We hear a lot about Muslim terrorism. Here’s the counterpoint for discussion.
A detailed list of Israeli crimes against civilians. Very comprehensive: http://judaism.is/genocide.html
It’s very bad, but remember, there are two sides to every conflict. What is the truth? How do we find it?
In late 2001 Jewish Defense League leader Irv Rubin and JDL activist Earl Krugel were arrested and charged with conspiracy to bomb a southern California office of U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa, as well as a Mosque in Culver City, California. In November 2002, during the course of the legal proceedings in the case, it was revealed that Krugel had boasted of his group’s responsibility for the 1984 arson attack against the IHR during a secretly recorded conversation on Nov. 14, 2001, with a confidential police or FBI informant.
Later it was learned that the Torrance Police Department had determined after an investigation of the attack against the IHR that the Jewish Defense League was responsible for the crime. That was the conclusion of a ten-page 1984 report on the Department’s investigation. (A redacted copy of the report was obtained by the Institute in January 2003.)
Although this evasion is predictable, it’s quite remarkable to see a more or less open admission from two allegedly masterful historians that they don’t possess facts sufficient to dispel the very “myth” they set out to challenge. To describe any such presentation of facts as a “futile attempt” seems intellectually flaccid; a concession of the weakness of one’s case.
But what is really presented here, of course, is the standard structure of Jewish historiography: avoid the facts, downplay them if concession is absolutely necessary, and move the discussion into abstractions and sophistry. Taking a page from the ADL playbook, Browning mewls coyly that “a small kernel of truth underpinned the stereotype of the Jewish Bolshevik,” but insists, regarding Communism, that “the Jew as “the face of the revolution” was a “culturally constructed” perception.” We therefore arrive at the familiar position where facts don’t matter and everything Jews don’t like is triumphantly declared a mere construct. . . .
Jewish economic competition in the modern period is caricatured as an irrational “image,” and Jewish war profiteering is simply an “accusation.” Epithets, images, accusations, and the passive and innocent Jew. In sociological-psychological terms this is classic Freud and Frankfurt School, and in historiography it is classic Langmuir.
As with Langmuir’s sophistry, such assertions require a significant amount of either duplicity or cognitive dissonance, or perhaps both. The number of texts covering historical Jewish black-market activity alone is astonishing. We know from one Stanford-published history, for example, that in France in 1941, 90% of black market traders in one province were Jews. Similarly, in Mark Roodhouse’s Oxford-published Black Market Britain: 1939–1955, it is remarked that Jews were massively over-represented in prosecutions for black-market activity in London during the 1940s. . . .
We’re again in very familiar territory: when you feel you can’t avoid a fact (“Jews were invariably disproportionately represented”), and you can’t downplay it, then explain it by way of prejudice (“they were not welcome”). The problem with snapshots of history like this, as I’ve explained many times before, is what I’ve come to term a “cropped timeline explanation” — something that is extremely common in all Jewish and philosemitic historiography concerning anti-Semitism. When faced with an uncomfortable and unavoidable fact involving Jewish behavior (Leftism, usury, financial crime, pornography, etc.) one starts with assumptions of anti-Jewish prejudice and works from there. Jews are on the Left? It must be because they were excluded from the Right. Problems begin to arise when the question is asked why Jews were excluded or viewed as socially or culturally oppositional in the first place. Here, “irrational prejudice” is the last resort, but beyond it, when faced with further interrogation of that idea and the even deeper historical context, nothing is there. One is confronted with blank stares, rhetorical dead ends, and a factual wasteland.
By now I was already getting the sense that Browning was drowning in his own review, under the sheer weight of his own evasions and contortions. The questions, for any reader, were surely multiplying. Were Jews over-represented in Communism or not? If yes, how is the idea of Jewish leftism a myth? If the ‘myth’ can’t be debunked with facts, how can it be debunked by a work of academic sophistry that labels it a cultural construct? The contortions only worsen. . . .
Thus, we are treated to a review of Gerrits by Eliezer Ben-Rafael of Tel-Aviv University, who asserts that Gerrits tackles “the myth of Jewish Communism” by presenting “the fascinating stories of Jewish Communism and Jewish Communists.” If debunking ideas with proof of their veracity wasn’t enough, it’s explained in one banal revelation that the myth combines “anti-Semitism and anti-Communism,” and has a link to reality in the fact that “in effect, many Jews were prominently involved in Communism not only in Russia, but also in the Hungarian and Bavarian revolutions of 1917 and, after the Second World War, in Czechoslovakia, Romania, Lithuania, Poland, and Bulgaria.” Jewish Communism is thus clearly a myth because Jews were prominently involved in Communist revolutions in several countries over several decades. Right. . . .
An excellent example of evasion along these lines is Hanebrink’s discussion of Béla Kun. Hanebrink argues [p.25] that there was “nothing meaningful at all” about Kun’s Jewish background while elsewhere [p.16] noting that of the 47 people’s commissars gathered by Kun for the 1919 Hungarian Soviet regime, 30 were fellow Jews. Clearly feeling that his own arguments are unconvincing, Hanebrink follows up his earlier surrender on the issue of facts with [p.25]: “Truly understanding the hopes, fears and motivations of any particular Jewish revolutionary in all their irreducible complexity is ultimately a task best undertaken by a biographer.” . . .
Paul Hanebrink’s A Specter Haunting Europe is, ultimately, an extremely strange book, but all too typical of contemporary writing on Jewish history. It is thick on promises and thin in substance. It is characterized by glaring omissions and a deeply insincere analysis accompanied by a cloying philosemitism. Interestingly, the text lacks any semblance of intellectual confidence, and one feels that Hanebrink, who is presumably not himself Jewish, is surely aware of what he is creating: a blatant pro-Jewish apologetic. The reasons why a White academic might want to produce something like this are not difficult to surmise. As with Christopher Browning, such endeavors are massively incentivized. Despite being unoriginal, low on facts, and poor in analysis, Hanebrink, associate professor of history at Rutgers, has written a book published by a prestigious academic publisher (perhaps the most prestigious) and has been lavishly praised in the major organs of the mainstream media. The message from our latter-day commissars is clear: “Sell out and we’ll make you a star.”
Why do Jews oppose wars against evil?
BY Dennis Prager | Oct 14, 2014 | Dennis Prager
Take fighting Communism, for example. Along with Nazism, Communism was the most genocidal movement in human history; it actually enslaved and murdered considerably more people than Nazism. Yet, most Jews didn’t support anti-Communism in general nor anti-Communist wars in particular. Even worse, Jews were disproportionately pro-Communist. In Stalin’s time, the Yiddish press was the most pro-Communist press in the Western world. And among those in the West who gave Stalin the secrets to the atomic bomb, nearly every one was a Jew.
Recorded at De Balie cultural center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands on 12 December 2018 – a segment from David Sheen’s 100-minute lecture “Israeli Politics Decoded”
Is it permitted for Jewish soldiers to rape non-Jewish women?
Like many other things on this site, this is not vetted information. Much of it is posted for future examination.
On April 10, 1963, the USS Thresher sank during deep-diving tests more than 200 miles off the coast of Boston. All 129 crew and shipyard personnel died.
Five years later, 99 crewmen died when their submarine, the USS Scorpion, mysteriously disappeared near the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago some 1,000 miles west of the European continent.
Fifty years ago this fall, Catholic bishops gathered in Rome for a council that would bring the church “up to date” by making it speak more directly to the modern world. After three years of deliberation, the bishops voted on and accepted statements that permitted the faithful to attend mass in their own languages, encouraged lay reading of scripture and entreated Catholics to think of other religions as sources of truth and grace. The council referred to the church as “people of God” and suggested a more democratic ordering of relations between bishops and the pope. It also passed a statement on non-Christian religions, known by its Latin title, Nostra Aetate (“In our times”). Part four of this declaration, a statement on the Jews, proved most controversial, several times almost failing because of the opposition of conservative bishops.
Nostra Aetate confirmed that Christ, his mother and the apostles were Jews, and that the church had its origin in the Old Testament. It denied that the Jews may be held collectively responsible for Jesus Christ’s death, and decried all forms of hatred, including anti-Semitism. . . .
The Catholics who helped bring the church to recognition of the continuing sanctity of the Jewish people were converts, many of them from Jewish families.
Most important was Johannes Oesterreicher, born in 1904 into the home of the Jewish veterinarian Nathan and his wife, Ida, in Stadt-Liebau, a German-language community in northern Moravia. As a boy, he took part in Zionist scouting and acted as elected representative of the Jews in his high school, but then, for reasons that remain inexplicable (he later said he ”fell in love with Christ”), Oesterreicher took an interest in Christian writings (Cardinal Newman, Kierkegaard and the Gospels themselves), and under the influence of a priest later martyred by the Nazis (Max Josef Metzger) he became a Catholic and then a priest. In the early 1930s he took over the initiative of the Diocese of Vienna for converting Jews, hoping to bring family and friends into the church. In this his success was limited. Where he had an impact was in gathering other Catholic thinkers to oppose Nazi racism. To his shock, Oesterreicher found this racism entering the work of leading Catholic thinkers, who taught that Jews were racially damaged and therefore could not receive the grace of baptism. His friends in this endeavor included fellow converts like philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand and the theologian Karl Thieme and political philosopher Waldemar Gurian. In 1937, Gurian, Oesterreicher and Thieme penned a Catholic statement on the Jews, arguing, against the racists, that Jews carried a special holiness. Though it constituted orthodox teaching, not a single bishop (let alone the Vatican) signed on.
Oesterreicher escaped Austria when the Nazis entered, in 1938, and continued work from Paris, broadcasting German-language sermons into the Reich, informing Catholics that Hitler was an “unclean spirit” and the “antipode in human form,” and describing Nazi crimes committed against Jews and Poles. In the spring of 1940 he barely eluded an advance team of Gestapo agents, and via Marseille and Lisbon he made his way to New York City and ultimately Seton Hall University, where he became the leading expert on relations with Jews in America’s Catholic Church.
Oesterreicher gradually abandoned his “missionary” approach to the Jews and increasingly called his work ecumenical. He and like-minded Christians tried to figure out how to ground their belief in continued vocation of Jewish people in Christian scripture. If the battle before the war was against the superficial assumptions of Nazi racism, after the war it took aim at the deeply rooted beliefs of Christian anti-Judaism.
In Paris, the Rev. Paul Démann, a converted Hungarian Jew, began publishing the review Cahiers Sioniens and, with the help of fellow converts Geza Vermes and Renée Bloch, refuted the anti-Judaism in Catholic school catechisms.
At one critical moment in October 1964, priests Gregory Baum and Bruno Hussar joined Oesterreicher in assembling what became the final text of the council’s decree on the Jews, voted on by the bishops a year later. Like Oesterreicher, Baum and Hussar were converts of Jewish background.
They were continuing a trend going back to the First Vatican Council in 1870, when the brothers Lémann — Jews who had become Catholics and priests — presented a draft declaration on relations between the church and Jews, stating that Jews “are always very dear to God” because of their fathers and because Christ has issued from them “according to the flesh.” Without converts to Catholicism, it seems, the Catholic Church would never have “thought its way” out of the challenges of racist anti-Judaism.
The high percentage of Jewish converts like Oesterreicher among Catholics who were opposed to anti-Semitism makes sense: In the 1930s they were targets of Nazi racism who could not avoid the racism that had entered the church. In their opposition, they were simply holding their church to its own universalism. But by turning to long-neglected passages in St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, they also opened the mind of the church to a new appreciation of the Jewish people.
The Jewish community in Ethiopia, labeled in the past as Falasha or Beta Israel, is perceived in Israel as a traditional-religious community which, while in Ethiopia, conducted its life in isolation from its inimical neighbors and from the processes unfolding around it, with all its aspirations focused on immigrating to Israel.
A new study, which I conducted, reveals that men and women in this community were political activists and members of Marxist underground movements during the revolutionary years and civil war in that country (from the 1970s until 1991). Acquaintance with the role of Ethiopian Jews in these movements may change the commonly held image of this community in Israeli eyes. (The study is published in the Hebrew book, “The Other Journey: Life Stories of Ethiopian Jews, Activists in the Ethiopian Civil War 1974 – 1991.”)
In the first half of the 1960s, it seemed that the Ethiopian empire was more stable than ever. Emperor Haile Selassie and his right-hand man Aklilu Habte-Wold charted the state’s path through the troubled waters of African politics, navigating the rivalry of the superpowers as well as the upheavals in the Middle East. The fact that an Eritrean struggle for independence, a string of local uprisings in other areas of Ethiopia and a coup attempt in 1960 did not manage to shake the throne contributed to an almost mythic view of Haile Selassie, indicating that he may rule for many years to come, contingent on his health.
Things began to change dramatically starting in the mid-1960s, when students at the Haile Selassie University (later the Addis Ababa University) began organizing and protesting against the ossified regime. Gradually, under the influence of students who had studied at foreign universities (mainly in Western Europe and North America), they started taking interest in Marxist ideas, subsequently becoming more radical. Their demands included education for all, democratization, equality and the right of self-determination for diverse ethnic and linguistic groups, a demand which conflicted with the imperial policy of giving supremacy to Amharic. They also demanded the distribution of land to farmers who were working them in practice (in contrast to a quasi-feudal control of the land which was common in many areas in the days of the emperor), as well as other demands.
. . . .
Man, I don’t think I could vacation in Egypt…
The daughter of a British couple who died while on holiday in Egypt claims her parents’ bodies were sent home with missing organs.
John Cooper, 69, and his wife Susan, 63, died in August while in their hotel room at the Seigenberger Aqua Magic Hotel in the Red Sea resort of Hurghada.
Their daughter Kelly Ormerod, 40, is now criticising UK test delays and claiming her parents are ‘missing body parts’.
This comes as new reports have emerged that another Brit, David Humphries, 62, had had his heart and kidneys removed, before his body was sent back to the UK.
(Not sure if this is accurate. Posting for future reference.)
Amongst themselves, the Jews are quite candid about their sympathy for and involvement in Bolshevism.
On 4 April 1919 the Jewish Chronicle: “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”
(Perhaps this explains why the Red Army uses a Jewish star as its symbol?)
Probably the best-known exposé of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik coup d’état was by Sir Winston Churchill, writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of 8 February 1920. Churchill wrote “With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of leading figures are Jews. Moreover the principal inspiration and the driving power comes from Jewish leaders.”
Communism was of course founded by Karl Marx whose grandfather was a rabbi by the name of Mordeccai. Marx was given his initial encouragement by a Communist-Zionist by the name of Moses Hess. As founder and editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, the main organ of leftist thought in Germany, he provided Karl Marx with his first important platform. Later, in Brussels, he collaborated with Marx on The German Ideology. It was Hess too who converted to Communism Friedrich Engels, the wealthy textiles magnate who later subsidised Marx from the profits of sweated labour in Britain and Germany.
When the Bolsheviks overthrew the short-lived democratic government in Moscow and St. Petersburg in October 1917, it was a virtual Jewish coup d’état. The most prominent Jewish Commissar was Trotsky, real name Bronstein. He had been married by a rabbi in 1900, and whilst in exile in New York he had worked for Novy Mir, described in the Church Times (23 January 1925) as a “Yiddish newspaper.”
The various reporters and diplomats who were there at the time of the “Revolution” have given evidence as to its Jewish nature.
The widow of the Guardian’s correspondent Mrs. Ariadna Tyrkova-Williams wrote: “In the Soviet Republic all the committees and commissaries were filled with Jews.”
The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. (This does not appear in the later English translation, for some odd reason.) After the publication of this monumental work, Wilton was ostracised by the press, and he died in poverty in 1925. He reported that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party was made up as follows:
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Lourie (Larine) Jew
Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
“The Council of the People’s Commissars comprises the following:
MINISTRY NAME NATIONALITY
President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
Agriculture Protian Armenian
Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
Food Schlichter Jew
Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
State Control Lander Jew
State Lands Kauffman Jew
Works V. Schmidt Jew
Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
Religions Spitzberg Jew
Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Hygiene Anvelt Jew
Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
Press Volodarski Jew
Elections Ouritski Jew
Justice I. Steinberg Jew
Refugees Fenigstein Jew
Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew
“The following is the list of members of the Central Executive Committee:
Sverdlov (president) Jew
Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
Sobelson (Radek) Jew
Levine (Pravdine) Jew
“The following is the list of members of the Extraordinary Commission of Moscow:
Dzerjinski (president) Pole
Peters (vice-president) Lett
Jacob Goldine Jew
G. Sverdlof Jew
I. Model Jew
Stanley Levinson was treasurer of the American Jewish Congress and considered by the FBI to be a coordinator for the Communist Party USA.