbos[23]. She compares her ‘once high cheekbones’ and ‘beauty’ to her ‘dowdy maid’ appearance now.

It is theme that we find consistently repeated in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in that Mann describes a world where even the slightest infraction against the ‘laws of modesty’ is considered a very great sin. Mann throughout ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ tells us how consistently she is drawn between two worlds: that of what she knows is expected of her as a jewess and that which her mind and body aches for. She wishes to be religious, yet she is desperate to have extremely lurid sexual experiences with a fellow Hasidic jew. This Mann tries to mediate between latter in the book by claiming that all she wants is a holy jewish man who ‘talks dirty to her as he fucks her’.

I’ve used the swear word, ‘fuck’, here very deliberately to demonstrate my point: in so far as Mann does not view sexual intercourse as a beautiful act of love, but rather as a deep materialistic sense of need, which she needs to fulfil to feel better about herself[24]. Much like how a drug addict needs their next fix: Mann needs sexual intimacy to fill the deep lack of self-confidence that she feels in herself, which she as we shall see.

However Mann never finds this perfect jewish man since she realises that this is an impossibility for a jew cannot be both frum and sexually explicit at the same time without the one compromising the other. What Mann is doing here is straddling a very real deep cleft in the jewish soul not knowing, which way to turn.

This cleft between the life proscribed by Judaism, which is full of piety, obedience and self-denial, and the life desired deeply by the jewish racial nature, which is full of impiety, disobedience and self-gratification, is what Mann spends ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ talking about. This is immediately obvious from the first pages of ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in so far that Mann talks of her bikini ‘stuffed in the back of her closet’ and of all the sexual intercourse she used to have when she was younger. This, of course, is pure nostalgia, but it reveals an interesting point in so far that Mann had a long, primarily sexual, relationship with a gentile man she calls Chris. What is interesting about this is that Mann blames Chris for getting her into various different drugs and for the loss of her jewish ‘purity’. This is Mann projecting her own self-loathing onto Chris in so far as she does not see herself as having erred, but rather that she was lead into temptation by a gentile who she claims to have loved in the sexual sense but unable to love in the romantic and platonic senses.

This is interesting to think about because what Mann is admitting here is that she simply didn’t understand how a gentile thinks and that Chris’ mind was alien to her, hence, she simply could not connect to his world and nor he to hers. Therefore, Mann admits that their relationship was bound to fail precisely because he was a gentile and she was a jewess. Mann doesn’t mention this reason explicitly, but rather implicitly and constantly refers back to Chris’ world of art galleries, liberal intellectuals and roast dinners, which to her seemed at the time and still seem so completely alien. Yet Mann spent a number of months living with Chris trying to acclimatise herself to his alien world and she realises in the end that this was futile, because, although she doesn’t explicitly say it she does implicitly infer it, they were of two different races and unable to be together precisely, because they think completely differently to each other.

We see this difference candidly when Mann is talking about her time in the Hasidic jewish school when she notes that her study partner was a gentile who was from a Welsh Catholic family and who converted to Judaism in adulthood. This convert is, as we find out later by inference, regarded as below contempt by other jews, because she is not a biological jew, and therefore is matched with a fellow male convert to Hasidic Judaism. When we see that the jewish community took great pains to match these two converts together so that their own biologically jewish stock was not ‘defiled’ by gentile ‘impurities’. It becomes very clear that the criterion being used, by both Mann and the jews in general, is not religion, but rather biological origins and no matter how repentant or observant a convert you are: you will never be regarded as a real jew by jews and will be discriminated against accordingly.

We also see this discrimination and differentiation on the basis of biology in how Mann words her description of the convert’s reason for converting in that Mann tells us it was because she, the convert, ‘claimed’ that she felt a very close affinity to the characters in the Old Testament and that she felt as if they spoke to her. When Mann is using the word ‘claim’ she is deliberately throwing scepticism onto the converts claim to have felt great affinity for the characters of the Old Testament, because the convert, is a gentile. So Mann implicitly knows, and states this knowledge by adding the word ‘claims’, that the convert couldn’t understand the characters of the Old Testament in the way that Mann, as a jewess, does, because the convert was not born a jew.

This jewish perception of a biological difference between jew and gentile, becomes the most obviously apparent when Mann describes her father’s, who as an Orthodox rabbi in charge of a London congregation, reaction to discovering she had a gentile boyfriend who she was regularly sleeping with was to simply inform her to pack her bags and leave his house. Mann even goes so far as to explicitly state the reason for her father’s extreme reaction was because Chris was a gentile. This shows us, in quite dramatic prose, how deep this split between a gentile and a jew is felt in Judaism, as well as in jewish culture in general, in so far as it shows how strongly it was felt that even merely sleeping with a gentile was a form of traitorous behaviour (because Chris by sleeping with her ‘defiling her with his impurity’).

This we can illustrate by pointing to Mann’s own comments about her previous history in her teenage years in so far as Mann, as she states with pride, was a quite rebellious teenager and wanted to live a ‘free life’ where she would not have to play the ‘good, obedient girl’ that was the rabbi’s daughter. Mann did not lose her virginity by Chris, but rather she lost that several years earlier with a ‘little jewish boy’ behind the ark curtain in her father’s synagogue. Mann was, in fact, found out by a member of her father’s staff, but maintains that the member of staff did not tell her father.

However, given Mann’s extensive testimony about her father, we can suggest that, in fact, the member of staff likely told her father what she had done but that Mann’s father wasn’t particularly offended, because the act was with a jewish boy of the type he hoped Mann to marry when she was older. If it was a gentile with whom Mann had lost her virginity behind the ark curtain then we can state that the consequences would have been extreme and well beyond simply kicking Mann out the house, but probably including a lot of hysterical shouting and the eventual removal of Mann completely from the religious jewish community on the basis that she was now officially dead to them and her family.

We see this double standard and anti-gentile attitude in action even more clearly later on in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in so far that when Mann decided it was time to go to see the jewish ‘match maker’ in the Hasidic women’s school that she is attending. One of the first question’s the match maker asks her is rather simple: whether she has had any sexual relations with a gentile or not and then states quite emphatically that if this is the case then Mann cannot marry any jew who has been frum-from-birth (or FFB) let alone a jew of priestly lineage such as a Cohen. Such explicit anti-gentile sentiment although not expressed often in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ is never that far away from the surface.

We see a short snippet of Mann’s anti-gentile attitudes when she notes that Chris’ gentile penis with its foreskin ‘tasted different’ and was not ‘as good as’ a jewish circumcised penis. The underlying message Mann gives , which might seem innocuous when quoted as disparaging comments, is that jews are biologically superior to gentiles. Mann also suggests later on that intercourse with jews is a ‘more spiritual experience’ and she all but claims that jews are ‘better in bed’ than gentiles. This is, of course, an extremely anti-gentile statement to make, but unless we thought about it we might well not necessarily recognise that Mann is demonstrating to us, consciously or unconsciously, that jews look down upon gentiles and regard them as inferior human beings.

Mann generally seeks to distance herself from this attitude but completely fails to do so. In part: this is because she expresses no regret or remorse for her father and mother having treated her gentile boyfriend Chris so badly. Nor does Mann express any regret or sorrow over her attitude towards her relation with Chris, but rather feels sorry for herself in so far as she cannot now marry the type of jew she maintains she really wants to marry. Mann looks around to divert blame for this and finds a scapegoat in the ‘counter culture’ in which she grew up implicitly blaming it for her coming into sexual contact with gentiles, Chris in particular, as well as her abuse of drugs and alcohol.

Mann’s attitude to Chris is particularly telling, because she explicitly states that he was simply a man who was there for her to ‘fuck’ in order to sate her incredibly jaded sexual appetite rather than as a love relationship (as she intimates he believed it to be). Thus Mann implicitly admits to the reader that she simply used Chris and played on his feelings until she was bored with him and threw him away because she wanted a new toy to play with.

These jaded sexual appetites form a consistent theme in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in so far as Mann relates everything she writes about to sexual intercourse in some way. If we combine this fact with the fact that Mann herself, as well as jews in general, do not understand or feel connected to gentile minds and the resulting gentile culture but rather feel alien to it all. We can explicitly state Mann’s state of mind, as well as that of her fellow jews, is Freudian, i.e. the ego through the medium is sex is the basis for behaviour, in nature.

We see evidence of this in Mann’s book through her denial of responsibility and culpability for anything she has herself done and instead of owning up and honestly stating that she had made a mistake , Mann tries to exonerate herself of this and denies her responsibility for what she has done by blaming scapegoats in particular gentiles (i.e. Chris, but also her old gentile school friends and the carers at her sister’s mental care home), as well as notably blaming her mother for her behaviour.

Mann’s consistent act of blaming her mother for her behaviour is important to note, because it provides further important evidence for Mann’s Freudian mindset. In Freudian thought it is asserted that the basis of much behaviour revolves around the desire to mate with the mother or the father depending on, which gender is sexually desired by the jewish individual in question. In Mann’s case we can note a strong antipathy towards her mother who she partly blames for her wanting to sneak off to ‘be with the hippies’ and Mann’s own resulting sexual relations with gentiles and therefore her impurity when regarded by religious jews with whom she seeks solace with. Mann particularly blames her mother’s lack of care for her and her hysterical irritability, which she generously places down to her mother having a mentally handicapped child, who Mann believes her mother treated very badly and that she, Mann, was the very soul of kindness too.

Mann’s attitude to her mother is heavily reflected in her portrayals of her in so far that Mann’s mother is always portrayed as being jittery, prudish, vain, completely self-absorbed and materialistic. It is quite possible that her mother was indeed like this, but then we can note that Mann herself, who although throughout the work unsuccessfully tries to carve an image of herself as a disorientated, suffering child who then because of the bad lot she fell in with proceeded to be victimised all her life, is a fine example of this. We can see here that Mann is in denial over her similarities to her mother who she views, and portrays extremely negatively since she is trying to actively differentiate between herself and her mother.

This, logically, leads us on to question of why Mann is doing this. Why is Mann portraying her own mother, and presumably delivering a vengeful mental slap at the same time, in such negative terms? Since in European and European-derived society: it is considered a grossly impertinent and impolite act to vilify one’s own dead relatives, especially in public. Mann crosses this reasonable social taboo without even batting an eye-lid and attacks her own mother with considerable, subtle ferocity. The reason for this is quite simple: since as Mann implicitly assumes jews think differently to Europeans and European-derived society despite living in the same places, eating similar food and having similar general experiences in life. The only reconciliation, which can be, reasonably made between Mann’s attack on her own mother and a rational explanation for actual behaviour: is the conception that Mann views her mother as a rival.

When we realise that Mann views her mother as a rival not as her friend and guardian Mann’s behaviour begins to fall into place, but first we must ask who Mann is in a rivalry with her mother over? The answer to that is quite simply: Mann’s father.

We see Mann’s secret desire for her father manifest itself in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ mainly as comments about how much Mann loved her father, how he always helped her out when she had got herself into various messes, how he cared for her as well as how intellectual and brilliant he was. These are perhaps what you would expect regarding a much loved father, but then when we at the various points at which Mann’s mother and father appear together that Mann, becomes more harsh with her father.

This can only be explained by Mann’s own secret feelings for her father in so far as if that was not the case then there is no explicit or subtle reason give or suggested as to why Mann should suddenly switch from a deep love of her father to a more critical tone. The switch to the critical tone represents Mann’s subtle rebuke of her own dead father’s choice in wives: in so far as Mann subtly shows that she desires to be in her mother’s place.

We see this particularly in Mann’s description of a Passover feast that she and her then husband, referred to as Simcha, invite her mother and father to their Israeli apartment to share in the feast. Simcha decides to consume all the specially prepared unleavened bread at the absolutely strictest Hasidic level in that he has to consume it all in four minutes. This decision results in a disgusting scene where Simcha’s beard is covered in half-digested matzo and Mann’s parents react badly to this . Mann describes her mother once again in wholly unfavourable terms as being prudish and feeling like she was going to be sick and regurgitate the fish that she had for lunch. However, unlike when her father is not with her mother, Mann describes her father in similarly negative terms as looking completely sickened and cursing under his breath at his fanatical, disgusting and completely uncivilised son-in-law as well as giving Mann ‘black looks’.

This indicates that Mann is indeed looking at her father as an object of love and her mother as a rival: since here Mann’s mother has been made to feel sick and thus feel very uncomfortable by Mann’s husband. Hence, Mann’s father has taken exception to this in blaming Mann and Mann has in her turn attacking her father for siding with her mother and not loving her instead.

We see that this not only platonic and/or romantic love in another note that Mann makes in passing in that when talking about sex again: this time again in the context of her husband, Simcha (who has not, as she repeatedly tells us, satisfied her sexually). This note is rather simply to the effect that Mann ‘is reliably informed by her mother that her father and her mother enjoy an extremely passionate sexual relationship’. This is an unusual notation to make, especially in European and European-derived culture regarding your parents, since it is a strong social taboo and children seldom can, or want, to imagine or know about their parent’s love-making activities.

However, Mann has simply placed this rather lewd notation in the middle of her own autobiographical account of her life so far, which infers to us that it has some importance to her. This notation also further suggests to us that Mann is trampling over normal social taboos, because she, like her fellow jews, has a different type of thought process to the European and European-derived culture that she was brought up in for the reason of biological difference between her as a jewess and the native population.

This notation, therefore, because it is a direct jealous reference to her mother and father’s sexual life combined with Mann’s hostile nature towards her mother and her hostility towards her father only when she is in her mother’s presence. We can conclude is an expression of Mann’s own platonic, romantic and sexual love for her father, which is a forbidden fruit that she wishes to taste. Since, as Mann puts it, she longs for her father’s affection, but yet this affection never comes and Mann remains disappointed in her ambitions.

In trying to please her father Mann decides that she is going to become a strict Torah observant jew after he forces her out of his house. We can see this as a reaction to her break-up with her gentile lover, Chris, which is caused by Mann defending her father to Chris when to Chris’ mind her father has behaved disgracefully and in a very bigoted fashion.

Chris’ perspective is immediately recognizable to us, as both reader and writer, because it is a standard liberal position that discrimination and bigotry are horrific acts that are completely unjustified and the fact that Mann would defend her father’s behaviour to Chris seems to have understandably rankled with him.

That Mann chose her father over her gentile lover, whom she used, abused and then threw away, is not surprising since Mann, as a jewess, thinks differently to both Chris and ourselves. This is further added to by Mann’s discovery that her father was purchasing the rights to the flat in which they lived so he could look after his jewish daughter even when she committed so gross an act as to sleep with a non-jew. What is interesting here is that even though Mann had performed an act he could not really forgive her for Mann’s father seeks to protect his daughter but tries to do so in secret.

The reason for this protection is that Mann’s father loves his daughter, whether or not that goes into the fundamentally romantic and even the sexual is debatable, because we have only Mann’s opinions and commentary on her life and not her fathers, and wishes to make sure that when she comes to her senses and wishes to date, have sex with and marry only jews then he is in a position to step in to take her back into the religious jewish fold.

Mann’s change from extreme hedonism to become in her words a ‘pious, dumpy maid’ is understandable when we consider her and her father’s relationship. In that Mann realises she has by her actions displeased the father that she is sexually attracted to, because of her actions to get his attention in the first place (i.e. her involvement with drugs and sexual relations with gentiles) as she was not the centre of her father’s attention but rather an after thought, which came after his work with the jewish community.

What has happened to Mann is fairly simple in so far as she has tried to become the most pious, Torah-observant jew she can possibly be in order to please her father by going several steps more observant than him. This move to be a more pious jew than her father is an attempt by Mann to make up for her past indiscretions that have displeased her father by showing him how much she has changed. By doing so Mann hopes to regain the love that she believes she has lost by trying to attract his attention through doing things that aggravated and appalled him.

We see the beginning of this attempt to make up with her father after Mann has broken up with Chris and tells her parents that it is her intention to move to Israel to study to become a midwife. This is important, because it shows us the beginning of Mann’s attempt to win back the fatherly love she believes she has lost. Since at this point Mann tells us she felt like she needed to be amongst her own kind in a place where there were few non-jews and that place, of course, was Israel. Mann informs of how this strategy played into her love for her father in so far as when her mother and father heard that Mann wished to make Aliyah they were willing to forgive her and help her to move to Israel so she could be amongst jews.

Mann well knew the effect that this declaration would have on her parents, because she knew the reason that she had been ejected from her father’s house, as we have discussed, was because of her sexual relationship with a gentile. Therefore: Mann is, unconsciously or consciously, using this knowledge to manipulate her father into forgiving her which also influences her mother to do so, but Mann only notes on this in passing, and therefore going some way to filling Mann’s need for love from her father.

As it turns out this is not what Mann’s father wants of Mann and Mann states that her father and mother wished for her to marry a jewish doctor or a highly paid jewish professional. However Mann felt that she had to make up with her father was to atone for her past religiously and the best way to do that, in her perception, would be to turn into an ultra-orthodox jewess. Mann herself goes about this by entering into a Hasidic girl’s school in Jerusalem and by this indicates that her thought is motivated by selfish regard for what her perception is rather than what her father’s actual perception is.

Whilst at the Hasidic Girls School we find that Mann’s thoughts are not as pious as her outward appearance and apparent obedience to the strict dictates of Hasidim suggest. We see in this particular in Mann’s comments at the beginning of ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in so far as Mann continually reminisces about her previous sexual contacts as well as how she believed all men desired to ‘fuck’ her. This mainly takes the form of thoughts about her former gentile lover, Chris, in so far as he is now forbidden fruit and since she cannot have him, because he is a gentile, she now desires him to desire her.

This differentiation between the outward obedience of the strict dictates of Judaism and the genetic desire for a life of absolute hedonism is, as I have said, a fundamental aspect of both Mann’s own personal, and more generally jewish, mindset. The reason for this is simple: in so far as Mann, and jews in general, have a considerable need to temporarily satisfy their own lack of confidence in themselves, which derives, as we have seen with Mann, from an unsatisfied platonic, romantic and sexual love for the parent of the relevant gender.

This is counteracted by the defence mechanism of the need to be well regarded by their peers who maintain the external appearance of obedience and observance. This is simplifying the relationship between Judaism and the internal psychology of the jew considerably, but it is essentially correct to state that Judaism is a specifically devised social control mechanism to allow the jewish authorities to create a coherent society and to prevent harm coming to the creators/rulers by the actions of jewish individuals.

We see this in that some of the jewish men that Mann relates she ‘dated’ as part of the jewish match maker program operated by the Hasidic school. We find, for example, that the first jewish man she ‘dates’ is a formerly lapsed jew who now has taken to Hasidic Judaism. He tells Mann, to impress her with his external obedience and piety, that he has built a little contraption out of string to tie up his penis every night so as to ‘not spill any of his seed’. The encouraging of acts such as this, in Judaism, is meant to control the natural psychosexually-based instincts and needs of the jews via the process of discipline and denial, because the ‘jewish god’ dictated as such (hence it is a divine commandment, which they cannot disobey). Thus the act described by Mann of the jewish male creating a small contraption to wear at night as to make sure he doesn’t spill any seed is an act of self-denial (rather than self-control), which the individual jew perceives to make themselves, in the word’s of the matchmaker who introduced Mann and this jew, ‘more holy’.

This holiness is sanctimonious in nature rather than pious in the true sense of the term because it is used an attractive characteristic by the jew concerned and allows them to replace the normal ego gratification of hedonism with the ego gratification of self-denial.

This therefore means it is important to note that the individual jew, such as Mann, will relate to Judaism not as a control mechanism but as a means of gaining the self-image that they wish to project in order to win their desired parents or personality. Jews who practice Judaism do not do so, as Mann implicitly tells us, because they have a genuine pious desire, but rather, because it replaces one system of ego gratification with another. However, it also confers important additional benefits onto the jews who choose to practice it: such as the gain of considerable, religiously based, authority over numerous other jews with the opportunities for corruption, personal advancement and hedonism that that brings with it.

Specifically with Mann we find, as we have discussed above, that she is becoming obedient to Hasidim, precisely because she wishes to repair the damage done to her reputation in her father’s eyes and hence transform herself from sexual deviant and an embarrassment to an obedient and pious jewish woman who, Mann believes, her father would platonically, romantically and sexually desire (i.e. the woman her grandfather, or her father’s father, desired her father to marry).

Therefore what is occurring in Mann’s mind when she has these forbidden thoughts, that according to Mann come unbidden (although we can suggest these thoughts were not unwelcome: since she recalls them with a considerable degree of fondness), but is an externally obedient and pious jewish woman, is her fundamental desire to massage her deflated ego by being sexually desired by all the men in the world. This is despite her lip service to the obedient and pious jewish woman image that she has adopted to please her father.

We see this contrast, between the external presentation and the internal reality of Mann, as well as the other jews in which she comes into contact with, more generally among the jews in Mann’s school when Mann states that she seduced and had a sexual relationship with a fellow female jewish student. This is, despite homosexual acts being explicitly forbidden in the Torah and considered a high crime in the standard commentaries and rabbinic literature, Mann’s reason for seducing this student and why we can suspect that the student consented to be seduced and to have homosexual intercourse with Mann, is that, as she relates, she wants to feel pleasure and she wants to feel loved again. The only way Mann feels that she is loved is through sexual intercourse: this indicates to us that Mann, like jews more generally, leads a very hollow existence.

In this expression of her homosexual encounter with another jewish female Mann is seeking to claim that she is desirable to all men and all women: since she has already described frequently and at length how she feels that (all) men desire to ‘fuck’ her and had hinted that (all) women do so too. This is all part of the filling of Mann’s lack of confidence: by the act of having sexual intercourse with as many different people as possible (to prove to herself that she is loved and therefore desired) and the subsequent bragging/boasting about through her book fulfils a similar medium by suggesting to others that Mann is desired more than them, that they should also desire her and also the reliving of the egoistic gratification experience for Mann.

We also see a defence mechanism in Mann’s writing in so far as Mann herself states as an afterthought to the recounting of this experience that it was ‘alright’, because the Torah, according to Mann, only states that a ‘man shall not sleep with another man’. However, this is a weak argument since as Mann well knows and knew at the time: homosexual encounters of any are kind are explicitly forbidden in halakha. What Mann is doing here is trying to use the legal letter to invalidate the spirit of the law in order to give an after the fact justification of why she engaged in this homosexual act with another jewess without admitting it was hedonistic lust on her part in order to satisfy her egoistic desires via the association of sexual intercourse and pleasure with self-worth.

Therefore we see that Mann is in fact trying to justify her actions in order to reconcile her external appearance of being a woman of obedience and piety with the psychosexual tendencies that are inherent within her. This she does as we have said via the defence mechanism of denial of having done anything wrong, using her justification to allow her to do this, but also she blames the jewess with whom she committed the acting. Telling us that other jewesses were more squeamish than her and thought, Mann infers incorrectly, that homosexual conduct between jewish females was forbidden to them. Thus Mann seeks not only to justify her actions, but blame anyone, including other jewesses, other than herself since she does not believe that she is to blame for anything that has happened to her as I have stated above in reference to Mann’s blaming of Chris and her mother.

What can we conclude from all this?

When we conclude from this the easiest way to do so would be through the medium of psychoanalysis, We can see that Mann has an intense aversion to her mother, both using her as a scapegoat and also being jealous of her because of her sexual relations with her father, and an intense attachment to her father, which can be said to be sexual in nature. We can also see that Mann does not believe that gentiles are like her in the biological and spiritual senses. As well as that they, gentiles, are, as a rule, incapable of understanding and fulfilling her needs beyond that of purely physical contact: therefore assigning them an inferior and jews a superior position in her world.

We can also conclude that Mann is purely egoistic individual who operates only as to what she perceives benefits her in the materialistic sense at any given time rather than engaging in altruistic behaviours orientated towards the future. What we can draw from this is jews operate purely in the materialistic sense and look to their own inner selves. It also explains why it is often observed that jews are always looking to find a way to put anyone else down in that they will not just say: ‘Oh that looks nice of you’, but rather say ‘Oh that would like nice on your if you lost a little weight.’

The key to understanding why jews act the way they do is to understand that each jew, like Mann, views the priorities of the world as being: Me, Myself and I, rather than a mixture of selfishness and altruism. This doesn’t mean that jews do not act as a group, but rather it means that jewish culture forces their egotistical behaviour to follow artificial paths to help the jews as a group in order that the individual jew may gratify themselves with the idea that they have gained in standing, recognition and importance in the jewish community.

Denying Historical Debate


The following letter was written by Professor Deborah Lipstadt to the 'New York Times' and published by that newspaper on the 28th February 2009. We reprint it here solely as a matter of record so that you, the reader, may read our letter in response in context.

‘Those Who Deny the Holocaust Deny History

“Vatican Calls the Apology of a Bishop Insufficient” (news article, Feb. 28) reports that the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson has consulted with David Irving. Mr. Irving is a fitting partner for him. Strangely, Mr. Irving is described in the article as a “historian.” When he sued me for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier, the court ruled that his “falsification of the historical record was deliberate” and motivated by “ideological beliefs,” including anti-Semitism and racism. The judge called Mr. Irving’s writings on the Holocaust “misleading,” “unjustified,” a “travesty” and “unreal.” He “perverts” and “distorts.” This is not the description of a historian. It is the description of a denier.

Deborah E. Lipstadt

Washington, Feb. 28, 2009’


The Editor responds:


Denying Historical Debate

Dr. Lipstadt,

In your letter of February 28th 2009 printed in the New York Times of that date you draw attention to the fact that Bishop Williamson has consulted with David Irving. In the letter you attack Bishop Williamson as a ‘denier’: may I ask what Bishop Williamson has actually denied?

Bishop Williamson has consistently stated that he holds the historical opinion that during the Third Reich several hundred thousand jews died and that this is, by any standard, a considerable loss of human life. What the Bishop has not said did not happen is that jews did not die and that some jews were killed deliberately during this time. That would make him a ‘denier’ since he would have denied something happened at all. This should go without saying and is a fact that has not been disputed among those you, by implication, pillory in your letter along with Bishop Williamson and David Irving.

What Bishop Williamson has stated is that he is of the historical opinion that the, seemingly static, public figure of six million jews killed in the Holocaust is not accurate and he has further stated that he does not believe that the jews that were died were killed as the result of a mass gassing program. He bases this opinion on reading he has done in the Holocaust Revisionist literature: this makes his opinion based on an arguable interpretation of the facts as they exist. Bishop Williamson has also not stated that he relies on David Irving’s work, but merely that he has consulted with him. Therefore your letter begins with at least a very vague statement and at worst a deliberately misleading one, which then hypocritically contradicts your attacks on David Irving and Bishop Williamson.

Whether or not you regard Bishop Williamson’s opinions as truthful is irrelevant to the debate since you, yourself, have falsified your own research if we judge it by the standard, which you are evidentially judging Holocaust Revisionist research. Since the adjectives that you have applied to David Irving: ‘misleading’, ‘unjustified’, ‘travesty’, ‘unreal’, ‘perverts’ and ‘distorts’, could equally be used to characterise your own book ‘Denying the Holocaust’: some of the errors of which have been written on quite extensively in the late Journal for Historical Review[25].

You have not to my knowledge answered these objections nor given responses regarding the issues raised. You should note that some of the errors you make in your book, ‘Denying the Holocaust’, are of such a considerable nature that one cannot help, but wonder if they have been made deliberately.

Until you can show how your arguments are in fact based on arguable fact rather than broad generalisations and straw men arguments based on a lack of research: then it is not reasonable for you to complain that David Irving and Bishop Williamson’s past and/or present beliefs are ‘misleading’, ‘unjustified’, a ‘travesty’, ‘unreal’, ‘pervert’ and ‘distort’ the historical record since you have done/are doing what you allege David Irving and Bishop Williamson to have done/are doing. However unlike both David Irving and Bishop Williamson you have not offered the usual courtesy of a defence of your views and have merely ascended to a proverbial soap box to pontificate to the readers of the New York Times.

We must wonder if you, Dr. Lipstadt, are not in fact motivated in your historical views by your own status as a jew and that you are thus showing considerable intolerance towards those with different views to your own. How else can we reasonably account for your continued pontificating in a field of which you have been shown, to which charges again you have not rebutted, your manifest ignorance of in your book: ‘Denying the Holocaust’. If we use your logic therefore you do not deserve to be called an academic, because you have arguably committed deliberate falsifications in your own work.

Furthermore David Irving, although we note that he has subsequently retracted his views regarding the Holocaust, has to be referred to as a historian precisely because he has written a large number of historical works, that are still well-regarded, and has contributed a considerable amount of original research and interpretation to the historical debate surrounding the Third Reich. The court did indeed rule that David Irving’s opinions were as you describe them, but neither affects whether his opinions, at that time, were historically correct (since what you are quoting is only the judge’s opinion) and nor does it deprive David Irving of the right to be correctly called a historian by the New York Times.

Therefore Dr. Lipstadt you are the ‘denier’ of both historical debate and credit: are you not?

Perhaps we might suggest Dr. Lipstadt that in future you look to your own scholarly work before attacking other people’s work and claiming that they are things that they are patently not. It would also be well if you wish to write to the New York Times about these issues that you should not grandstand about your only claim to fame, i.e. the David Irving trial, so-to-speak in the historical world and write something of actual substance.

Yours truly,

Karl Radl,

Editor of Semitic Controversies Magazine,



Book Reviews


Alan Steinweis Debunks Himself

A Review of:

Alan Steinweis, 2008, ‘Studying the Jew: Scholarly Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany’, 2nd Edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Serious studies of National Socialism are rare, but serious studies of National Socialist scholarship, especially as it relates to the most emotional topic that is associated with it and the Third Reich, the jews, are even more rare. Most studies that claim to be ‘serious studies’ of this topic are afflicted with the kind of suffocating and smarmy postscript that has evolved into the mythos of, i.e. the justification, the era in which we live[26]. This Steinweis, who is the Rosenberg Professor of History and Judaic Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, correctly notes is due to the automatic presumption on the part of the authors concerned that everything that was associated with National Socialist ideology was simply irrational and lacking in any substance what-so-ever.

What Steinweis in introducing the subject area does not state is that this presumption has allowed whole theoretical castles in the sky to be built around the policies and concepts that make up National Socialism. Constructs which at their best do it no justice as a credible political ideology, because they assume it has no rational basis where-as it most certainly did and does[27]. At the worst the inventors of these constructions deliberately misrepresent the Third Reich and National Socialism making them out to be completely evil in some cases this has been taken further into the realms of demonic.

In writing a book on National Socialist scholarship regarding the jewish question Steinweis moves, as he himself notes, into an understudied area that really has not been generally covered since 1946[28], because of this simple presumption of irrationality. There have, as Steinweis informs us, been several specific studies of some parts of the subject area and some of the scholars who contributed to the National Socialist critique of jews in the Third Reich. However, the literature is still very sparse with much opportunity for further study.

Steinweis is certainly to be commended for writing such an accessible, and quite enjoyable, work and he is also to be commended for writing it in a relatively unemotional and factual manner, while not engaging in too much condemnation and manipulation of the facts to suit his personal bias in the issue due to his being of jewish origin. Steinweis has commendably done his research and concentrates on what he, rightly, considers to be the key scholars who created the rational anti-Semitism that Adolf Hitler had long called for as a counter to the almost purely jewish domination of the study of jews. It is noteworthy that Steinweis recognises that Adolf Hitler in the earliest days of the N.S.D.A.P., and during his own political awakening, recognised that the traditional anti-Semitic materials such as those the anti-Semitic movement’s own titans: Theodor Fritsch, Adolf Stoecker and Eduard Drumont, in addition to the traditional low to medium brow literature, which sought to condemn the jews,were not sufficient to provide a scholarly case against them. What was required was a scholarly inter-disciplinary collaboration to create what Steinweis refers to as a ‘Nazi Jewish Studies’ field with its own reference literature and standard works. This is precisely what, as Steinweis records, a number of eminent scholars from a variety of different fields set out to do.

However, despite doing an excellent job of presenting the general history of anti-jewish scholarship in the Third Reich. Steinweis does not give much credit to National Socialist scholarship regarding the jewish question. Although Steinweis has certainly, as I have stated, done his research; he refuses to give credit where credit is due. Instead of a realistic and scholarly appraisal of the works of the Third Reich and whether there was a basis for their general contentions. Steinweis simply ignores the possibility that ‘Nazi anti-Semitism’ may have been correct in whole or in part of its condemnation of jews. This is despite his declaration at the start of ‘Studying the Jew’ that National Socialist scholarship in the Third Reich has been summarily dismissed as propaganda but should be looked at on the basis of it being scholarship rather than as ‘regime propaganda’. Hence Steinweis proceeds to commit exactly the same error he noted was unfortunate in his introduction: he simply presumes that such scholarship was ‘pseudo-scientific’ and ‘fallacious’ rather than make a balanced critique of such work. What is particularly notable is that Steinweis takes any opportunity to find one objection, often quite slight, to a work and to infer that this makes the work invalid in terms of scholarship. If we were to apply Steinweis’ own standard here to his own work then he would be equally, if not more, fallacious than the scholars he is writing about.

An example of this can be found in his comments concerning Hans Guenther, which make up the second chapter, ‘Racializing the Jew’, of ‘Studying the Jew’. Steinweis is at his most specific here in his analysis of Guenther’s middle-brow study of the jews as a race[29]. Guenther cites a variety of different authors, including jews such as Maurice Fishberg[30], whom argued against the concept of race both in its application to jews and as a lens for understanding humanity. Steinweis notes that these authors disagreed with Guenther and hence Steinweis claims Guenther was being disingenuous in citing their work, the thrust of which Steinweis rightly notes disagreed with Guenther.

However what Steinweis, in his anxiousness to discredit Guenther, omits to mention is that Guenther is making very specific points and is noting that others have found specific evidence, to which he adds his own interpretation, in the light of other evidence, on. This is hardly being disingenuous or unscholarly, as Steinweis claims, but rather it is the normal practice of scholars across the many disciplines that make up academe. For example if one disagrees with the conclusions and thrust of another scholar’s argument, but agrees with a specific interpretation on one point that is relevant to your own work, it is not misrepresenting the other scholar to cite that one point from their work in support of your own even if the arguments made are completely opposed to one another. Since Guenther was not suggesting that the jewish scholars in question actually supported either his interpretation or conclusion, but rather that they made a point, or a series of points, which were worth noting in terms of his own interpretation: hence Steinweis’ argument cannot be considered as valid.

However not all Steinweis’ negative criticism is unjustified in that he briefly cites and discusses the work of Johann von Leers, who besides writing a lot of middle-brow works on jews in general, wrote some notable scholarly work concerning jews and criminality where he argued that jews were inherently, i.e. biologically, predisposed towards crime[31]. Steinweis correctly notes that for one particular figure[32] von Leers drew on a 1927 Polish anti-Semitic pamphlet: this is of course problematic but hardly worth of the emphasis Steinweis places on it. Steinweis himself does not cite or analyze the publication which von Leers is citing but simply dismisses it presumably because it is anti-Semitic and therefore irrational in Steinweis’ eyes. We must opine that in this it is Steinweis who is being irrational and unscholarly, and not von Leers, for he has made not attempt to analyze von Leers’ work but merely has sought to find something, which can be arguably objected to, in order to dismiss von Leers entire book as so much anti-Semitic rubbish.

Steinweis makes another, perhaps more cogent, general criticism of von Leers’ work in that he notes that von Leers left out some figures that might have counted against his general thesis[33]. However this later criticism relies upon on a problematic understanding of von Leers’ argument concerning jewish criminality. Where von Leers is arguing quite specifically that jews are fundamentally disposed towards crime, but this does not equate that jews must have more incidences of all types of crime but merely that they must show significant incidence of crime across socio-economic boundaries. This is what von Leers sets out to prove. Steinweis’ objection, although valid, does not discount von Leers’ thesis as Steinweis claims, but rather von Leers’ thesis simply requires further clarification and the refining of the original argument. It is also important to state that von Leers’ use of one bad reference does not negate his work either being scholarly or his thesis being valid. Hence it is reasonable to suggest that Steinweis is looking for a reason, however trivial, to call into question the scholarship and integrity of scholars in the Third Reich researching and writing about the jewish question.

Steinweis’ negative assessment of all the academic work of the scholars who forged the inter-disciplinary field of ‘Nazi Jewish Studies’ has only one minor exception where he notes as to the work of Volkmar Eichstaedt. Who researched and wrote a meticulous bibliography of works, ‘Bibliography on the History of the Jewish Question’[34], relevant to the jewish question with precise cross-referencing from numerous different catalogues. Eichstaedt also notably added in an asterisk next to each author’s name who was known to have been a jew by religious profession and/or by birth/lineage. He further adds in a question mark next to each authors name who may have been a jew, but whose status was indeterminate. Steinweis pays Eichstaedt the grudging compliment that this work became the standard index on the subject and was used well after the defeat and occupation of Germany as a standard reference work in the philo-Semitic study of jews.

That Steinweis doesn’t see fit to actually praise any of this work is notable, because as stated above, it carries on the assumption that Steinweis distances himself from in his introduction. Steinweis himself appears to be suffering from a problem that he traduces the main scholars in the Third Reich involved in developing the field of ‘Nazi Jewish Studies’ for. Steinweis notes that the specialists on the jewish question in the Third Reich attacked what they, correctly, saw as the problem of inherent bias in the domination of the scholarly study of jews by jews. In that jews were very unlikely to produce a balanced and accurate depiction of their own history due to the racial perception and interests of the jews as a race.

Steinweis’ objection to this is an ostensibly correct one: in that if the logic of racialism holds then racialist thinking contradicts the assertion of the Third Reich scholars on the jewish question that their own works were in the objective spirit (since they are biased against the jews due to being of Aryan biological origin). However what Steinweis misunderstands is that different races have, and will always, think that their approach to a subject is objective when in fact in terms of racialism it is subjective. It is not that the scholars concerned were objective, because they, like their jewish counterparts, were actually writing from a subjective racial viewpoint, but rather that they felt that they were being objective, because they were looking at the issue as members of the Aryan race. Likewise the jewish scholars whom they cited thought they were objective, when they were actually racially subjective, as members of the jewish sub-racial/ethnic group.

Steinweis himself fits within this paradigm since he maintains that he is objective, but as we have pointed out above with reference to two examples, but he is not and consistently interprets issues that best suit his jewish heritage and on similar presumptions to those he criticises. Hence Steinweis’ argument that there is a contradiction in terms of these claims is quite incorrect.
This isn’t to say that Steinweis’ study is without considerable value, because it does give the reader an excellent historiographic picture of scholarly anti-jewish writing in the Third Reich, citing all the major authors and giving some background to them as well as allowing the reader to begin to engage with the literature and thought that Steinweis is describing. However Steinweis’ analysis and refusal to give credit, where it is due, does not give the scholars he is discussing a fair and honest appraisal and gives the impression of ‘pseudo-scholarship’ that contradicts Steinweis’ earlier professions to treat the scholars concerning with honesty and consideration in terms of their academic work.

It is obvious throughout Steinweis’ description and analysis that there is an overt agenda present in ‘Studying the Jew’. In that in addition to describing the Third Reich studies on the jewish question. Steinweis in the case of nearly the all individuals he discusses goes onto describe the post-Third Reich careers of the scholars concerned. This is meant to, as Steinweis states in his conclusion, highlight the ‘lack of justice’ and ‘Nazi influence’ in post-Third Reich German scholarship. Hence becoming more fodder for the jewish guilt-industry that surrounds the Second World War and re-enforcing the notion that jews are ‘victims’ and that Germany hasn’t done ‘enough’ to ‘remove Nazi influence’. This is the jewish agenda that ‘Studying the Jew’ is riddled with and hence it must be pointed out that in reading ‘Studying the Jew’ one must be wary of this further disingenuous attempt to claim that anti-Semitism has no rational basis and that jews should be ‘compensated’, because they suffered ‘discrimination’ at the hands of National Socialism. The irony of course is bitter but in today’s topsy-turvy world it is to be expected most of all from the cause of that state: the jews of which Steinweis is but one of many.

Hence although ‘Studying the Jew’ is of value as a general historiographic guide to scholarship on, and scholars who addressed, the jewish question in the Third Reich: the work is so beset with problems as to make its analysis problematic at best and all but worthless at worst.



A French Comte’s War against the Subversion of the Faith

A Review of

Vicomte Léon de Poncins, Undated, [1929], ‘Freemasonry and Judaism: Secret Powers behind the Revolution’, 1st Edition, A & B Books: New York.


Vicomte Léon de Poncins is a name well known in Catholic, anti-Freemasonic and anti-Semitic circles for his numerous, and often quite courageous, works on what he saw as the secret forces that were seeking to subvert society in his day and historically. His work is often cited as a reference by contemporary would-be anti-Semites, as well as serial conspiracy theorists, such as David Duke and Jeff Rense when they make assertions concerning jews in history and in contemporary times. Four of de Poncins’ many books have been translated into English and are often sold in English language nationalist and/or anti-Semitic bookshops. These are: ‘Judaism and the Vatican’[35], ‘Freemasonry and the Vatican’[36], ‘State Secrets’[37] and ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’. It is important to review the most of important of these[38] which is ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ since this is the one most cited by these would-be anti-Semites.

‘Freemasonry and Judaism: The Secret Powers behind the Revolution’[39] is an English language edition[40] of de Poncins’ 1928 book, ‘Les Forces secrètes de la Révolution’[41], and the new publishing house ‘A & B Books’ is aligned with black nationalism which indicates the steady popularity of de Poncins work over racial boundaries and between the various different racial nationalist movements that exist at present. It also brings up the very real necessity to review de Poncins’ work in the light of what is known today rather than what de Poncins would have known at the time of ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’s’ original writing. That said it would be out of the scope of this review to carefully analyze each and every assertion de Poncins’ makes and the evidence on which he bases these assertions. Hence, we will discuss the general thesis, the component parts and some of the more important specific arguments of ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’.

The thrust of ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ is quite a simple one Poncins himself states here:

‘The aim of this work is not to produce new unpublished evidence but to set out and summarize the whole question for a reader who is supposed to be ignorant of this subject.’[42]

Therefore it should become apparent to the reader that de Poncins’ is writing for those without expertise in the intricate questions that he is addressing: the influence, or lack, of Freemasonry and/or Judaism in world affairs and more precisely how these factor into the revolutionary climate and activities that were prevalent both at the time that de Poncins was writing and for the decades up to and including that of his death in the 1970s. Thus if we see individuals citing de Poncins as an authority for some fact or another then we must tread carefully with this assertion for as de Poncins himself tells us he is not writing a precise work, rather he is generalising and writing for the interest of the average reader rather than a researcher on the subject. If a researcher on the subject was to cite ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ as an authority for some fact or another then they we must suggest that they are to be found wanting[43].

This isn’t to say that ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ is without value, but rather that it is not meant as a work which should be professionally cited (i.e. acting as proof itself), but rather as a general introduction to the subject. For a more in depth conception of what de Poncins’ argues it is necessary to read his many books in his native French since although he wrote many general introductions he also researched and wrote several works based on original research that included far more extensive, and sometimes original, documentation and in-depth discussion than he produces in his general books. For de Poncins, as I suspect he would himself readily admit, was a populariser of political and literary concepts in the best journalistic tradition. This is demonstrated very quickly in ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ since de Poncins uses only a few sources (and cites them frequently), but these sources are in-depth discussions of the subject and as de Poncins himself correctly notes: they do disagree with each other on many specific points as well as the general theory. So, in a commendable show of relative objectivity, de Poncins offers the reader the logic of the differing schools of thought, citing the authors on either side, and suggests that the reader decide for themselves what they think is the case (which we will discuss below).

De Poncins cites a variety of now relatively rare learned French and German language works[44], usually by members of the Catholic clergy and often also members of monastic orders, concerning the Freemasonic conspiracy against civilisation: whom the literature, and de Poncins in his turn, argues are revolutionary by their very nature and wish to substitute Godly order, as represented by de Poncins in the Catholic Church[45], with an atheistic rationalistic conception of the world. This would be literally revolutionary in terms of the established norms and forms of the world, especially to a ardently Catholic aristocratic conservative like de Poncins. This conception of Freemasonry as being revolutionary and of its centrality to the major revolutions in Europe is not unique to de Poncins, but rather was, as I have said, a common feature of conservative, usually Christian, discourse on history and the forces that opposed conservatism/revolutionary conservatism.

The particular revolution that Freemasonry is most identified with is the French revolution in 1789, in which it is contended, not unreasonably, that the Jacobins and the other radicals were associated with Freemasonic sects, sometimes argued to be the Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt [46]and Count Adolph Knigge[47]. De Poncins, like his conservative contemporaries, takes this argument further and suggests that because Freemasonry wishes to abolish religion, particularly Christianity, and seek a foundation of a new ‘rational’[48] and essentially atheistic society. That you can make a direct connexion between the forces that de Poncins argues were behind both the French revolution of 1789 and the forces that were behind the Bolshevik and Marxist revolutions from 1917-1919. In particular de Poncins cites several sources, which allege that Béla Kohn[49], a leading figure in the communist take-over in Hungary[50], and other leading communists and socialists involved in the take-over were members of Freemasonic lodges in Hungary and in fact planned the take-over of Hungary in these lodges.

I cannot find any evidence of this being the case outside of de Poncins’ work[51] and the anti-Semitic/anti-communist literature in general, but it is of note that the Hungarian government after the overthrow of the communist coup did outlaw Freemasonry and seize its documents in relation to the communist coup. This means that the Hungarian government, whether it was correct or incorrect in this belief, certainly believed that Freemasonry was involved with the communist party in some way.

However de Poncins does not note that his earlier citations[52] as to the support of the Freemasons lodges for the new communist government may have been in fact the reason for such suppression, rather than the Masonic lodges having been the origin of the communist take-over as it suggested by Jouin who de Poncins quotes. Hence, even with this knowledge and the citations de Poncins makes from Jouin’s book we cannot substantiate or dispose of this accusation, but rather must we leave it as an avenue for further specialist research.

The citation of Jouin’s work in general, and in the case of the Hungarian communist coup of 1919 in particular, is the logical bridge that de Poncins uses to combine his arguments concerning Freemasonry being a revolutionary force with his other fundamental argument, which dominates the second section of ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’, that the jews are, like Freemasons (and in fact dominate, or are allied with, it), a revolutionary force. The particular bridge offered in the case of the Hungarian communist coup is the assertion that 90% of Freemasons in Hungary were jews. Now certainly while the communist coup of 1919 had a significant amount of jews in its higher echelons, and can be argued to be one of the most jewish-dominated of the communist revolutions/coups, there seems to be no actual evidence of the percentage of Hungarian Freemasons who were jews or of partial jewish ancestry[53] and the assertion of 90 percent seems perhaps a little too high: although in the absence of evidence to the contrary we must suspend judgment of his argument until conclusive evidence, which supports, partially supports or disposes of this assertion can be located. Hence we cannot assert that de Poncins is right or not, but it does seem that some of the figures he is citing in his arguments are perhaps a little unrealistic or unbelievable to contemporary scholarship (although they were a common occurrence in political and intellectual discourse at the time both Jouin and de Poncins were writing).

De Poncins then stops to consider an important question of which revolutionary force, given in de Poncins’ thesis that they are working together, is the primary issue. His discussions on this point are brief[54] but to the point. De Poncins correctly summarizes that there were, and are, two major different schools of thought[55] in terms of the relationship between Freemasonry and the jews. De Poncins also usefully informs us, which of the major authors he cites advocate which theory. These are put quite simply in de Poncins’ own words:

‘That the Jews have entirely created masonry in order to corrupt the nations of Christian civilisation and to propagate behind this veil the general revolution which is to bring about the domination of Israel. It is simply a tool and a means in the hands of the Jews.’[56]

And:

‘Freemasonry was a good and sound institution in principle, but revolutionary agitators, principally Jews, taking advantage of its organization as a secret society, penetrated it little by little.

They have corrupted it and turned it from its moral and philanthropic aim in order to employ it for revolutionary purposes.’[57]

It is certainly praiseworthy that de Poncins mentions these different theories and doesn’t try to direct his reader along one of the two major theories (although he makes it known that he personally favours the second), but rather suggests that the reader make up his or her own mind concerning, which theory best suits the facts of the situation as they are known to them.

In terms of the two theories there is a problem with both of them in that they assume that jewish power is by nature conspiratorial rather than a result of the jewish racial condition[58]. This presumption was a very common one at the time of de Poncins (and the authors he cites) time of writing[59] and again we cannot blame de Poncins, or the authors he cites, for it. However crucially this perspective misses out that jews are not a conspiracy in the traditional European conceptions of it, but rather are a series of extremely egoistic individuals with considerable inferiority complexes who identify their fellow jews/jewesses with the relevant parent and hence feel they desperately have to do the best for/protect their kin (asking and answering the question: what is best for jews, as a substitute for the question: what is best for my jewish mother and father).

This is what I argue is the truth of the jewish question and we can see how these two theories fall down in the light of this, because they presume that the jews have consciously manipulated Freemasonry into being revolutionary in character, but yet if what de Poncins argues earlier in ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ is true, i.e. that Freemasonry is by its general character revolutionary, because it is rationalistic and atheistic, then it cannot have been consciously manipulated by jews.

The non-revolutionary character of English freemasonry, as argued by Nesta Webster among others,[60] is hence easily explained by de Poncins’ own earlier clarification that Freemasonry, became politicised as the 18th century wore on. Therefore we may argue reasonably that actually continental Freemasonry became politicized and English Freemasonry did not.

There is little reason to suppose jews were actively involved in this politicization either, considering that England (and later Great Britain) was living in a time of great increasing jewish power within its borders[61] and especially among its merchants who would have been drawn to revolutionary rationalistic movements far more than aristocrats who had no bars to their social mobility (which Freemasonry if it became politicised could potentially sweep away).

If the first thesis, that Freemasonry is the creation of the jews, is true then we come on the problem of a lack of evidence for early jewish involvement in Freemasonry and indeed the Masonic constitution of the Grand Lodge, the first Masonic institution, in 1717 seems to have involved very few jews since it was the brainchild of Jean Desaguliers rather than a jewish or pre-dominantly jewish cabal. Although it has been argued that there is a ‘Hebrew Manuscript’, of one ‘Joseph Levy’, which Desaguliers allegedly stole and then became the ‘Father of Modern Masonry’ with[62]. I have not seen any substantial evidence for this accusation although this assertion of Freemasonry’s jewish origins remains both unproven and un-refuted until conclusive evidence is brought forth to prove, partially prove or disprove the assertion.

This thesis also encounters the problem that it takes the claims of the Masons themselves, that they were and are descended from the traditions of original Hebrews, at face value, rather than looking at their claims in context of the need in a secret society to create a mythos for that society to act as the social adhesive between the members of the fraternity. There were of course fairly few mystical traditions to draw on 1717 in comparison with the many different traditions, often created from whole cloth, that are propounded today. It is thus far more rational to presume that the Masonic tradition was created precisely to create this mythos to service as a social adhesive, rather than to assume that the Masons are a predominately jewish organisation created by jews who we should believe are telling their truth about their jewish origins. For why, if it is a jewish secret society, would Freemasonry claim to be descended from the Hebrews of the Bible? Surely if it were a jewish revolutionary organisation it would seek to distance itself from its jewish heritage and select a European tradition, such as the Greek Gods and Goddesses for example, to create its mythos out of.

Although we can’t, as in the former case, dismiss this thesis entirely due to a lack of substantial evidence to prove, partially prove or disprove it we can; however, suggest that it seems unlikely given what is known about Freemasonry and how jews would likely operate as a conspiracy if they operated as such.

Hence although ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ is a very interesting book and was in its time both factually arguable and timely: it has not aged well due to more information now being available from better sources than de Poncins, and those he cites, had at their disposal. Its focus on the combination of Freemasonry and the jews as the twin arms of a great conspiracy against Christian civilisation is perhaps its downfall in that during the Second World War. Freemasonry, which we should not simply dismiss, as the religiously sceptical do, as a force in world politics, was all, but destroyed as a political force by the Reich Security Main Office, and laudably so, who rounded up the members of the Masonic fraternities and confiscated their possessions and written records. Hence the conception of the Freemasons and jews as the twin arms of a conspiracy that de Poncins argues, while cogent at the time of writing, is not useful in today’s world where Freemasonry has been relegated to a decaying club that is desperately trying to regain its former power and glory.

‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ also, unfortunately, as a work tends to take focus off of the jewish question and split it, necessarily, between the two agencies that de Poncins terms ‘secret powers behind the revolution’. Hence to the reader today it might seem to indicate that they should concern themselves with both Freemasonry and jews: this inevitably leads some otherwise intellectually honest individuals into the highways and byways of the lunatic literature accusing the nebulous and ephemeral ‘Illuminati’ of complicity in all, or most of, the wrongs of the world as they perceive them.

The focus on jews must be maintained for although they are certainly not the whole cause of all ills in the world: they are, I would argue, often directly and/or indirectly involved in producing them due to their need, both in terms of secular and religious jews, to ‘repair the world’. If we dissipate research into other power blocs, real or imagined, that are already well-covered then it weakens our research effort to cognitively understand and map the jewish question today as well as historically. This is important for without this research effort modern anti-Semitic propaganda and intellectual work will not come to the fore and anti-Semitism will stay in its comfort zone of 19th and early 20th century anti-Semitic cognitive frameworks and understanding. Therefore anti-Semitism will remain ineffective and a fringe intellectual movement and no serious anti-Semite can possibly wish this: can they?

Letters and Correspondence

We are happy to publish, and as required respond to, all letters we receive. However before publishing your letters: we will always ask your permission to do so and unless otherwise requested your name will not be published.

If you would like to write or drawn cartoons for Semitic Controversies or wish to submit your own written work and/or cartoons for inclusion in an issue of Semitic Controversies then please feel free to do so. Please be assured that we guarantee your anonymity and only the Editor will know your email address and will not leak any information to any other individual or group.

Please send all correspondence and submissions to Semitic.Controversies@googlemail.com.

Our Next Issue

The next issue of Semitic Controversies will be published on the 12th of April 2009.

Notes

[1] Jacob Neusner is the author of over a thousand books, scholarly articles and book chapters on Judaism and is regarded as something of a ‘Dean’, i.e. a ruling authority, in the academic study of Judaism.
[2] Mishnah, Tractate Sanhedrin, 10:1
[3] Jacob Neusner, 2004, ’Making God's Word Work: A Guide to the Mishnah’, 1st Edition, Continuum: New York, pp. 64-65
[4] Ibid.
[5] Mishnah, Tractate Aboda Zarah, 2:1
[6] Neusner, Op. Cit., p. 74.
[7] Emanuel Feldman, 1998, ’On Judaism: Conversations on being Jewish in Today's World’, 2nd Edition, Shaar Press: New York, p. 247
[8] Ibid, p.259
[9] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboda Zarah, 2a – 2b
[10] Neusner, Op. Cit., pp. 76-77.
[11] http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/08/lubavitch-debacle.html [Accessed: 28/03/2009].
[12] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 57b
[13] http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=113&letter=L [Accessed: 28/03/2009].
[14] Deuteronomy, 17:6
[15] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Relations, 15.
[16] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin, 73.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin, 69a.
[19] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth, 78b.
[20] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=98&letter=I [Accessed: 28/03/2009].
[21] Feldman, Op. Cit., pp. 269-270
[22] Reva Mann, 2008, ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter: A true story of sex, drugs and orthodoxy’, 2nd Edition, Hodder & Stoughton: London.
[23] The jewish Sabbath.
[24] Much of ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ can be essentially summed as Reva Mann feeling very sorry for herself and trying to divert blame away from her person and onto others. It is notable that throughout the entire book, Mann, does not take personal blame for anything, but always tries to shift that blame onto others.
[25] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n6p28_Okeefe.html [Accessed: 28/03/2009].
[26] The same can be said for the popular view of the Second World War, which ascribed as a ‘German war of aggression’ and that Britain was clueless as to the ‘evils and irrationality’ of ‘Nazism’ only ‘standing her ground’ many years after popular postscript maintains it should have. Of course: this, as with many a popular conception in the current era, is almost entirely poppycock built around a slim and selective propaganda foundation. The actual facts of the lead up to and the beginning of hostilities are essentially the inverse of the popular version of events with a campaign of propaganda of such a scale as to be on the scale of the Roman demonization of the Germanic and Gallic tribes and comparable in extent to modern ‘holocaust’ propaganda combined with an aggressively hostile diplomatic game played by France and Great Britain, with the support of the Roosevelt administration, ending in these powers giving a blank cheque guarantee to Poland to do ‘what thou wilt’, which presaged the attempted genocide of those perceived to be of Germanic stock in Western Poland by murderous Slavic mobs.
[27] For if Marxism must be admitted as a credible ideology then so must National Socialism: the reason the former is considered as a credible alternative and the latter is considered an irrational aberration is due to their alleged treatment of jews. Who dominate, and have dominated, Anglo-American culture for the last century and who have turned all their energies into opposing critique of jews and arguing that the jews being critiqued for their involvement in anything equates anti-Semitism.
[28] This study was by Max Weinreich in his 1946, ‘Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Hitler’s Crimes against the Jewish People’, 1st Edition, YIVO: New York.
[29] Hans Guenther, 1930, ‘Rassenkunde des Juedischen Volkes’, 1st Edition, Lehmann: Munich.
[30] Guenther cites Fishberg’s then well known work on the physical anthropology and physiology of the jews, that was heavily influenced by Franz Boas whose measurements have been recently discovered to have been falsified (although neither Fishberg or Guenther could have known this): ‘Jews, Race and Environment’ [2006, [1911], 1st Edition, Transaction: New York].
[31] Johann von Leers, 1944, ‘Die Verbrechernatur der Juden’, 1st Edition, Hochmuth: Berlin.
[32] This was concerning the domination of the prostitution trade in Poland by jews.
[33] These figures related to violent crime.
[34] Volkmar Eichstaedt, 1938, ‘Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Judenfrage: 1750-1848’, Vol. I, 1st Edition, Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt: Hamburg.
[35] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, Trans: Timothy Tindal-Robertson, 1967, ‘Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion’, 1st Edition, The Britons: London.
[36] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, Trans: Timothy Tindal-Robertson, 1968, ‘Freemasonry and the Vatican: A Struggle for Recognition’, 1st Edition, The Britons: London.
[37] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, Trans: Timothy Tindal-Robertson, 1988, ‘State Secrets: A Documentation of the Secret Revolutionary Mainspring Governing Anglo-American Politics’, 2nd Edition, The Britons: London.
[38] The two most important for anti-Semites are, of course, ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ and ‘Judaism and the Vatican’, but the later is barely known and rarely cited today. While the former is well known and often cited by anti-Semites.
[39] Léon de Poncins, Trans: Anon., Undated, [1929], ‘Freemasonry and Judaism: Secret Powers behind the Revolution’, 1st Edition, A & B Books: New York.
[40] Timothy Tindal-Robertson is the translator of ‘State Secrets’, ‘Freemasonry and the Vatican’ and ‘Judaism and the Vatican’ into English, but the original translation of ‘The Secret Powers behind the Revolution’, which became ‘Freemasonry and Judaism: The Secret Powers behind the Revolution’ was performed in 1929 rather than in 1968-1975 when Tindal-Robertson translated de Poncins’ other works likely at the behest of ‘The Britons’ publishing house (who published his translations). Since I have been unable to find an original edition I am unaware of who the original translator was, but it does seem that ‘The Britons’ although operating in 1929 and already famous as an anti-Semitic publishing house were not the publishers of this original translation (although it is referred to in their catalogue it is not listed under their imprint).
[41] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, 1928, ‘Les Forces secrètes de la Révolution’, 1st Edition, Brossard: Paris.
[42] De Poncins, ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’, Op. Cit., p. 13
[43] Michael Santomauro writing for ‘Ziopedia.org’, which has been reproduced by David Duke on his website (on 11/08/2006), commits this mistake when he cites the translation of de Poncins’, ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’, in the earlier edition for quotes from jewish economist Werner Sombart. Santomauro is specifically citing the quotes from de Poncins who is using a French translation of Sombart’s German work and then the translation of de Poncins’ text has translated the translation. I have not checked the original German work, although I have read the usual English translation of it, but it careless at best to cite a translation of a translation and expect it to hold evidential water without having checked the original text. This can be found at the following address: http://www.davidduke.com/general/what-about-jews-who-think-the-same-or-worse-as-mel-gibson_850.html [Accessed: 29/12/2008].
[44] These works however would have been readily accessible to the bulk of the French population when de Poncins wrote ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ both in public and private libraries as well as from patriotic and/or Catholic booksellers. Thus the references that seem esoteric and obscure to our time were in fact standard nationalist/Catholic literature in de Poncins’ time, which reinforces my earlier point that de Poncins was writing to introduce the subject to the neophyte and not to write a learned treatise on it. Hence quoting de Poncins in this work as an authority is rather like citing a short popular book on Adolf Hitler and then using that as your authority as to why you don’t Adolf Hitler i.e. it is nonsensical. For more information about some of authors whom de Poncins cites, as well as the situation which he was writing about, please see Pierre Birnbaum’s, Trans: Jane Marie Todd, 1996, ‘The Jews of the Republic: A Political History of State Jews in France from Gambetta to Vichy’, 1st Edition, Stanford University Press: Stanford.
[45] It is not always the case that it is presumed to be simply the Catholic Church, but rather Christianity as a whole that is under threat. De Poncins focuses on the Catholic Church as he was himself a devout Catholic and because France was and is a traditionally Catholic country. English Protestant clergymen writing at the same time as their French Catholic for example used much the same conception. This was re-enforced in the case of Catholicism by numerous Papal Bulls condemning Freemasonry. A list and discussion of the most important Papal Bulls concerning Freemasonry can be found at the following address: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm [Accessed: 29/12/2008].
[46] Adam Weishaupt was himself allegedly of jewish origin and his surname arguably indicates his jewish origins.
[47] Knigge was an aristocratic German freemason who has been argued to have been the real driving force behind the Order of Perfectibilists better known as the Illuminati.
[48] ‘Rational’ here must be stated to be the 17th/18th century idyll of the ‘liberal, rational gentleman’ rather it, as Revilo Oliver characterised it in his 1965 speech ‘Can Liberals be Educated?’, is an irrational ‘belief in the wonders of science’. It presumes that the world can be endlessly improved through an increase in what its proponents believe is rational and is worsened through what they believe is ‘superstition’: i.e. it is an essentially atheistic religious belief that prefigures the religiously sceptical (i.e. sceptics who act in such a manner as to infer that their scepticism is actually their religion and not the result of what they themselves believe to be ‘rational cognition’) of today.
[49] A Hungarian mixed jew (i.e. mischlinge), whose mother was a gentile and whose father was a jew of the tribe of the Kohanim (hence in halakha/halacha [jewish law] he would be considered a full jew and also a potential priest for the third temple in Jerusalem). Kohn, or as he styled himself Kun, himself, and also notably the jewish socialist/communist Joseph Pogany (who later became a leading communist agitator in the United States of America), escaped after the fall the Soviet Republic in Hungary and took a leading role in the Comintern, specifically being involved in communist agitation in Germany at the behest of his sponsor the jewish communist Grigory Zinoviev, until he was arrested in Stalin’s purges in 1937 and executed in either 1937 or 1939.
[50] Often called the ‘133 Days’: a useful and informative summary, although coloured with the horror earnestly and understandably felt about the atrocities the ‘Red Guard’ and the ‘Lenin Boys’ had committed, of this can be found at the following address: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Outlaws_Diary_Appendix.htm.
[51] De Poncins, on pp. 72-76 of ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’ (Op. Cit.), cites the summary of ‘secret papers’ found in Hungarian Masonic lodges provided by Monsignor Jouin on p. 120 in vol. 3 of his 5 volume, 1919-1927, work ‘Le peril Judeo-maconnique’, but without either Jouin’s original work and/or the ‘secret papers’ concerned it is impossible to give a judgement concerning this argument.
[52] De Poncins, ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’, Op. Cit., pp. 68-72
[53] It is unclear what precise definition of who is and who is not a jew. Jouin is using since both racial and religious definitions were common in anti-Semitic religious work at the time: although I suspect Jouin maybe using a combination of both I cannot confirm this.
[54] De Poncins, ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’, Op. Cit., pp. 100-107
[55] I have seen it asserted that Freemasons in fact control the jews, but I have not seen any literature assert this and it would seem this assertion has more to do with the fanciful idea that the Illuminati are the primary force in terms of ‘secret powers’ behind the events in the world.
[56] De Poncins, ‘Freemasonry and Judaism’, Op. Cit., p.101
[57] Ibid.
[58] De Poncins gives a lengthy exposition of his jewish conspiracy argument on pp. 183-237, but since this is mostly short snippets on various organisations, which is not complete and misses out a number of major organisations, it not within the scope of this review to perform a laborious and lengthy correction to de Poncins’ list and short exposition on each.
[59] Since it is a subjective racial conception of how an Aryan or Slav would have to operate in order to achieve the same results and power gained by the jews. These racial conceptions differ between the two races, but their generality is the same: hence why I am condensing them together for explanatory purposes.
[60] See Nesta Webster’s, 1924, ‘Secret Societies and Subversive Movements’, 1st Edition, Boswell: London, pp. 294-326
[61] For more information on this please see Albert Hyamson’s, 1951, ‘The Sephardim of England: A History of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish Community 1492-1951’, 1st Edition, Methuen: London.
[62] This has been argued perhaps most extensively in the material that can be found at the following address: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonry1.htm [Accessed: 05/01/2009].

A Change to the Posting and Format of Semitic Controversies

Since Semitic Controversies began it has been an ad hoc blog of essays, responsa, book reviews, in briefs and critiques being published more or less weekly. However in order to facilitate Semitic Controversies planned move from the format of an ad hoc blog to a more formal format: there is going to be a change in posting here at Semitic Controversies.

The reason for this switch is that Semitic Controversies is that, as I have noted previously, Semitic Controversies intends to split into four different forms. These forms will be as an anti-Semitic news source, as an intellectual periodical similar in nature, although not so much in content, to the jewish magazine ‘Commentary’, as a popular anti-Semitic periodical for the majority of the folk and as an information source with summarily updated listings of jews in the world (for example jewish ownership and involvement in the media) as well as basic anti-Semitic critiques, myths and information about jews.

This blog will be of this second form: an intellectual anti-Semitic periodical. The other forms will begin to appear when Semitic Controversies moves to its new home beginning with the first (as a news source) and fourth (as an information source) forms. Once these two forms have been established the intellectual anti-Semitic periodical will move to being a monthly publication. Once all this in place the third (as a popular anti-Semitic periodical) form will emerge an unspecified number of weeks later.

This change is from an informal pattern of posting what has been written and submitted by the various authors who contribute to Semitic Controversies to a regular format with a specific number and type of articles in each publication. What will happen will be that twice a month issues of at least eight pieces of written work will be added to this blog, which will be referenced by a volume number and an issue number. The volume number will refer to the year when the issue was published and the issue number will refer to the specific issue that it is in that year (for example Vol. 1 No. 1 would be the first issue). So each article will have a specific Volume and Issue number in it to identify when it was published.

Each issue will contain at least an editorial, one lead article, three feature articles, two book reviews and a summary of the news as it relates to the jews. Recognising that this requires a considerable amount of work beforehand we will put publishing on hold until Sunday 28th March. Then each new issue will be published fortnightly there-of. Once Semitic Controversies has moved to its new home this periodical will be, as I have said, published monthly and will contain an editorial, one lead article, five feature articles, three book reviews and a summary of the news as it relates to the jews.

We hope that you will enjoy the new improved format!

Yours truly,

The Editor,

Zionism: Friend or Foe? (Part II)

Little is different between the two camps of philo-Semites, either pro Arab or pro jew, other than that they are roughly split between two general political positions in Aryan lands. The jews, i.e. Zionists, but many non-Zionist jews lend themselves to these activities indirectly knowingly or unknowingly through their creation of pro-jewish arguments (such as the conception that Jesus Christ was a jew and therefore believing Christians should support the jews not the Arabs), propagandise and target the ‘right’ wing for the cause of Israel, while the Arabs propagandise and target the ‘left’ wing for the cause of Palestine. Their rhetoric, attitudes, arguments and mentality are little different from each, and both are as polemical and as vicious as the, other.

Both attitudes of the Aryan folk have been duped by Semites by appeals to either jewish or Arabic victimhood. The jews consistently push the theme of the ‘six million gassed jews’ of the ‘holocaust’ and their Zionist brethren and their supporter’s transform this alleged genocide into the morally questionable justification for the jewish state’s existence and have placed it as an ideological lynchpin of jewish victimhood. That jewish victimhood is the reason that Theodor Herzl is suggested to have created Zionism when he saw the ‘terrible anti-Semitism’ surrounding the case the infamous Dreyfus affair. Jews of the Zionist persuasion subsequently substituted the Dreyfus affair with the ‘holocaust’, which is in terms of propaganda is far more effective due to the supposed scale of the events. After all if one jew is supposedly being persecuted: it is just one individual, but if an entire race is being persecuted and that leads to the alleged deaths, in a supposedly industrial program of genocide, of six million. Then it can be portrayed that the goals of the Zionists in the formation of a jewish state were a justified concern that should be heeded. Precisely, because of the wider scope it allows it to be claimed that the entire jewish race is in danger therefore they need a home where they can be safe from a future program.

Thus the jews, with many, usually religious, dissenters[1], established Israel on the claim that, because of the ‘holocaust’, the jews would be never safe in a world without a homeland. However as time has progressed this argument has evolved into a more broad-based argument brought about by the need to justify Israel’s vicious wars of expansion, which it styles as ‘defence’, to the ‘right’ wing of other countries: whom Israel had early identified as a potential powerful groundswell of support if these ‘right’ wing parties and groups could be propagandised correctly. This lead to the formulation of a broader base to Zionist arguments, largely based on the arguments, again, being used by their jewish kin, which included, for example, the arguments that Israel was civilising the Middle East, that Israel was retaking its biblical inheritance (and hence hastening the return of Jesus in the eyes of dispensationalist Protestants) and that Israel was a bulwark against the Soviet-allied and armed Arabic countries.

Over time these arguments have further evolved to fit the domestic and international circumstances in which Israel then finds itself. If we take one example of this in the argument that Israel is a bulwark against Communism, which was maintained up until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Communism thus, at a stroke, became irrelevant and the argument used to court the North American and European ‘right’ wing, at a stroke, collapsed: so the argument was reworded in order to fit the circumstances in which Israel found herself by her own agents and her jewish and philo-Semite supporters. This took time in order to identify who the new opponent that Europe and North America might unite against might be. The answer was in fact to re-market the Arabs, not as supporters and allies of Communism, but rather as religious hardliners who wanted to establish their version of Islam upon the world.

The parallels with the aforementioned argument are simply that in one of the pillars of Communist ideology is the concept that there has to be a world revolution and that the ‘oppressed proletariat/masses’ will, with proper direction and class consciousness, rise up against their ‘bourgeois oppressors’ and create a world revolution. This was an ideology that the Soviet Union itself championed for precisely the reason that it was a key pillar of Communist ideology and because it offered great advantages to the Soviet Union overseas.

Islam on the other hand has as one of its pillars the idea that Islam has come to save the world by bringing the word of Allah to it and that the world will eventually submit to the will of Allah as given by the Prophet Muhammad. Islam has, in contrast to Christianity, always advocated armed struggle as a method for gaining believers by conquering lands and by doing so Muslims are engaging in a holy duty. This is the ideology that the Arabic peoples have increasing begun to adopt since the late 19th century and it offers them great advantages in their nationalistic ideas, because it adds a religious twist to their goals and gives Arabic nationalists a powerful justification for their action (i.e. Allah the Almighty has told me to do this).

Thus Islamism, as a medium for Arabic racial nationalism, has replaced Communism as Israel’s raison d’être in the propaganda of Israel’s jewish and philo-Semitic supporters. Hence when you see or read propaganda by Israel jewish and philo-Semitic supporters you will see the argument that Israel is only defending herself against the ravaging horde of Arabs is put forward as a key point in why the jews and their supporters argue the North American and European ‘right’ wing should support Israel unconditionally.

Israel’s jewish and philo-Semitic supporters however, in their styling of Islam as the new opponent of Western civilisation, were and are quite aware that they have to link the struggle for national identity within Europe and North America to Israel’s state of war between her and the Arabic peoples. To do this Israel’s jewish and philo-Semitic supporters argue that the internal problems with Islamic, and particularly those of Middle Eastern origin, immigrants and communities are the same as the problems Israel has with the Arabic Palestinians.

It is also a truism to state that concerns, especially among the European and North American, ‘right’ wing concerning suicide bombers and Islamic terrorism are in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7 have reached close to fever pitch. This has been heavily exploited by Israel’s jewish and philo-Semitic supporters, in particular David Horowitz, Aaron Lerner and Robert Spencer, who have increasingly begun to comment on the problems of Islam’s presence in Europe and North America and have deliberately mixed in Israel’s conflict with the Arabs and in particular the Arabic Palestinians in with this more innocent sounding concern. In order for concern for Israel to appear as simply an extension of the European and North American ‘right’ wing’s own concerns in their national borders: so the European and North American ‘right’ wing will be begin to support Israel as a ‘bulwark against Islam’.

This argument is particularly invidious, because contrary to the argument that Israel was a ‘bulwark against Communism’: Europe is not the frontline of this struggle, but this has changed to Israel. Thus Israel’s jewish and philo-Semitic supporters claim that in order to support the struggle against Islam: the European and North American ‘right’ wing should support Israel. This should not only be intellectual, political and moral support Israel’s jewish and philo-Semitic supporters maintain that economic support is required and that everything possible should given to Israel as the ‘frontline against Islam’.

Often these appeals are indirect and are by organisations that support Israel on matters that are ancillary or unrelated to Israel’s actual defence. In so far as these supporters will receive emails from the American Friends of David Magen Adom, which is the Israeli version of the Red Cross/Ambulance Service, to support their work, but this of course helps the jews by providing medical services to them and allowing them to save jewish lives that would have otherwise be lost in the battle between Arab and jew. It is a truism to state that help to such organisations, who take advantage of jewish propagandising the European and North American ‘right’ wing, will seem humanitarian and in the best interests of the jewish people. However, because these are donations to an organisation, which actively assists the Israeli government and military then they are actually contributing to Israel’s defence.

What these jewish organisations are doing is simply capitalising on the propagandised concerns of the European and North American ‘right’ and are seeking to take resources away from these patriots own struggles and giving them to Israel. These organisations are not run for the benefit of Europe and North America, but rather for the benefit of Israel, which seeks to identify its interests, as I have argued, with the interests of Europe and North America, but only benefit of Israel. It is notable, as well, that Israel has sought any and all allies for itself and in the process of doing this their Zionist Diaspora has propagandised that Israel must be protected, because if it is not then, the propagandists suggest, Islam will rise and seek to subdue Europe in a repeat of the early rapid Islamic expansion, which was ultimately defeated by Charlemagne at the first battle of Poiters and Tours. This might indeed be an Arabic plan, but it is also important to note that Zionism has a similar agenda founded in the very basis of the distinction of the jewish people as a ‘chosen people’ (i.e. that are above others and will one day rule the world by the order of God).

Therefore: we can reasonably suggest that Zionism is not a friend of the West at all. For all Zionism is doing in this regard is draining away the wealth of Europe and North America on false pre-tenses, to fight a war that it is not in Europe’s and North America’s best interest to fight. However unlike most authors who critically discuss Zionism: I cannot conclude that the Arabs are a wholly victimised group and that therefore Europeans and North Americans should support the ‘Arab resistance’ as it has been styled. Rather: we must conclude that Arabs have in fact been copying the jews in running a propaganda campaign for their cause in Europe and North America targeting the European and North American ‘left’ wing and have equally been draining away the wealth of Europe and North America on false pre-tenses to fight a war that is not in Europe’s and North America’s best interests to fight. That is why anti-Semites must reject both jew and Arab, because they are genetic cousins who both seek to dupe the people’s of Europe and North America into supporting their side in their brutal civil war that has been raging on and off since the mid-twentieth century.

However much Zionism, as a theoretical concept, is not opposed to the best interests of the peoples of Europe and North America: its practical application by jews has meant that it is in application opposed to Europe and North America’s best interests. Since it is being applied by the jewish mindset, which works on the basis, whether egocentric or ethnocentric, of what is in the best interests of jews: not what is in the best interests of Europe and North America’s peoples. That is why Zionism cannot be endorsed, but nor can we endorse the ideal the Arab who seek to use the peoples of European descent around the world for their own singular benefit: just as the jews do.

Therefore we must, in order to be coherent and ideologically sound, oppose both jew and Arab equally. Otherwise if we just oppose one then we will be exploited by the other. For that is the true nature of the Semite: the perpetual sponger off European and North American society!

[1] It must be stated that these jews do not dissent from the creation of Israel per se, but what they argue is that the jewish Messiah has to come before Israel can actually be created and that by forcing Israel’s recreation Zionists are going contrary to biblical injunction (and hence the jewish Messiah will not come until Israel disappears again).

The Kosher Food Tax: Fact or Fiction?

One of the more unusual anti-Semitic arguments to have been brought against the jews has been the suggestion that the jews are essentially levying a tax upon non-jewish consumers by their requirement that if firms wish their food to be certified as kosher then it must be inspected by a rabbinical committee by the relevant jewish organisation (that they have contacted). This claim asserts that this charge is in fact a form of indirect tax on the population, which is then used to finance other activities.

Kashrut, or a food being kosher, is the common name given to the jewish halakhic dietary laws that govern whether or not a food is in fact permissible to be eaten by jews who adhere to Judaism. In practical terms: the animal itself has to be permissible to eat. For example: it has to have cloven hoofs and chew the cud (i.e. eats plants not meat or waste) or if it was a fish then it would have to have scales and fins (and so on). There is also the important further restriction that milk and meat must not mix so different utensils and areas of the kitchen are generally used. In terms of food being certified as kosher, which is the subject of the kosher food tax argument: this is a process that a firm has to apply to a jewish organisation for. Jewish organisations do not as a rule go to firms to ask them if they would allow the organisation in question to certify their products: since the firms have to pay the jewish organisation a fee for the certification (the hechsher). The jewish organisations might look to generate sales leads as would be the general business custom, but unless it can be shown to be out of the ordinary this cannot be suggested as cogent argument surrounding the kosher food tax issue.

This certification process, which is an annual event, however differs on just how stringent it is due to the different halakhic interpretations and authorities used by different Judaic sects: this is important, because there are special rules that apply in some foods, such as cheese (gvinat akum) and there are different standards for some cooked foods (bishul akum), which mean that some sects place differing standards on what is kosher and what is not. What is kosher to an observant Conservative jew may well be treif (i.e. forbidden) for an observant Orthodox jew: hence why there are different labels for each different jewish organisation that conducts kosher certifications.

The rabbinical committee then has to visit the factories where the produce is made and observe the entire production process. Once the visit has been concluded then the rabbis will go away and compare their findings/thoughts: if they rule that the firm’s production process violates their kashrut standards then they will explain in detail to the firm concerned what has made the process treif rather than kosher. The firm can then choose to implement these changes in order to make their produce kosher and then be subject to another inspection by the rabbinical committee in order to gain their certification and be allowed to place the jewish organisation’s kosher symbol on their packaging and marketing materials. This symbol will then let jews, and others (such as Seventh-day Adventists), who wish to keep kosher, which jewish organisation has certified that the produce is kosher and by inference inform the kosher consumer just how stringent the process has been.

Now it is debatable whether kosher certification organisations should charge for this service, but what is under debate here is whether this is significant in terms of its impact of consumers. The argument being that the jewish organisation’s issuing the certifications are heavily penalizing the company financially and that the company, as is the general custom, is passing on the cost to its customers by increasing the price.

We find a short article on the Kosher Food Tax at the ‘LibreOpinion’ website[1], which can be taken as representative since it produces all the claims made in anti-Semitic arguments[2] regarding the Kosher Food Tax theory. This article makes the following claims (I will list them sequentially and discuss each claim after quoting it):

‘The Kosher Food Tax is the biggest consumer fraud existing in America. Examine every item in your cupboards for either the (U) or (K) labels. These symbols represent a Jewish "blessing" and when these small symbols are detected, it means that you have unwittingly paid a tax to a Jewish religious group.’

Unfortunately this is manifestly incorrect: the symbol that a product has been certified as kosher does not mean that the product has been blessed or that the rabbinical committee has given their blessing to the product. Rather the symbols mean that the product has been formally certified to be kosher by a rabbinical committee. The difference is quite substantial in that a blessing or giving their blessing implies that money has been paid for no actual work/inspection having been done (other than that the rabbis have chanted a Psalm or some such over the process), however the actual process is more akin to a health inspection, but done using jewish halakhic criteria rather than scientific standards.

The article then goes on to state:

‘They will not always be on the front of the package; they may be hidden amid the small print near the label's seam. This cryptic code has to do with a Hebrew "secret," a heist, which illuminates the Jews' power in the United States. The circled "U," sometimes with the word "Parve," stands for Union of Orthodox Jews (UOJCA), the "K" stands for Kosher (KOV K). Both will not be found on the same package. These symbols mean that the product's producer paid the Jews a kind of "tax" to have some rabbi "bless" it. Don't confuse these letters with the letter "R" which stands for registered trade mark or a letter "C" which stands for copyright. These two letters will probably be there too. You have now discovered what the Jews call "hechsers," a rip-off code found on most grocery items.’[3]

This is indeed true: the mark that the product has been officially certified as kosher is often found alongside the information on the product’s packaging. However there is nothing ‘secret’ about it: notable in this regard is the reference the author makes to the ‘R’ and ‘C’ symbols, which standard for Registered Trademark and Copyright respectively.

These are symbols included on the packaging, which do not often come with a clarification of what they mean. Also both require the firm in question to pay a fee to register their trademark and/or their copyright and use their symbol accordingly. It is true that these registration fees are much lower than the rabbinical fees for the use of the kosher symbol, but we must remember that these are proportionate to the amount of work done and the expertise involved. It is indeed arguable, as indeed I would conjecture myself, that the rabbis do overcharge for their work and expertise, but the argument that there is some hidden tax involved here cannot be made by suggestion that the symbols equate some sort of secret. Since if one was unaware of what the ‘R’ and ‘C’ symbols of the packaging mean then one could equally suggest that it is a secret tax to defraud the firm and thereby the general consumer, because money is paid for a service that is then indicated on the packaging by a special symbol.

Therefore we cannot consider this argument to be of any value regarding the ‘secrecy’ involved: especially so since the customer can, if they are curious, search these symbols on the internet and find out what they mean.

The author then goes on state that:

‘In 1959, the Wall Street Journal estimated that this massive Jewish payola at about $20 million. That is almost forty years ago. Since that time, the Jewish owned Wall Street Journal has remained silent. The rip-off is thought to be in the hundreds of millions today. The Jewish Post of July 30, 1976 reported that Rabbi Harvey Sentor admitted that Kov K was a "profit-making concern." The UOJCA extracts exactly the same levy as Kov K, and in exactly the same way. Jews, of course, defend these "blessings" in any way they can, but what this rip-off really boils down to for the Gentile is legalized extortion.’[4]

This ‘evidence’ for the suggestion of a kosher food tax being a considerable pay off for the jewish organisations who certify food as kosher is indeed very slim and tenuous at best. There is no specific article or date cited for the Wall Street Journal article therefore until specific reference is given this cannot be considered as evidence. There is also no evidence cited for the ‘hundreds of millions’ figure, which we must suggest is simply a speculation on the part of the author. As for Kof-K[5] being a ‘profit-making concern’: of course this is the case, since Kof-K is a company itself (i.e. it seeks to provide a service to firms wishing to trade with the jewish community, but is actually a business in itself rather than just an arm of a particular jewish communal organisation). It would be true to state that the rabbinical certification of foods as kosher is a profitable business, but the key issue here is whether the business is unduly profitable (i.e. it is extortion): since this is what the author’s argument assumes implicitly.

As of this writing: I have not been find any published accounts for the Kof-K firm and nor can I find an investor pack for them. Until I, or anyone else associated with Semitic Controversies, can find concrete numbers, a scale of fees and/or an investor pack for Kof-K or any other jewish organisation certifying food products as kosher. Then we cannot make the argument that the amount of money being made is extortionate/disproportionate, because we lack the evidence to say and can only at best make educated speculations.

On this basis therefore we can say that we suspect that there maybe a disproportionate scale of fees as an educated speculation, since a legal entity that does not publish its accounts and nor produce any kind of scale of fees with 300 employees would seem to infer it has something to hide. However that does not mean it does, but it is worthy of note and further research when considering this issue.

The author then goes on to assert that:

‘After all, the Jews represent but 2.9% of the population. It is not an option for the Gentile to have this "tax" removed from products he buys or have the little Jewish letters erased. He has to pay this "tax" to the Jews whether he wants to or not.’[6]

The statement that the jews are a tiny minority in the United States is correct: however the argument the author is using here is not a cogent one. In so far that it can be asserted that the gentile or the jewish consumer does not have to buy kosher and can check the products for the kosher identification should they not wish to buy food certified as kosher. It also important to note that in United States law: a company does not have to acquire certification and can label their product as being kosher if they genuinely believe it to be so (i.e. there is no legal standard of what is kosher and what is not under United States law). So therefore the consumer does not have to purchase the product and therefore does not have to contribute to the fee: therefore the author’s argument falters.

Further: we can note that there are halal certification organisations, such as the Muslim Consumer Group, who perform a similar process to that undertaken by the jewish organisations certifying food as kosher. They also place their symbols on food packaging and also charge for the privilege as do the kosher certifying rabbinical organisations. Hence if there is a jewish kosher food tax: then there is also an Islamic hahal food tax, which we can assume is potentially being passed on in the price, in the majority of cases, to the consumer.

It could also be stated that the trademark and copyright symbols, which are charged for, could also be construed as a tax of sorts, but however the rates for these are very low in terms of the amount of items produced with the identification on them: hence the comparison between trademark and copyright and kosher and hahal cannot be reasonably made in this regard (although we can reasonably assert that they are superficially similar). Hence we must ask why the author has not mentioned halal as well as kosher certification: since if one is regarded as an indirect tax burden then the other must be as well.

The author then asserts as follows:

‘If this was nothing more than a bizarre religious ceremony, giving rabbinical approval to food and food products prepared in a specific way to meet an unusual diet, then why are steel wool and kitchen utensils also included?’

The reason that non food items are included in kosher certification is quite simple in so far as the jewish consumers may wish to be assured when being non food-products that they are not made from and that they have not encountered any materials considered to be treif. The use of the kosher utensils and so forth can be considered understandable when we realise the levels of kashrut strictness differ between the jewish sects and that Hassidic jews in particular would wish to particularly be care about consuming non-kosher food. Therefore we can see there is arguably a reason for this certification rather than as simply a money-making.

Despite this however it can be reasonably be argued that this is taking the certification process too far in terms of charging firms for the privilege of certifying their non-food produce manufacturing process when the possible benefit to the firm in question would likely be small: since the market share loss should the firm’s process not be kosher would be absolutely minimal.

Therefore one can legitimately criticise this aspect of the kosher certification process in so far as it unnecessary and is not likely to significantly benefit the firm in question and nor is it likely to be use or benefit to the majority of jews (since only the stricter levels of kashrut would express deep concern over utensils and such things: assuming them to have been made from suitable materials and not to involve any contact with any treif products, which could, in kashrut, contaminate them).

The author continues:

‘If these "blessings" are so important to Jews, why do they charge for them? You would think that they would be willing to give this service free--for benefit of their own people--and perhaps pay something to food product companies for providing this Kosher identification. Instead, it's the reverse-companies have to pay to have the Kosher identification. Since Jews represent a small percent of America's population, why is it that they place most of the burden of this "tax" on the shoulders of the Gentile? Why have the Gentile consumers been so silent for so long about this perennial extortion by the Jews? And since this burden comes off as a "tax," don't Gentiles have a right to know where and how this money is spent? How on earth do the Jews get away with this daylight robbery? The answer is that the Jewish blessing agencies wield enormous power through Jewish domination of the retail and distribution trades..and Jews own America's press. Non-compliance by a food producer would quickly bring about a Jewish boycott of the product. Bankruptcy!

Here is how this clever scheme works. An Orthodox Rabbi will approach a company and warn the owners that unless their product is certified as Kosher, or "fit for a Jew to eat", they will face a boycott by every Jew in America.’[7]

The reason jews charge for kosher certification is quite simply that it requires professional rabbis who are highly knowledgeable in this particular area of halakha. It is quite similar to the idea that in order to build a new building you require your plans to be drawn up and checked by an architect, because the architect has the technical skills and knowledge that the layman does not have. The firm is also paying for the rabbinical certification organisation’s brand in so far that they believe, rightly or wrong, that by going through the process of kosher certification process so that they can place that organisation brand on their products as a seal of approval: they will broaden their product’s appeal and increase their market share. Whether this is indeed the case or not is debatable, but it is what the firm believes when it goes through the process of kosher certification.

We should again note that the firm’s in question do not have to be certified to label their products as being kosher under United States law, but they do have to genuinely believe them to be so. The gaining of the kosher certification is therefore a proof via branding that this believe is certified by the relevant jewish organisation: that [the trust in the brand] is the key to the entire industry.

Although jews are a minority in terms of the market: they are still 2.9%, as the author says, of the total United States population and firms will attempt to capture that market share by trying to cater to jewish needs and requirements. When a firm wishes to target a specific market segment then it will often be prepared to spend what it considers a reasonable amount of the capital to grow its business by moving into that area of the market. In this case the firm can grow their market share by getting their food certified as kosher by the rabbinical jewish organisations that we are discussing so that jews and others who wish to keep kosher will buy their food.

It is indeed correct to state that this cost of kosher certification is likely passed on to the consumer, but again so would the cost of a halal certification and so are other non-essential costs: where it is possible to do so. The point here is that although it is debatable whether firm’s should be paying for certification: it is important to note that this is only one of many costs, which are not in the customer’s benefit that maybe passed on to them in the price. Hence it only makes sense as an argument to suggest legislation that the food certification for religious reasons should be made to be a charitable act donated by the religious community. Since it can be convincingly argued, which the author briefly alludes to, that since it is a niche requirement and does not fall into the best interests of the nation concerned then the process should be made a charitable act with no payment attached. However this argument we must note in passing that the preference should be for the banning of halal and kosher food, because of the cruelty to animals involved in the process.

The spending of the profit gained from the kosher certification process, especially by the Orthodox Union and other non-commercial enterprises (rather than the commercial kosher certification agencies such as Kof-K), is indeed a matter of legitimate concern (since these jewish organisations are also politically involved and some of them are involved in jewish communal activities, which are potentially detrimental to the nation’s interests), but it doesn’t evidence there being a kosher food tax per se. All it would indicate is that jewish organisations are deriving their sources of funding from diverse sources, which would likely include an undetermined amount indirectly from the non-jewish consumer.

The author also alleges that the jews wield considerable power in the retail and distribution trades and that if a firm does not go through the kosher certification process with their products then there will be an organised jewish boycott of the firm’s products leading to inevitable bankruptcy. This is illogical to argue since unless the firm is only producing niche products aimed at the jewish market then jews are only 2.9% of the population and hence are not able to perform such an action themselves. Also even if jews are significantly overrepresented in the media industry, which is indeed true, there is no reason to suggest there is an organised and coherent bond between the jews in the media and those certifying kosher products. The author therefore posits an organised jewish operation to benefit jewry, but since the rabbinical organisations are actually composed of religious jews who are known to have a great antipathy towards secular jews [who form the bulk of the jewish presence in the big business community] (and vice versa) it would seem unlikely that secular jews would co-operate with religious jews to maintain a religious jewish monopoly on kosher certification. Since the author brings forward no evidence of this occurring or having occurred in the past in regards to the kosher certification issue: we cannot but conclude this argument is without foundation (since there is little evidence to suggest that the jews are an organised conspiracy, but rather the evidence suggests that jews are a group of egotistical individuals of Semitic racial origins who believe that by serving the perceived jewish cause they will win fame and favour among the jewish community).

The author then states:

‘Once they succumb to this BLACKMAIL, they are required to keep the total amount paid the Rabbis every year a strict secret! The growth of this Kosher racket has been nothing less than phenomenal. In 1960, only 225 food products paid the Kosher tax. By 1966, this figure grew to 476 and jumped to 1000 by 1974. Today, a whopping 17,500 companies have been intimidated into paying this multi-level tax.’[8]

Although I have found no originating source for this assertion that 17,500 companies are paying for kosher certification: it is a plausible figure if one considers the highly competitive market that now exists internationally. Hence firms are likely to wish to maximise their profits and market share by gaining any and all certification that may or may not do this for them. However it is worth noting that we would need to know how this 17,500 figure is composed given that many firms operate a small number of legal entities, which if the legal entities are listed separately would alter the figure considerably.

If we assume that this figure is correct: we still have to say that indeed the growth of the kosher industry may indeed be phenomenal, but what the author leaves out in his statement is the wider business context. In so far as from the 1960’s there has been an increase in the amount of information regarding certifications and so forth that a firm can apply for to increase its market share. Where-as before there would have been more specialist jewish shops from the 1960’s the rampant conglomeration has progressively pushed out small firms and larger firms are taking their place in the market. These small specialist jewish shops and companies who sold kosher products would have not presumably been counted as firms in the statistics that the author is citing, even though technically they are firms (since they operate as such), and hence the growth in terms of the number of companies gaining kosher certification can be partially explained by the fact that more information is available, the market is more competitive (hence the incentive to gain access to increased market share is higher) and that those firms, which were not previously included in the figures, are now formal companies so would now be included.

With the suggestion of secrecy regarding the total income of these jewish organisations: this would indeed seem to be true in so far as there do not seem to be any obvious public statements of accounts or of revenue from any of these jewish kosher certification organisations[9].

Therefore we may regard this as firstly suspicious and secondly worthy of further detailed investigation, but it cannot be considered an admission of guilt regarding a ‘secret’, again I will state there is not anything particularly secret about it [just a lack of knowledge outside those who use it that it exists], kosher food tax being in operation.

However in terms of individual companies: it is not an argument to suggest that there is some special secret about keeping the cost of their kosher certification a secret given that it is sensitive financial data and therefore is not going to be realised into the public domain (unlike public accounts and investor financial material).

Therefore we can state that: although the issue of just how much revenue and profit is being made is an area of particular further interest, since the figures are not immediately accessible and are important to this argument, and may evidence some quite disreputable business practices, which do need to called attention to. There is no ‘secret agreement’ between the firm and the kosher certification organisation: since that is standard business practice and hence is not unusual (and therefore is not an exception to normal business cost and therefore cannot be a ‘tax’ in the sense meant by the author).

The author then proceeds to write as follows in a section entitled ‘How the Kosher Tax Operates’:

‘The Union of Orthodox Rabbis which issues the (U) symbol controls 80% of the Kosher certification business. They employ some 300 Rabbis who travel nation-wide "inspecting" food processing plants. First, the company must pay an annual fee for the use of the copyright symbol--the (U) or (K) or a version thereof. Second, the company must pay a separate heavy fee each time a team of Rabbis shows up to "inspect" their plant (Certain meat packers are required to hire Rabbis full time at extravagant salaries). Third, the company must pay these fees over and over again for each different product they make. Thus, General Foods pays dozens of separate fees. Also, each sub-contracting company which provides any type of ingredient which goes into the finished product must also pay separate fees to the "visiting Rabbis". Sometimes a single product may eventually be taxed as many as a dozen times right down the line before it reaches you the consumer! Last, but not least, these fees must be paid annually and they are increased each year. Only by increasing the public awareness of the Kosher Food Tax and doing our best to refrain from purchasing products with the "K" or "U" symbols, can we begin to end this outrage being perpetrated upon our people.’[10]

The information provided by the author regarding how kosher certification is conducted is indeed correct, with the process being outlined concisely and ably: however again what the author is missing is the context here. In that when any health or quality check is made it is done to each production line for each product separately including a check on the suppliers. The reason being that you have assure the process from beginning to end meets with the standards you are measuring it against: in this case the halakha dealing with the issue of kashrut. This should not be a surprise to the author nor the reader: hence it is reasonable that if fees are to be paid then you are going to have to pay for each inspection separately.

However this does not mean that there is no valid argument over whether the rabbis should be paid for their services, but if they are paid then it is logical they should be paid per inspection they make rather than as a more general fee (because each inspection would be classed as a different project since each production process is an system unto itself and thus requires individual inspection).

On the other hand: there is no real defence over the payment of the copyright for the symbol for each individual product since that is behaviour for the maximising of the revenue and profit margin, which is not ethical behaviour for ostensibly religious-based organisations. I am presuming this assertion from the author is correct since, as I have stated, information regarding general pricing has not been forthcoming from these jewish organisations and they have not provided information as to whether they charge a general fee for the use of their copyrighted symbol, charge per product or even perhaps per volume of product. Hence I will proceed with the median assumption given that in terms of business behaviour this would fit with a rational economic man approach.

This, once corroborating information is located, can be argued to be a constructive against regarding the behaviour of these jewish kosher certification organisations, because although some of them, like Kof-K, are incorporated firms, others such as the Orthodox Union, that the author cites, are in fact general jewish fraternal organisations and are not businesses per se, but rather religious organisations. Hence you can argue while keeping to a reasonable interpretation of what facts we do have available that these organisations are in ethical breach of their duties to the nation as a whole since they are looking to maximise profit in a wholly religious organisation.
A point of particular interest here maybe found in the issue of whether these kosher certification organisations are in fact benefiting from a tax-exempt status as religious organisations. This would be worth further investigation since if these jewish organisations are doing so then it would be a point of critique that would not only be cogent, but also a potential piece of useful anti-Semitic propaganda.

The other point at which we must express critique is whether the fees increase every year. It is quite possible that they may well do so, but is the increase above, below or in line with inflation? That is the key question here. Since if indeed these increases are above the rate of inflation then there is a legitimate case for critique and if they are below or in line with inflation then there is no legitimate case for critique.

In summing up our critique of this representative article on the kosher food tax issue: we must state that although there is a useful kernel of arguable fact to the kosher food tax argument. The issue with it is that it has been subject to serious exaggeration and that a far more candid, as well as factually accurate, variant of this argument maybe written by toning down the sensationalist language and focusing on the issue as one of unnecessary cost for lack of reasonable gain. It is also worth mentioning that one of the best arguments that can be used against the kosher certification process is its certification of unnecessary items, utensils and so forth, for a minor niche market, which can potentially is being fraudulently advertised to firms as a far more significant part of the kosher market when it is not so. Another point of real interest that we have cover is the revenue and profits of these kosher certification organisations and whether they are tax exempt as religious organisations or not. There is even the potential for a law suit against the kosher certification organisations if indeed this is the case!

I would like to make some points of potential specific critique that have been missed in every article on the kosher food tax that I have read. The following points of interest in the discussion aren’t arguments in and of themselves, but if anyone wishes to argue that the Kashrut certification process is open to the manipulation, corruption and the defrauding of those firm’s applying for kosher certification (i.e. the defrauding of non-jews by jews) then these points will hopefully serve as a guide of what to look in order to begin to develop your argument.

What is particularly interesting with kosher certification is the multitude of jewish organisations who offer it on conflicting halakhic standards, which can easily lead to organisations confusing and/or misleading firms about how far their own mark will satisfy kosher requirements. It is easy to understand how this might indeed be the case: in that firms are often looking for ways in which they can increase their customer base and therefore their sales. One way they might look to do so is to get their food certified as being kosher and thus appeal to any segments of the population who are both kosher and looking to buy kosher food of the type produced by the firm.
However a problem occurs with this strategy in so far as how does the firm select the right kosher certification for its product?

Since as I have said there are a great many different kosher certifications out there at different levels of Kashrut stringency. Although there are the main issuers of kosher certification, such as the Union of Orthodox Congregations (better known as the Orthodox Union), there are never-the-less many different firms and organisations out there offering this service. There is a considerable grey area for those jewish organisations, which can supply valid kosher certifications, to manipulate the gap in the knowledge within the firm as to what benefits could accrue and as to how many congregations hold this certification of kosher status to be valid.

So for example: if a firm wished to get its produce certified as kosher, but knew very little about the process itself and the halakhic law regarding kashrut and sent out inquiries to one or several jewish organisation(s) who issue kosher certifications. Then it would be simple for the jewish organisation or organisations to claim that their certification covers a wider segment of the population than it does and to aggressively sell the kosher certification to the firm as a simple process, while involves very little cost.

When in fact the jewish organisation/organisations have kept back the differences in certification and what is considered to be kosher by different sects within the religious jewish community, which may impact the firm’s decision to go into through the process of getting their produce certified as kosher by that particular jewish organisation. This is made possible by the fact that the firm doesn’t know any better and is forced, because of this gap in the firm’s knowledge base, to trust the word of the jewish organisation.

Hence the firm has been essentially defrauded by the jewish organisation who can easily profit from this by either setting a very high kashrut standard (and therefore demanding sourcing and manufacturing changes, which of course they will be paid to advise on) or by offering to give kosher certification at a lower kashrut standard if the firm will agree to pay the jewish organisation a higher consultancy charge. Hence the jewish organisation while also in the position to easily defraud a firm can also easily blackmail that firm into giving that organisation more money.

To give an example of how a jewish organisation could easily raise or lower their halakhic standard according to the fee that was paid to them we can look at the issue of leafed vegetables, which are included as ingredients in a great many food products. In halakhic guidelines the preparer of the food must be sure to check all the leaves thoroughly for insects: this in a jewish household traditionally involves the jewish woman holding up the leaves to the light to look for black spots, which might indicate the presence of an insect, which is considered treif, and if there are insects present they all have to be removed in order for the vegetable to become kosher (and for the process to continue).

Now if the jewish organisation in question wished to raise the halakhic standard: they could insist that a process be implemented by the firm whereby all leafed vegetables that are to be part of their products to be certified as kosher are checked by hand for any insect presence at all in much the same manner as the checking is performed by the jewish woman preparing a kosher meal. However if the jewish organisation in question wished to lower the halakhic standard then it would be a simple matter to simply insist that the leafed vegetables have been thoroughly washed in flowing water and therefore they have been cleaned and all traces of treif can be assumed in halakha to have been removed by this cleansing process.

Hence it is a simple matter for a jewish organisation to raise or lower the halakhic standard according to whether they consider the firm is willing to pay them the amount of money they wish for their certification. If not then they can take revenge by inflicting a high halakhic standard, but if so then they can ease relations with the firm by imposing a low halakhic standard on the firm’s production process when reviewing it with a view to kosher certification. Hence the certification process is very open to manipulation based on the perceptions of the firm whose production process the rabbinical committee is inspecting.

One further point of interest in discussing the kashrut certification process and its liability to be abused and manipulated is that there are certain categories of produce, such as cheese (gvinat akum), wine, butter (chem’at akum) and some cooked foods (bishul akum), which according to halakhic kashrut law have to be prepared in whole or in part by jews. There are differences between the different Judaic sects regarding this with Conservative Judaism disregarding the need for jews to be wholly or in part involved in the production process for some cooked foods (bishul akum).

Also debated between these jewish sects is just how much jewish presence is required: some strict sects require whole jewish participation and others require only a small amount (measured as a percentage of the total production process). This breadth on the part of how strict, in terms of halakhic interpretation, a sect is: is therefore a potential avenue for a firm to again be defrauded and/or manipulated by these jewish organisations in so far as if the firm wishes its produce to be satisfactory as bishul akum, in terms of being kosher rather than treif, then the firm would have to actively employ jews on part or across the whole of their production line, which would be a discriminatory practice in the workplace and against current commercial ethnical guidelines regarding the nonsensical concept of ‘racial equality’. It does however demonstrate the scope for manipulation and potential defrauding of firms through the certification process.

So therefore we can reasonably suggest that the kosher accreditation process is open to abuse, corruption and fraud since it is monopolised by jews with no standard authority regulating the use of the term: ‘kosher’.

It is important to note that the points of interest I have suggested are less sensational than the argument concerning a kosher food tax, but that the points I have briefly explained here are based on a good working knowledge of halakha and the application of that knowledge to examining the jewish question. It is possible my suggested arguments are incorrect, but at the very least the opportunity exists and you can look to examples like the recent Agriprocessors scandal in Iowa to show just how an organisation involved in the production and/or the certification of kosher food can do manipulate, lie and defraud much as I have described it. The key, as I have said many times in the past, to making a good, factually sound anti-Semitic argument is not to simply repeat emotionally appealing arguments (which often tend towards sensationalism), but to step back, take a deep breath and think about the argument in the context of the specialist literature in the area and suggest points of interpretation, which you rationally suggest rather than those which sound satisfying, but do not harmonize with either logic or the literature.

I will cite Semitic Controversies' motto again here, because it underlines perfectly why I have written this article in the style I have: ‘Deal with the reality of the jew and the world will applaud anti-Semitism. Treat them as imaginary, inhuman fantasies and the world will have justified contempt for anti-Semitism.’ That is the key to defeating the jew.

[1] http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion05.html [Accessed: 15/02/2009]. Also reproduced on: http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/food/news.php?q=1218068407 [Accessed: 15/02/2009].
[2] For example the article from the anti-Semitic publication, ‘The Truth At Last’, which is reproduced on http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/food/news.php?q=1218068407, reproduces all the LibreOpinion article’s claims, but with different data: presumably acquired from different sources (there is a considerable disparity, but this is not particularly relevant to cover in detail).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] I believe the author was referring to Kof-K Kosher Certification when he referenced ‘Kov-K’ as a kosher certification organisation. Kof-K’s website can be found at the following address: http://www.kof-k.org/.
[6] http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion05.html [Accessed: 15/02/2009]. Also reproduced on: http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/food/news.php?q=1218068407 [Accessed: 15/02/2009].
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Emails to several of the jewish organisations in question requesting some general information regarding pricing and where to find public statements of their accounts have not been returned as of this writing. There is no information regarding these on any of these jewish organisation’s websites.
[10] http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion05.html [Accessed: 15/02/2009]. Also reproduced on: http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/food/news.php?q=1218068407 [Accessed: 15/02/2009].