Darrell W. Conder's

Things You've Never Heard In Church:

The Truth About Our Judeo-Christian Heritage

It's November, 2005 and as usual the "news" out of the Middle East isn't too good. President George W. Bush has conceded that the deaths of over 2,000 U.S. personnel and about 100,000 civilians in Iraq is just the beginning—effectively conceding that his smug declaration after the initial bombing and invasion of Iraq that his "war" was won, was a blunder. The butcher of Beirut, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is again stirring the pot of war in the occupied territories, while his agents and allies inside the U.S. government continue pushing for invasions of Israel's other sworn Middle East foes, notably Syria and Iran. Dirty bombs, or depleted uranium bombs fired by the tons in Iraq are contaminating the region for the next billion years or so, assuring the horrid deformities and miserable deaths of countless generations of both Iraqis and the American personnel who live and/or serve in that chaotic, wrecked country. And a few days ago Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", which has hardline Zionists in this country and in Israel demanding a preemptive war against Iran ... and on and on it goes.

In the midst of all this madness how many have just once stopped to consider the real root of the murder and chaos of the Middle East? Judging by what I read and observe, very few. But those of us who keep up with the behind-the-scenes news and understand the suppressed history of the region, know the answer to that question. Ultimately the cause for the nightmare in the Middle East is religion—Islam, Christianity and Judaism—three religions that claim the same god as their supreme deity killing in his name. In his name the leaders of the "three great religions" use their "holy" writings to justify their political aims.

In my efforts to combat this madness, I have, in other articles, examined the history of Christianity, its politics, its "holy bible" and all the holy terror wrought in its name. Here I want to step outside Christianity and look at another gargantuan lie, which is now being accepted by the majority of Christian denominations as truth, and which is adding to the horrors of the world. I'm referring to the myth of Judeo-Christian heritage.

Prior to the Second World War few if anyone had ever heard the term, Judeo-Christian heritage. Before that time Jews and Christians behaved very much the way Christians and Jews have behaved for centuries—with animosity and suspicion one for the other—occasionally spilling over into outright hatred and violence. But thanks to a post-war religious-political campaign accentuating the similarities between the two "great" religions, most Christians and most non-observant Jews have bought into the myth of Judeo-Christian heritage, trumpeted by the likes of Christian personality and singer Pat Boone, who babbled that there are two kinds of Judaism: "one Orthodox and the other Christian."

A crack in this false sentiment appeared in two 1992 articles published in Newsweek magazine and the Jerusalem Post. The Newsweek article noted that "Politicians appeal to a Judeo-Christian tradition, but religious scholars say it no longer exists.... For scholars of American religion the idea of a single Judeo-Christian tradition is a made-in-America myth that many of them no longer regard as valid." To back this statement the article's author quotes Talmudic scholar Jacob Neusner who says: "Theologically and historically, there is no such thing as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a secular myth favoured by people who are not really believers themselves." The Jerusalem Post took a more scalding line when its editors claimed that "Antisemitism is a direct result of the Church's teachings, which Christians perhaps need to re-examine." The editors went on to blame the Christian Church for the Holocaust and cited French Jewish scholar Jules Isaac who was quoted as saying: "Without centuries of Christian catechism, preaching, and vituperation, the Hitlerian teachings, propaganda and vituperation would not have been possible." The article concludes that the problem "is not, as some assert, that certain Christian leaders deviated from Christian teachings and behaved in an un-Christian manner; it is the teachings themselves that are bent."

The purpose of this article is to show starry-eyed Christians and liberal Jews why it is that their faiths have never been compatible, and why they never will. Listen all ye good Jews and Christians: It's the book! That's the problem! The vitriol that exudes from your holy scriptures and taught in pious tones by your rabbis and priests that is leading this world towards its final days.

Karl Marx, who was descended from a long line of rabbis, once said that religion was the opium of the people. That was a very insightful statement as opium is a deadly poison, and unless both Christians and Jews can shake off the plague of their common heritage, it will eventually bury us all.

The Talmud—Judaism's Guide Book

The fact is that the Christian Old Testament, which the Jews call the Tanakh,¹ has only a secondary meaning within Judaism. The life's blood of Judaism, its moral guide book, is not the Tanakh, but a collection of writings called the Talmud.

It is the Talmud and not the Tanakh that forms the basis for all that an observant Jew does or thinks. Within Judaism every scripture of the Tanakh is studied and scrutinized in light of the Talmud, and if the Talmud contradicts the Tanakh, then the authority of the Talmud is supreme, as the Talmud itself instructs: "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes [found in the Talmud] than in the words of the Torah [i.e., the five books of Moses]."² In fact, in Baba Mezia 59b the authority of the rabbis is declared to the point that one finds the story of a rabbi engaged in a religious debate with God wherein God is defeated. This tale is backed by the further declaration that God sometimes summons a rabbi from earth to appear in the heavenly court to give him advice!³ The authority and importance of the Talmud is so great, that Judaism's greatest scholars and rabbis have not spent their lives becoming authorities on the Tanakh, but becoming authorities on the sacred writings of the Talmud.

One of the most influential rabbis of the twentieth century was Joseph D. Soloveitchik (1903-1992), who was considered an international authority on the halakha or Jewish religious law, and who had, in his career, ordained over 2,000 rabbis. Read what New York Times religious reporter Ari Goldman reveals about Rabbi Soloveitchik: "Soloveitchik came from a long line of distinguished Talmudic scholars ... Until his early 20s he devoted himself almost exclusively to the study of the Talmud ... He came to Yeshiva University's Elchanan Theological Seminary where he remained the pre-eminent teacher in the Talmud ... [and] held the title of Leib Merkin professor of Talmud."⁴ What is important here is that Goldman doesn't once refer to Rabbi Soloveitchik's knowledge of the Tanakh, or the Old Testament, simply because the study of the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else is standard fare within Judaism.⁵

The late Rabbi Louis Finklestein, who, in addition to being a Zionist and communist sympathizer, was one of the most revered Talmudic scholars in the Jewish world. Notice his opinion about the Talmud: "Therefore any decision regarding the Jewish religion must be based on the Talmud as the final resume of the teaching of those authorities when they existed."⁶

To make this same point, Jewish writer and former Zionist Jack Bernstein quotes two famous rabbis, Rabbi Israel and Rabbi Chamboyet, who said that "The teachings of the Talmud stand above all other laws. They are more important than the laws of Moses." Bernstein comments, "Obviously, the Talmudists consider the Talmud above and more important than the 10 commandments given to us by Moses."⁷

That Mr. Bernstein is correct is seen in the Talmudic book of Michna Sanhedrin (11:3), which teaches that "It is more wicked to question the words of the rabbis than those of the Torah." To this is added: "Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell." (See also Erubin 21b.)

The famous Jewish novelist Herman Wouk simply sums up the place of the Talmud in Jewish culture with this observation: "The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart's blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we observe—whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists—we follow the Talmud. It is our common law."⁸

Mr. Wouk's observation is backed by this information from Forlong's Encyclopedia of Religions: "[T]he Talmud not only awaits the infant at birth, and regulates every incident of that event (even to the names of the angels that are to be inscribed on the door, and the words on the four corners of the apartment), but anticipates each circumstance from the earliest moment of probability. In every relation of life, in every action, in every conceivable circumstance—for food, dress, habit, language, devotion, relaxation—it prescribes almost every word to be uttered, and almost every thought to be conceived. Its rule is minuet, omnipresent, inflexible. Its severity is never relaxed."⁹ (As an example of the above, the Talmud book of Shabbath 41a instructs a Jew on the proper and "holy" way to urinate!)

Having seen the importance of the Talmud in Judaism, and before commencing an examination of the Talmud itself, let's first note where and when it originated, which we shall do by quoting the editors of the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia: "The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent without a break through all centuries from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single piece of that literature ... and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Phariseeism."¹⁰ To this the late Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Dr. J.H. Hertz, adds: "The beginnings of Talmudic literature date back to the time of the Babylonian Exile in the sixth pre-Christian century.... Its birthplace, Babylonia, was an autonomous Jewish center for a longer period than any other land; namely from soon after 586 before the Christian era to the year 1040 after the Christian era—1626 years... The Babylonian Exile is a momentous period in the history of humanity—and especially so in that of Israel. During that Exile, Israel found itself."¹¹

As this author has shown in his Genesis Study, the Tanakh (or Old Testament) was borne out of the paganism of the Babylonian Captivity, which places the Talmud in that ominous line. In other words, it adds centuries of corruption upon a so-called holy book that was borne of corruption. The situation is "ominous" because Zionism has been been tremendously influential in world affairs, and the Talmud stands behind as a moral guide book. Let us now peek inside that book to glimpse its peculiar moral code.

The Accursed Goyim!

The first translation of the Talmud into English was made in the 1930s, when the first installments of the Soncino edition were published. Now one might think that an English translation of the Talmud would be a proud moment in the history of Judaism, being that millions of Jews spoke only English. Not so. The appearance of the Soncino edition of the Talmud met with strong rabbinical denouncement—even to the point of a few circulated death threats, which can be laid at the doorstep of the Talmud itself. The Talmud pronounces a curse of death on any non-Jew (a "goy") who reads its contents, as this passage makes clear: "Every Goy who studies the Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it ought to die."¹² In Libbre David 37 the rabbis warn: "To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews for if the goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

Anytime someone threatens harm to another for probing into a matter, then be assured that person has something to hide. The rabbis behind the Talmud are no exception, as this example from the Talmud makes clear: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books (of the Talmud), he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."¹³

Before proceeding further let us first understand the meaning of the words "goy" and its plural form, "goyim," which are consistently used in Jewish writings. "Goy" is the word Jews use in reference to "gentiles," or non-Jews, and it means one who is on par with an animal. But not just any animal. In Judaism the rabbis equate "gentiles" with pigs and dogs, which they consider unclean, filthy creatures. Moreover, in addition to "goy" and "goyim" the rabbis also use other derogatory words in reference to non-Jews.

In 1968 Leo Rosten's wrote a very popular book, The Joys of Yiddish. The late Jewish historian and human rights activist, Professor Israel Shahak explains the deception Rosten employed in his book:

"For each entry, in addition to a detailed definition and more or less amusing anecdotes illustrating its use, there is also an etymology stating (quite accurately, on the whole) the language from which the word came into Yiddish and its meaning in that language.

"The entry Shaygets—whose main meaning is 'a gentile boy or young man'—is an exception: there the etymology cryptically states 'Hebrew Origin', without giving the form or meaning of the original Hebrew word. However, under the entry Shiksa—the feminine form of Shaygets—the author does give the original Hebrew word, sheqetz (or, in his transliteration, sheques) and defines its Hebrew meaning as 'blemish'. This is a bare-faced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows.

"The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines shegetz as follows: 'unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination (colloquial—pronounced shaygets) wretch, unruly youngster; gentile youngster.'"¹⁴

To be fair to Rosten, his deceit is practiced in the best tradition of the Talmud. In the book of Yebamoth 98a the rabbis teach that all "gentile" children are animals, and in Abodah Zarah 36b they say that all "gentile" girls are in a state of filth (niddah) from birth. In Menahoth 43b-44a the rabbis say that all pious Jews should say this prayer daily:"Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave." (Such racial prejudice is noted by Neal Gabler in his book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood. He candidly admits how the Jews are the first to howl about a perceived insult, or a hint of so-called anti-Semitism, but are guilty of the same prejudice in reverse: "'Those goyim!' Harry Warner would yell in derision, or 'He's a nice fellow for a goy,' a Jew might say—but only in their inner sanctums, when they were safe among fellow Jews, and only verbally. Otherwise gentiles were to be courted and given deference.")¹⁵

The English translators of the Talmud also employ deception in order to shield the truth about Judaism's racial prejudice, and thus protect Jews at large from criticism. They do this by mistranslating derogatory words to disguise the fact that their "holy" writings are referring either to a Christian or a "gentile." For instance, the translators often render "goy" or "goyim" as Cutheans, Egyptians or heathens so that the offensive word "goy" can be avoided in the text. This deception is again noted by Israel Shahak, who uses the example of the universally recognized "great" Jewish rabbi, scholar and Talmudist, Moses Maimonides.

Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed is considered by scholars to be the greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy. It is held by most rabbis as being almost sacred. In book III, chapter 51, Maimonides explains that only Jews can attain a relationship with God; as to the state of the "gentiles" he writes: "Some of the Turks and the nomads in the North, and the blacks and the nomads in the South, and those who resemble them in our climates ... their nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to my opinion they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the image and the resemblance of a man more than a monkey does."

When the rabbis translated Maimonides' words into English they left the Hebrew word Kushi (which means black) essentially untranslated (Kushites) thus effectively deceiving the "gentile" reader. When modern day rabbis read this passage, with which, please remember, they are in total agreement, they understand that it speaks of the Negro race—but they don't say so! Israel Shahak comments on this hypocrisy: "Surely one is driven to the hypothesis that quite a few of Martin Luther King's rabbinical supporters were either anti-Black racists who supported him for tactical reasons of 'Jewish interests' (wishing to win Black support for American Jewry and for Israel's policies) or were accomplished hypocrites ... "¹⁶

So great is the rabbinical hatred for the accursed "goyim" that even if a "goy" converts to Judaism, he or she is not wanted or welcome among most Jews—a fact that can be attested to by any number of Jewish converts, such as Jewish convert Kimberly E. Hanke, who writes about her experiences in her book, Turning to Torah: The Emerging Noachide Movement. This Jewish attitude is easily understood by reviewing such writings as the Kabbalah, which says converts to Judaism are Jewish souls who "got lost" when Satan raped the Holy Lady (Shekhinah or Matronit) in her heavenly abode. The "Holy Lady" is defined as "one of the female components of the Godhead, sister and wife of the younger male God."¹⁷ (Anyone familiar with the ancient mystery religions of Babylon and Persia will recognize here the fundamental belief throughout the ancient Middle East of a trinitarian godhead dominated by a mother goddess. All of this supports the connection made by Rabbi Professor Adolphe Franck between present-day Judaism and the pagan religions of ancient Babylon and Persia, which is explained in this author's Genesis Study.)

At any rate, the animal status of the non-Jew explains why it is forbidden for them to read the "holy" writings of the Talmud and why the death sentence is pronounced on any non-Jew who reads it, or a Jew who translates it so that it can be read by the "goyim." With this background, we now continue our look at Judaism's "holy" book.

The Talmud: What You Don't Know Can Kill You!

When one reads that the late Benjamin H. Freedman, a former observant Jew and Zionist, spent $2.5 million dollars of his own money in the 1950s and 1960s trying to alert the American public to the dangers of Zionism and Talmudism, one should seriously consider why?¹⁸ With just a casual examination of the Talmud the answer is revealed.

Having already noted that the rabbis consider "gentiles" as nothing more than animals, it should not be surprising to learn that the Talmud also teaches that "gentiles" should be treated like animals. In Iore Dea 377,1 the rabbis say: "Condolences must not be offered to anyone on account of the death of his servants or handmaidens [i.e., meaning the "gentiles" who work for rich Jews]. All that may be said is 'May God restore your lost one,' the same as we say to a man who has lost a cow or an ass."

In the Talmud the rabbis interpret the Mosaic command that if someone touches a dead body that they must be isolated for seven days, as applying only to Jews. The reason this command doesn't apply to touching a dead "gentile" is because non-Jews are considered to be on par with animals and hence touching a dead "gentile" is the same as touching an animal. (Iebhammoth 61a.)

If the "gentile" is considered to be nothing more than an animal, then it follows that it would be no more sinful to kill a "gentile" than it would be to kill a pig or a dog. This is, in fact, what the Talmud teaches. In the Tract Makkoth (7b) we learn that a Jew is guilty of murder "except when, if intending to kill an animal he kills a man by mistake, or intending to kill a Goy, he kills an Israelite."

Again let us note that within Talmudism a "man" is defined only as a Jew, which is also clarified by Kerithuth 6b: "for it is written: Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezekiel, XXXIV, 31). You [the Jews] are thus called men, but the Goyim are not called men." (Indeed, the rabbis regard Jews even more than men, as they make clear in Sanhedrin 58b. In this scripture they teach that if a "gentile" hits a Jew, he should be put to death, because hitting a Jew "is the same as striking God.")

In Makkoth 7b the rabbis render this judgment: "For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean or of an Israelite by a Cuthea, punishment [i.e., death] is incurred: but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty."¹⁹ (This judgment is used today in modern Israel, where an Israeli, who is convicted of murdering a Palestinian, is usually given a fine and/or community service.) The contribution of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai (whom The Jewish Encyclopedia's authors note as Judaism's preeminent "anti-Gentile" teacher) to the discussion is this: "The best of the Gentiles deserves to be killed." This is clarified thus: "The best of snakes ought to have its head crushed." (Editor's note: Perhaps the murderous attitude spelled out in the Talmud will explain a group of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem praying to their god during the March, 2000 visit of Pope John Paul II to Israel, that he would die on his journey. What the "gentile" world didn't know when this was reported was that these Jews were acting in the best tradition of their elders!)

Such attitudes certainly explain why observant Jews pray the following prayer: "Blessed be Thou [Lord God] who hast not made me a goy."²⁰ (Editor's note: one can only imagine the ensuing howl from the ranks of Judaism if Christians had a "holy" prayer that said, "blessed be Thou, Lord God, who hast not made me a Jew!")

Going even further than the above, the Talmud actually gives some helpful hints about what to do and not to do when killing "goyim." Rabbi Raba taught that if one bound a "gentile" and kept him till he died of starvation, then he was not liable to be executed. He continues in this vein by teaching that "if he bound him in the sun, and he died, or in a place of intense cold and he died, he is liable; but if the sun was yet to appear, or the cold to make itself felt, he is not. Raba also said: If he bound him before a lion, he is not liable; before mosquitoes, who stung him to death, he is. Rabbi Ashi said: Even before mosquitoes, he is not liable, because these go and others come." These "learned" rabbis also tell us that it is permissible to seal up a man in an airtight chamber, providing one does not put in a lighted candle to help deplete the oxygen, but allows the victim to slowly die a "natural death" after the air is depleted.²¹

Although a number of rabbis argued against the murder of "gentiles," they did so only on the grounds that it could bring retribution on all Jews and not from any code of morality. In that vein, the following advice is given.

The rabbis teach that if a Jew sees a "gentile" who has fallen into a pit that he should leave him there to die. To cover his deed, in case someone else pulls the "gentile" out and the Jew is blamed for trying to kill him, one is advised to follow the words of Rabbi Abaye who says that a Jew could leave the "gentile" in the pit with the excuse (i.e., a murderous lie!) that he has to "run to my boy who is standing on the roof, or I have to keep an appointment at the court," the false implication being that he would shortly return to save the "gentile's" life.

This same "wisdom" is repeated in Choschen Ham 425,5: "If you see a heretic, who does not believe in the Torah, fall into a well in which there is a ladder, hurry at once and take it away and say to him 'I have to go and take my son down from the roof; I will bring the ladder back to you at once' or something else. The Kuthaei [Christians], however, who are not our enemies, who take care of the sheep of the Israelites, are not to be killed directly, but they must not be saved from death."²²

To be fair we should note that the Talmud does teach that a Jew may save the life of a "gentile," as the following illustrates: "The akum [Christians] who are not enemies of ours, must not be killed directly, nevertheless they must not be saved from danger of death. For example, if you see one of them fall into the sea, do not pull him out unless he promises to give you money."²³

The great rabbi Moses Maimonides, quoted and revered by so many Christians, even though he taught that "gentiles" were animals, says in Hilkhoth Akum X,1: "Do not have any pity for them [gentiles], for it is said (Deut. VII,2): Show no mercy unto them. Therefore, if you see an Akum in difficulty or drowning, do not go to his help. And if he is in danger of death, do not save him from death. But it is not right to kill him with your own hand by shoving them into a well or in some other way, since they are not at war with us."²⁴

Maimonides' murderous opinion about "gentiles" was somewhat lenient compared to his compatriots because in Abhodah Zarah 26b the rabbis say: "Heretics [Christians], traitors and apostates are to be thrown into a well and not rescued." (This murderous attitude spills over into other teachings, for instance in Choschen Hamm. 388,15, where the rabbis say that if a Jew helps a "gentile," especially by giving him money (i.e., that is giving and not lending), "A way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him [the apostate Jew] off the face of the earth.")²⁵

In Sepher Or Israel 177b it says: "Take the life of the Kliphoth [another name for a Christian] and kill them, and you will please God the same as one who offers incense to Him."²⁶ In Zohar 1,25a the rabbis go even further and teach that all "gentiles" are to be "wiped off the face of the earth." This admonition is clarified in Zohar 11, 64b: "For if these [the "gentiles"] propagate in greater numbers, it will be impossible for us to continue to exist because of them. For they give birth to sucklings the same as dogs."

The ultimate murderous attitude of the rabbis towards the so-called gentiles can be seen by the following extreme admonition, noted by historian David Paul: "The Talmud requires that a Jew who passes near an inhabited non-Jewish dwelling must ask God to destroy it. But if the building is already in ruins he must thank the Lord of Vengeance.... [t]he Talmud [also] commands every Jew that passes a non-Jewish cemetery to curse the mothers of the dead."²⁷

The wisdom of the Talmud permeates thinking in the modern State of Israel, as this rabbinical judgement reflects: "When our forces [the army of Israel] come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that these civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good."²⁸

The advocation of murder against the "gentiles" is especially noticeable among the Hasidic Jews. They not only revere the pagan Kabbalah, but also a book called Hatanya, which was written by the Lubavitcher Rabbi M.M. Schneurssohn of New York. This learned man of God teaches that all non Jews are totally satanic creatures deserving death and "in whom there is absolutely no good." He goes on to say that even "a non-Jewish embryo is qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very existence of a non-Jew is 'inessential,' whereas all of creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews."²⁹

Indeed, during several Israeli-Arab conflicts the followers of this holy man strongly urged Israeli doctors and nurses not to treat wounded "gentiles" and to let them die. (It should be mentioned in all fairness that this suggestion was immediately rejected by the nation's Orthodox rabbis because of the potential of international condemnation against Israel, which is a nation largely supported by "gentile" charity, principally from the United States.)

As another example of the murderous Talmudic attitude at work, internationally known Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." And Rabbi Yaacov Perrin adds, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."³⁰

We should also give Rabbi Simon ben Yohai an honorable mention, because he followed the Zohar and advocated the complete extermination of non-Jews. That thousands of Israelis annually make a pilgrimage to the grave of this holy man tells a story in itself.³¹

Yet another example is that of a former American New York Orthodox Jew, who was serving with the Israeli military in Israel back in the 1990s. His name was Baruch Goldstein and on 25 February 1994 he massacred forty Palestinian civilians, including children, who were praying in a mosque. (Goldstein's murderous rampage was timed to fall on the Jewish festival of Purim, which is a holiday celebrated to commemorate the massacre of 70,000 Persian citizens by the Jews during the time of Esther.) Although there was the obligatory condemnation from key Israelis, thousands of Jews openly praised Goldstein's mass murder spree, including the late rabbi, and Israeli Knesset (parliament) member, Meir Kahane. That the Talmud was behind Kahane's praise is evident from his famous (CBS) 60 Minutes interview when he declared that Arabs were the same as dogs.

Orthodox Rabbi Meir Kahane, by the way, was, prior to his assassination in New York City, one of the most outspoken advocates of murderous revenge by Jews against "gentiles" among present-day Zionists. As a young man Kahane was a zealous follower of Zionist terrorist Ze'ev Jabotinsky. How significantly revealing that two of Jabotinsky's followers were Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both future Israeli prime ministers, and both having the distinction of being murderous terrorists in Palestine, including, in Shamir's case, playing a crucial role in the 1944 murder of British Middle East envoy, Lord Moyne, and ordering the September, 1948 assassination of Swedish United Nations peace mediator, Count Folke-Bernadotte, who was assassinated by Yehoshua Cohen.³²

As an active member of the Jewish-supremist group called Betar, at age fifteen Kahane was arrested in 1947 for leading an attack against the visiting British Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin. In 1968 Kahane founded the Jewish Defense League (the JDL), which was eventually classified by the FBI as one of the second most dangerous terrorist organizations operating in the United States. (Such a background should tell all "goyim" where this so-called American Jew's loyalties really lie!) Rabbi Kahane's JDL was noted for their manufacturing and using bombs to murder those deemed as enemies of Zionism. Moreover, Kahane's association with terrorists went on even after he was elected to Israel's Knesset in 1984. In fact, it is all-telling that many of Kahane's followers thought that he was the promised messiah of Israel.

Even in death this Talmudic holy man continues to inspire murderous vengeance as his legacy. Among his writings is this inspiring advice: "Vengeance is a fundamental Jewish concept that is a precept, injunction, commandment for the Jew ... Vengeance becomes, thanks to the gentilized and perplexed era in which we live, a maligned thing ... Let the government of Israel, which is responsible for the lives of its citizens, make the streets, buses, shops and homes of the Ishmaelites [Palestinians] perpetual places of terror and stark insecurity ... Wipe away the bitter degradation of God's name that is symbolized by Arab refusal to bow to Jewish sovereignty. A truly Jewish government is one that understands the need to ... burn out the desecration by removing, burning out, the evil that is the Arab nation in our midst."³³

Kahane's words are in the best tradition of the U.S.-backed invasion of Palestine and the ultimate wholesale murder and displacement of an entire nation of Arabs. During that time the invading Jews were given a free hand to murder and loot with the blessing of the international community, which also supplied arms and money: "After Lydda [an Arab town between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem] gave up the fight, a group of stubborn Arab fighters barricaded themselves in a small mosque. The commander of the Palmach's 3rd Battalion, Moshe Kalman, gave an order to fire a number of blasts into the mosque. The soldiers who forced their way into the mosque were surprised to find no resistance. [Embedded on] the walls of the mosque they found the remains of the Arab fighters. A group of between twenty to fifty Arab inhabitants [from a nearby village] was brought to clean up the mosque and bury the remains. After they finished their work, they were also shot into the graves they dug."

To be sure, this story, reported by Guy Erlich and printed in the Hebrew daily Hai'ir for May 6, 1992, does the Talmud proud. However, it goes beyond the scope of this article to relate the many shameful instances in history wherein Jews applied the principles of the Talmud for specific gain. It is time to move on to the real point of this artcle.

The Talmud and Legality

At this point let us turn to an argument put up by some rabbis that in addition to the above examples the Talmud also commands mercy and justice to "gentiles." This is true!³⁴ But the key to this argument is that the Talmud usually offers from two to a dozen differing opinions on any given question, and one judgment does not cancel out another because the entire Talmud is considered a holy work—a convenient situation that works to the decided advantage of the observant Jew, as he is free to pick and choose from the Talmudic examples that best fits his particular situation.

In other words, all the different and conflicting teachings in the holy Talmud gives the observant Jews a religious license for literally anything they want to do. When it is to their advantage to do so they will say that the Talmud prohibits thus and such, but when it is to their advantage to do the opposite they will invoke that same Talmud for some shoddy legal shenanigan; hence we have a familiar Yiddish term for a crooked lawyer, the "shyster."

The focus here is the host of "legal" technicalities used by attorneys like the shysters in the O.J. Simpson case. Fifty years ago neither American jurisprudence nor the American people would have allowed a travesty like the O.J. Simpson murder trial to unfold. But what happened during those years is that Jews have dominated the American legal and political system and have rewritten the American criminal justice codes in the complicated, technicality-laden image of their beloved Talmud. (Benjamin H. Freedman cites an example of this from Arsene Darmesteter's book, The Talmud, which notes that many a Talmudic law consisting "... of five or six lines is accompanied by fifty or sixty pages of explanation ... [and] it constitutes dogma and cult; it is the fundamental element of the Talmud ... ")³⁵

Furthermore, lying in court is a Talmudic legal principle. The Mishna, which is the oral tradition on which the rabbis comment, admonishes that if a Jew and a "gentile" have a dispute, and the "gentile" sues the Jew, the verdict must always be for the Jew, no matter the evidence. (36) This same train of thought is found in Babha Kama 113a where the rabbis teach that the Jew is not to dispense justice in their dealings with "gentiles": "Our teaching is as follows: When a Jew and a Goy come into court, absolve the Jew, if you can, according to the laws of Israel. If the Goy wins, tell him that is what our laws require. If, however, the Jew can be absolved according to the gentile law, absolve him and say it is due to our laws. If this cannot be done proceed callously against the Goy, as Rabbi Ischmael advises."(37)

"Rabbi Akiba, however, holds that you cannot act fraudulently lest you profane the Name of God, and have a Jew committed for perjury." But this judgment is clarified thus: "The name of God is not profaned when it is not known by the Goy that the Jew has lied." A further clarification is offered: "The name of God is not profaned when, for example, a Jew lies to a Goy by saying: 'I gave something to your father, but he is dead; you must return it to me,' as long as the Goy does not know that you are lying." (Babha Kama 113a, 113b)

There are countless examples of the above perversions of true justice in the Talmud, but the few offered here are sufficient to illustrate that Talmudic-style legal technicalities written in the American legal system have brought the latter down to the extent that proven criminals are allowed to go free, while law-abiding citizens must live barricaded behind locked doors in constant fear of both criminals and America's courts.

The Talmud and Christians

Historian David Paul writes: "The Talmud instructs Jews to burn, publicly if possible, any copy of the New Testament they can get their hands on. On 23 March 1980 hundreds of copies of the New Testament were publicly burnt in Jerusalem under the auspices of Yad Le'akhim, a Jewish religious organization subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religion."³⁸

This example is mentioned here because the Jews have bitterly complained about the Christian Church of past centuries seizing and burning copies of their Talmud, which is true. But on the other side of the coin Christianity has been the target of Rabbinical Judaism for the better part of 2,000 years, and in their perpetual moaning about "anti-Semitism" the rabbis conveniently forget this aspect of their history.

Perhaps the most contemptuous statement ever made against Christians (other than the advocation of murder) is that made by Rabbi Iarchi, who taught that Christians actually honor their God by defecating before him. In Iore Dea (198 48) Hagah, the rabbis say: "When Jewish women come out of a bath they must take care to meet a friend first, and not something unclean or a Christian. For if so, a woman, if she wants to keep holy, should go back and bathe again." This command is further clarified in Biur Hetib, a commentary on the Schulchan Arukh: "A woman must wash herself again if she sees any unclean thing, such as a dog, an ass ... a Christian or a camel, a pig, a horse and a leper."

In Abhodah Zarah 22b the rabbis ask and then answer the following question: "Why are Goyim unclean? Because they were not present at Mount Sinai. For when the serpent entered into Eve he infused her with uncleanness. But the Jews were cleansed from this when they stood on Mount Sinai; the Goyim, however, who were not on Mount Sinai, were not cleansed." In Abhodah Zarah 72b we read: "A certain man was pouring wine from one jar into another by means of a tube, when a Goy came along and touched the tube with his hand. As a result all the wine (in both jars) had to be thrown away."

Talmud authority Rev. Dr. I.B. Pranaitis remarks "Every vessel, therefore, must be washed which comes into the possession of a Jew from a Christian, although it has never been in use. In Iore Dea 120,1 it says: 'If a Jew buys a vessel for use at table from an Akum [i.e., a Christian] whether it is made of metal, glass or lead, even if it is new, he must wash it in a Mikvah [a large basin], or in a cistern which holds forty quarts of water.'"³⁹ (In Abodah Zarah 67b, one of Judaism's "learned" rabbis has this to say about the pots and pans of a gentile: "The vessels of gentiles, do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them?")

Uncleanliness is why Iore Dea 148,10 teaches this about Christians: "A Jew must not return the greeting of a Christian by bowing before him. It is good, therefore, to salute him first and so avoid having to answer him back if the Akum [Christian] salutes him first." In Abhodah Zarah 20a, Toseph we read: "Do not say anything in praise of them, lest it be said: How good that Goy is!" Along this line a Christian girl who works for a Jew on their Sabbath is called Scaw-wesschicksel, or Sabbath dirt.⁴⁰ (The reader should notice that, contrary to the Torah's teaching that a servant may not work for an Israelite on the Sabbath, the Talmud allows this through a typical shyster loophole—i.e., a "gentile" is an animal and animals are not required to keep the commandments so they may work for the Jews on the Sabbath.)

In Zohar 1,25b the rabbis go even further. There we read this wisdom: "Those [Jews] who do good to the Akum [Christian] ... will not rise from the dead." Indeed, to underscore their utter contempt for Christians, in Abodah Zarah 27b the rabbis tell of Rabbi Ishmael who blesses his nephew for dying instead of having had a Christian doctor heal his snake bite.

Lest one is tempted to think that the above examples are isolated cases within Judaism's holy writings, the late anti-Talmud activist Benjamin H. Freedman documents almost 150 examples in his published October 10, 1954 letter to Dr. David Goldstein, LL.D. of New York, which he entitled, Facts are Facts!, which is available on the Internet.

The Talmud and Jesus

It follows that if the rabbis have a murderous attitude towards the accused "gentiles," and Christians in particular, it makes sense that they also would have an undying hatred towards Jesus, the founder of Christianity.

Although books like Leonard Yaseen's The Jesus Connection paints a picture of Jesus as practitioner of Rabbinical Judaism—even as a great rabbi—and there have been countless efforts aimed at selling Christians on the notion of a common brotherhood with the Jews, the truth is that this sentiment is a fraud. The Talmud, in seventeen different passages, strongly condemns Jesus Christ. Although we will not cover these here, their existence is noted because of the recent ecumenical joining of Judaism and Christianity.

Over the past twenty or so years the Jews have been demanding from the Christian church (especially Roman Catholicism) apologies for centuries of persecution. Slowly but surely the Christians, in the name of "reconciliation," have given in to this demand, the poster-boy being embodied in the person of Pope John Paul II. (Indeed, the demands by the rabbis have been so bold as to demand that the pope denounce one of his own as a "Nazi collaborator," meaning Pope Pius XII, who sat on the papal throne during the Second World War.)

On a much-publicized visit to Israel, where he bowed and did homage to Israeli Jews, Pope John Paul II was the very picture of a man—and church—humiliated. Why did he do this? Why do not the Christian clergy as a whole stand up for their own faith and publish to the world the great evils of the Talmud and hence the true evil that is Judaism? Instead of all the "ecumenical" rhetoric, why not reveal how the Talmud teaches observant Jews to lie, cheat, steal and murder gentiles to achieve their aims. The answer is simple: Both faiths are frauds based on a supreme book of lies; and the potential gains by the promulgators of this fraud is tremendous world-wide power and unlimited wealth! This is why the hypocritical alliance which has been passed off as "Judeo-Christian heritage."

The Myth of Christians Murdering Jewish Children

Thousands of books and papers have been written by Jewish authors over the last hundred or so years condemning the Christian priests of old who would often tell their congregations that Jews were prone to kidnap and murder Christian children as sacrifices for religious rites. Noting that such stories were designed solely to arouse hatred against Jews, rabbis have used such selective pieces of negative Christian history to promote themselves and their people into an exalted position of pity, and to cause the "goyim" to feel ashamed of their past—the result of which has been vast material gain, including the theft of an entire country renamed the State of Israel. To help put the truth into perspective, let us notice what the Talmud teaches on the subject of Jewish children and "gentiles."

The Talmud forbids a "gentile" woman to act as a wet-nurse for a Jew "because she is liable to murder it." Rabbi Meir adds that even if Jews are present it isn't safe to allow a "gentile" to wet-nurse because she might "take the opportunity of rubbing in poison on her breast beforehand and so kill the child." Rabbi Meir also forbids "gentile" midwives, even in the presence of Jewish women, because "they often crush the soft head of the child with their hand and kill it; and they can do this without being noticed by those who are present." In Iore Dea 81,7 Hagah the rabbis say: "A child must not be nursed by a Nokhri [i.e., a Christian], if an Israelite can be had; for the milk of the Nokhrith hardens the heart of a child and builds up an evil nature in him." In Iore Dea 153,1 they offer this warning: "A child must not be given to the Akum [a Christian] to learn manners, literature or the arts, for they will lead him into heresy."⁴¹

On the reverse side of this issue Abodah Zarah 26a prohibits a Jewish woman to act as a wet-nurse to a Christian child, because, the rabbis say, she would be helping to rear "a child for idolatry."

And on it goes ...

The Talmud, Gentiles and Sex

It is no understatement to say that the Talmud is obsessed with the topic of sex—and perverted sex at that! (Hey, sex-obsessed Jews like Dr. Sigmund Freud and the so-called psychosexual therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer, had to get it from somewhere!) Among the more disgusting Talmudic passages is Bava Metzia 84, where we read about two rabbis' debating over two other rabbis' extra large penises—arguing about who had the largest penis—Rabbi Yishmael or Rabbi Yohanan. In the English translations their penises are called "limbs" but in a footnote to the passage in his translation, Rabbi Steinsaltz explains the meaning of "limbs" as referring "to these scholars' genital organs, the unusual size of which is evidence of the strength of their passions."⁴²

There is the Talmudic teaching that if a Jewish man has sex with a "gentile" woman, the "gentile" woman must be put to death as the act is equated to the sin of bestiality, i.e., the same as having sex with an animal; the Jew, on the other hand, is to receive only minor punishment. But this is not all: "Even if raped by the Jewish man, the gentile woman must be executed because through her a Jew got in trouble. The Jew must be flogged."⁴³

Bestiality seems to have been a favorite topic of the ancient rabbis, as indeed it is in the Old Testament, which causes one to wonder if this particular perversion was a widespread problem in ancient Israel. In Abhodah Zarah 15b we read: "Animals of the masculine sex must not be left in the barns of the gentiles with their men, nor animals of the feminine sex with their women; much less animals of the feminine sex be left with their men, and of the masculine sex with their women. Nor must sheep be left to the care of their shepherds; nor must any intercourse be had with them; nor must children be given into their care to learn to read or to learn a trade." This is explained thus: "Animals must not be allowed to go near the Goyim, because they are suspected of having intercourse with them.... because when gentile men come to their neighbors' houses to commit adultery with their wives and do not find them at home, they fornicate with the sheep in the barns instead. And sometimes even when their neighbors' wives are at home, they prefer to fornicate with the animals; for they love the sheep of the Israelites more than their own women." (22a, 22b)

Even though the rabbis seemed overly concerned about "gentiles" having sexual intercourse with their animals, they didn't seem too concerned about Jews doing the same. In Yebamoth 63a Rabbi Eleazar explains that the scriptures teach that Adam had intercourse with every animal in the Garden of Eden but found no satisfaction until he "cohabited" with Eve, who, by the way, is said to have had sexual intercourse with that infamous Eden serpent (Yebamoth 103a-103b). This is why the rabbis say (in contradiction to the Torah) in Yebamoth 59b that a Jewish woman who has had sexual relations with an animal may marry a priest (to illustrate their point they even tell the story of a Jewish girl having sex with a dog). However, in a complete turnaround in "logic" the rabbis explain why a Jew is prohibited from marrying a "gentile." In Sanhedrin Tosephoth 74b they say: "the sexual intercourse of a Goy is like to that of a beast." And in Kethuboth 3b they say: "The seed of a Goy is worth the same as that of a beast." (See also Kiddushim 68a, Eben Haezer 44,8.)

In Abodah Zarah 36b-37a, in one of the most perverted writings ever produced by the human race, the rabbis declare that it is acceptable behavior for a Jewish child to have sex with other Jewish children, but not with a "gentile" child. Rabbi Nahman ben Isaac explains the latter: "They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it should cause defilement by seminal emission so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with him."

What the rabbis are saying in their typical double-talk is that it would be permissible for a Jewish child to have sex with a "gentile" boy if the latter was too young to have seminal emissions, but that the Jewish child should not become "accustomed" to the practice because once the "gentile" boy had seminal emissions, the Jew would be polluted. They carry this perversion on by discussing at "what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission?"

Completely ignoring the disgusting implications of the entire subject, the ages mentioned range from one day until the age nine, which, it seems, is the age finally settled on. So the Talmudic pronouncement is that a Jew can have sex with a "gentile" boy as long as he is under the age of nine. But such degeneracy doesn't stop with the above holy discussion.

Although the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a near relative, this no problem for the " learned rabbis of the Talmud. Seemingly oblivious to what they are discussing, in Sanhedrin 69b the rabbis make the following judgement: "If a woman sported lewdly with her young son, a minor, and he committed the first stage of cohabitation [i.e., sexual intercourse] with her—Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit for the Priesthood." The footnote clarifies this judgment by first noting that a woman cannot, under Jewish law, become a priest, so it is explained that the woman in question could not marry a priest because she had been made profane by having sex with her son. Now as if this whole matter could not sink any further, the rabbis go on to decree that the exception to this rule is that if the woman's son is under the age of nine years old! In other words Talmudic wisdom decrees that a Jewish boy under the age of nine years does not "defile" his mother by having sex with her presumable because the boy can't have seminal emissions!

In Yebamoth 55b the rabbis offer a further exception to the Torah prohibition about having sex with a near relative, and that is if the relative is dead. In other words, it is acceptable behavior, in the opinion of the holy rabbis of Talmudism, for a Jewish man to have sex with a dead woman!

Now if a Jewish woman is allowed to have sex with her son, then it follows that Jewish men are allowed to have sex with little girls—at least if one looks for an excuse with a Talmud in hand. In Kethuboth 11a-11b we read: "When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than three years old, it is as if one puts the finger in the eye."

Perhaps at this point one might get a hint at the reason behind the ever-growing perverted sexual freedom in this nation, which has been advocated non-stop over the past five decades by Jewish-owned, Jewish-produced and Jewish-directed Hollywood films and network television.⁴⁴

The Talmud and Slavery

Many will remember the ending of Cecil B. DeMille's famous film, The Ten Commandments, which starred Charlton Heston as Moses. Heston turns to the camera and says to Joshua, "Go. Proclaim liberty throughout all the lands, unto all the inhabitants thereof," or words to that effect. What a fraud! Turn to the book of Leviticus (25:44-46) and read this: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you ... You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another with harshness."

From the days of ancient Israel, where raiding parties brought slaves home to be divided among the people, to the Babylonian captivity, to the time of the first century and long after into the time of the Khazar's conversion to Judaism, the Jews, or those calling themselves Jews, have followed the admonition of their holy books and practiced slavery, and more specifically, the slave trade. This practice was made even more desirable by the fact that the Talmud not only advocates slavery, but teaches that all "gentiles" are, as beasts of burden, the property of Jews who may work them or kill them as one would an ox.

For lack of space we shall skip over the histories of the Jewish-dominated slave trades of ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt, and concentrate on Europe and then the American Colonies.

In his book, Stranger Than Fiction, Rabbi Lewis Browne, says: "... under the tolerant rule of the Mohammedans, the Jews began slavery and began to prosper. They who had been poor and bedraggled pedlars for centuries, now became wealthy and powerful traders. They traveled everywhere, from England to India, from Bohemia to Egypt. Their commonest merchandise in those days was slaves. On every highroad and on every great river and sea, these Jewish traders were to be found with their gangs of shackled prisoners in convoy."⁴⁵ This information is confirmed by Jewish historian Jacob Marcus in his article for the Encyclopedia Britannica: "In the dark ages the commerce of western Europe was largely in his [the Jew's] hand, in particular the slave trade ..."⁴⁶

Marc Raphael, another Jewish historian, writes: "Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.

"This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave-trading on the American continent."⁴⁷

In the book, New World Jewry, 1492-1776, we read that the Jews " ... came with ships carrying African blacks to be sold as slaves. The traffic in slaves was a royal monopoly, and the Jews were often appointed as agents for the Crown in their sale ... [They] were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise ... The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under command of Jewish captains."⁴⁸

Jewish historian Arnold Wiznitzer notes that the Jewish slave traders often made profits upward of 300 percent on their human cargo, and makes another interesting notation: "If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed. This occurred on Friday, October 21, 1644."⁴⁹ In other words, Jewish merchants would postpone selling their chained, whipped human cargo of gentiles if it was a Sabbath or holy day, after which it was business as usual!

As to the American Colonies themselves, almost all the early slave ships were owned by American Jews, principally from Newport, Rhode Island and Charleston, Virginia. The following is a partial list of these ships along with their Jewish owners: Abigail, owned by Aaron Lopez, Moses Levy and Jacob Franks; Crown, owned by Isaac Levy and Nathan Simpson; Nassau owned by Moses Levy; Four Sisters, owned by Moses Levy; Anne & Eliza owned by Justus Bosch and John Abrams; Prudent Betty, owned by Henry Cruger and Jacob Phoenix; Hester, owned by Mordecai and David Gomez; Elizabeth, owned by David and Mordecai Gomez; Betsy, owned by William De Woolf; White Horse, owned by Jan de Sweevts; Expedition, owned by John and Jacob Rosevelt [sic] (the latter is the ancestor of Franklin D. Roosevelt who boasted of Jewish anscestry); Charlotte, owned by Moses and Sam Levy and Jacob Franks, etc.⁵⁰

Walter White comments on the above that a contemporary report concerning 128 slave ships unloading "their cargo" in Charleston, Virginia within a one year period, shows that 120 of these "were undersigned by Jews from Newport and Charleston."⁵¹

Perhaps the irony here is that it was the Jews who introduced slavery to America, as indeed they have done in other nations throughout recorded ages, but are now in the forefront as the champions of Black civil rights. This aside, the fact is that the age of slavery is far from over, not at least in the Jewish-dominated State of Israel.

In Israel, which was created and is funded primarily by U.S. taxpayer dollars, so-called white slavery is a flourishing enterprise. Just like his Talmudic ancestors of past ages, who sold beautiful European women and "pretty" little boys to the dark-skinned elite of the Middle East, the present-day Jewish invaders of Palestine has effectively set up the same business in the same place.

On 11 January 1998 the New York Times News Service distributed an article by Michael Specter, Slave-traders Lure Slavic Women. to American newspapers, which documented a Jewish-run, world-wide white slave operation. As an example, the story recounts how one poor, but beautiful Ukranian girl answered an ad in her hometown newspaper promising work abroad. Trying to escape the horrible poverty of her homeland, the girl wound up in Israel where she became a white slave prostitute: "She was 21, self-assured and glad to be out of Ukraine. Israel offered a new world, and for a week or two everything seemed possible. Then, one morning, she was driven to a brothel, where her boss burned her passport before her eyes.

"'I own you,' she recalled his saying. 'You are my property, and you will work until you earn your way out. Don't try to leave. You have no papers and you don't speak Hebrew. You will be arrested and deported. Then we will get you and bring you back.'

"'Israelis love Russian girls,' said Jacob Golan ... 'They are blonde and good looking and different from us,' he said, chuckling.'"

The Jewish slave-prostitute racket is wide-spread in Israel, and has the acquiescence of government officials because many of these brothels are frequented by those same men. Moment magazine summed up the situation in an April, 1988 article, Hookers in the Holy Land. Noting that the brothels are mostly "staffed" by blonde Russian girls, the author refers to the "business" as a "national institution" and wrote that even rabbis, who rode their bicycles to the whore houses, were among the customers: "A good percentage of the customers—or Johns, in the lingo—are ultra-Orthodox Jews, pious men whose lives are guided by halachah (religious law), which tells them when they can or cannot have sex with their wives. So, on Thursday afternoons (boys night out in Israel), busloads of Orthodox Jews travel from Jerusalem, Haifa, and points beyond to Tel Aviv for a few precious moments of passion in a massage parlor, behind a sand dune, or in a alleyway. Other customers are accountants, lawyers, policemen, and politicians. 'The entire spectrum of Israeli society is keeping the hookers in business.'"

Of course, it is not the "hookers" who are making the money, but their Jewish owners: "Once the girls arrive in Israel, the crime bosses take over. The girls are usually taken to an 'auction house,' where the owners of the various massage parlors can bid on the talent—each one offers a price, and the highest bidder gets the girl... The girls are virtual slaves."⁵²

It follows that if a man would buy and sell another human being, he would have to be of the lowest character—and certainly no sane man or woman would want to have any business dealings with such an individual!

Buyer Beware When Dealing With a Talmudist!

Let us recall from history an observation by Mark Twain about the Jewish business practices of his time: "Can fanaticism alone account for the persecution of the Jews? It is now my conviction that it is responsible for hardly any of it.... In the U.S. cotton states, after the [Civil] war, the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the Negroes' wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the Negro's share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long the whites detested the Jew.

"The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not concealed. The movement was instituted because the Christian peasant stood no chance against his commercial abilities. The Jew was always ready to lend on a crop. When settlement day came, he owned the crop, and the next year he owned the farm ... In the England of [King] John's time everybody got into debt to the Jew. (59) He gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands. He was the King of Commerce. He had to be banished from the realm. For like reasons, Spain had to banish him 400 years ago, and Austria a couple of centuries later.

"In all ages, Christian Europe has been obliged to curtail his activities. If he entered upon a trade, the Christian had to retire from it. If he set up as a doctor, he took the business. If he exploited agriculture, the other farmers had to get at something else. The law had to step in to save the Christian from the poorhouse. Still, almost bereft of employments, he found ways to make money. Even to get rich. This history has a most sordid and practical look. Religious prejudices may account for one part of it [anti-Semitism], but not for the other nine parts... No, the Jew is a money-getter. He has made it the end and aim of his life... His success has made the whole human race his enemy."⁵³

The gist of "Jewish/gentile" business relations are explained by the well-known anti-Zionist author, the late Elizabeth Dilling, who spent half her life studying the Jewish Talmud. She writes: "The book of Abodah Zara on relations with the non-Jew is a series of contortions aimed to keep the 'human' Jew separate from the 'animal' gentile and still make money off the gentile.

"The Talmudic book of Nedarim [23a] (vows) offers a handy little trick of the average Jewish business man or woman. It comes under the heading of Kol Nidre, or 'all vows.'" It states, "Every vow which I may take in the future shall be null. His vows are then invalid providing that he remembers this at the time of the vow."⁵⁴ This convenient deception is an important part of the Jewish holy day of Atonement, wherein the Jews recite the following: "All vows, obligations, oaths ... whether called 'konam', 'konas', or by any other name, which we may vow or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect ... The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths." (See The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, op.cit., article Kol Nidre Prayer.)

Because this prayer and its nature has been reported as evidence against Jewish business practices, defenders of Judaism are quick to make excuses, such as "the anti-Semite takes the Kol Nidre prayer completely out of context; it doesn't mean what they say it means," etc. But this excuse is pure deception, as this modern and more-refined version of this same prayer makes clear. Published in 1919 by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York in a book, Festival of Prayers, the modern version is as follows: "All vows, obligations, oaths or anathemas, pledges of all names, which we have vowed, sworn, or bound ourselves to, from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement, we repent afore hand of them all, they shall all be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, void and made of no effect: they shall not be binding, nor have any power; the vows shall not be reckoned vows, the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths."⁵⁵

Now if the Jews still wants to complain that the Kol Nidre prayer is taken completely out of context by the accursed "goyim," then all we need do is turn to the Talmud for this blunt example: The famous Rabbi Akiba promised eternal life to a woman if she would truthfully answer a certain question. The woman said to him, "swear it to me", and the Talmud (Kallah 51a) reports, "Rabbi Akiba, took the oath with his lips but annulled it in his heart." A similar text is found in Schabbuath Hagahoth 6d concerning Rabbi Axcher: "If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only."

These examples serve as a witness to everyone that the Kol Nidre is exactly what it clearly states—a convenient way for the Jew to lie and cheat and still be assured that he or she is a holy righteous person in the sight of their god.⁵⁶ (So well known was the Kol Nidre prayer and its implications in old Europe, that when the Day of Atonement approached city fathers frequently posted signs which read: "Beware! The Day is at hand when the Jew renounces as insincere any dealings he may have with you during the coming year. Beware!")⁵⁷

Indeed, in addition to the Kol Nidre prayer, we have examples of Jewish business practices from the Talmud itself, which, one might argue, effectively renders the Kol Nidre inessential.

Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, in his book, The Talmud Unmasked, writes: "Since the Goyim minister to Jews like beast of burden, they belong to a Jew together with his life and all his faculties ... The life of a Goy and all his physical powers belong to a Jew. . It is an axiom of the Rabbis that a Jew may take anything that belongs to Christians for any reason whatsoever, even by fraud; nor can such be called robbery since it is merely taking what belongs to him."⁵⁸

In Babha Bathra 54b the rabbis say: "All things pertaining to the Goyim [gentiles] are like a desert; the first person to come along and take them can claim them for his own." In Choschen Hammischpat 266,1 the rabbis say: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum, for it is written: Return to thy brethren what is lost (Deut. XXII,3). [Again, the loophole here is that the "Akum" or "gentile" is not the brother of the Jew.] For he who returns lost property [to Christians] sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people." (In other words, if a Jew can fool the "gentiles" into believing that the Jews are an honorable people by an honest act, all Jews may financially prosper!)

In Choschen Hammischpat 156,5 Hagah the rabbis say: "[A] Jew is allowed to go to the same Akum [Christian], lead him on, do business with him and to deceive him and take his money. For the wealth of the Akum is to be regarded as common property and belongs to the first who can get it." Choschen Hammischpat 183,7 Hagah adds its wisdom to this: "If a Jew is doing business with an Akum [Christian] and a fellow Israelite comes along and defrauds the Akum, either by false measure, weight or number, he must divide his profit with his fellow Israelite, since both had a part in the deal, and also in order to help him along."⁵⁹

The above Talmudic wisdom also explains the rabbinical decision that if the ox of the Jew gores and kills the ox of a "gentile," then the Jew doesn't have to pay for the loss, even though the Torah provides that if one's ox kills the ox of another, then the owner of the guilty animal is liable. The rabbis explain that the Torah (Exodus 21: 35-36) is speaking of "a neighbor's ox" and a "gentile," who as a non-human within Judaism, cannot be considered a neighbor to a Jew!⁶⁰ In this same vein the rabbis admit that the Torah (in this case Deuteronomy 22:1-3) provides that it is required to return a lost article to its owner, but only, they say, if its owner is a Jew. The Jewish Encyclopedia (article, Gentile) comments on the Talmudic wisdom in this instance by noting that a Jew isn't obligated to return the lost article in the case of a "gentile" because he can not be considered a brother to the Jew.

The famous and highly-respected Rabbi Ashi taught the following: "[Rabbi] Ashi noticed in a vineyard a broken vine-branch bearing a bunch of grapes, and instructed his attendant, if he found that it belonged to a gentile, to fetch it: if to a Jew, leave it."⁶¹

Rabbi Samuel, head of the Talmud academy at Nehardea, Babylonia (ca. A.D. 257) bought a gold bowl from a "goy" but told him that it was brass and therefore cheated him out of the real value. As if this wasn't enough, the story tells how the "good rabbi" even shortchanged the man when giving him payment! But Rabbi Samuel was working in the best tradition of the Talmudists as illustrated in Baba Kamma 113b. There we read about Rabbi Kahana who pretended that he was buying 100 barrels from a trusting "gentile" when he was really taking 120. The "gentile" told him: "I am relying upon you as to the number of the barrels."

Rabbi Rabina, another great Talmudist who lived in circa A.D. 420, bought a palm tree in partnership with a "gentile," which was supposed to be divided equally between them. After it was chopped up the rabbi sent his slave with orders to quickly bring him the "choice" parts and instructed: "but to take the right number as the goy knew the number and it is not smart to get caught cheating the goy."⁶²

The admonition to cheat for profit is tempered by the Talmudic book of Moed Kattan 17a, in which the rabbis teach that "If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there." (One will notice that there is no exhortation in this Talmudic passage to refrain from evil, which would be in accordance with the five books of Moses, but only to go to a place where no one knows you when practicing your dishonesty!)

We can see by the above examples why the Jew has prospered so greatly among the so-called gentiles, whose very nature compels them to place great store in a man's word. Indeed, how different is Jewish tradition from the traditional Christian concept of honesty—although it is admitted that Christian businessmen are not particularly known for honesty.

History, when coupled with the contents of the Talmud, explains to any thinking person why it is that the so-called gentile world has consistently risen up to cast the Jew from their midst. Their actions had nothing to do with the Jewish Sabbath, holy days or the belief in the Tanakh (i.e., the Old Testament), nor race, as the Jews are fond of claiming. The Jews are blamed as a whole and ostracized because of the application of their murderous, hateful, thieving and conniving Talmudic practices by many of their financial leaders within the gentile community. But more importantly, we have in the Talmud an overview of a people who have brought the world to the brink of World War III with their occupation of Palestine and their successful efforts to gain control of the world's wealth and their determination to keep both at any cost. Even more important, and perhaps the saddest fact of all, is that none of the evil that has befallen the Jews as a whole need have occurred if they, and the Christian world, were made aware of one vital bit of truth.

The Khazar Connection

Virtually all Christians have been taught by both their clergy and educators that today's "Jews" are the physical descendants of the biblical tribe of Judah. Hence, most people believe that the Jews are of the family of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, King David, King Solomon, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachael, Ruth, the great Hebrew prophets and, of course, Jesus Christ. This belief is the primary reason that the "Jews" have been accepted and/or tolerated in European society throughout the history of Christianity, and it is this supposed relationship has been the source of an enormous profit to world Jewry, including the acquisition of Palestine as a homeland.

But the truth is that today's Jews have no racial kinship whatsoever to the biblical tribe of Judah. The only connection between the two is that the latter adopted the religion of Rabbinical Judaism. To come right to the point, the present-day so-called Jews are descended from an Eastern European mongoloid Turko-Finn race known as Khazars, who, in the seventh century A.D., constituted a powerful kingdom in what is now present-day Russia.

The short story is this: About the year 740 the pagan ruler of Khazaria, Bulan, who was the "khakan" or king, decided that the country had descended to a horrible state of degeneracy, for which he blamed the national phallic-worshiping religion. Being a somewhat educated man, King Bulan was familiar with the three major religions of the east and west, namely Judaism, Islam and Christianity. According to the history of Khazaria, King Bulan invited a representative from all three religions to come to his kingdom and preach their faith, after which, he declared, he would choose the one he thought represented the true God.

Supposedly, when King Bulan observed that all three religions had a basis in the Old Testament, or the holy book of the Jews, he concluded that Judaism must be the true faith. After making his decision King Bulan and 4000 of his nobles converted to Judaism. This conversion was followed by almost the entire population of Khazaria. In other words, figuratively speaking, overnight millions of people suddenly became Jews in what was one of Eastern Europe's most powerful kingdoms.

Why King Bulan chose Judaism over Islam may have been in no small part due to the legend that the rabbi poisoned and killed the Islamic cleric before the final debate. Why he selected Judaism over Christianity was probably the content of the latter's holy book. Christianity, with its central theme of "love thy neighbors and thy enemies as thyself" would have been much less appetizing for a warrior race like the Khazars than the teachings of Judaism since, as The Jewish Encyclopedia makes clear, the Khazars were a people entirely motivated by "plunder and revenge".⁶³ (Is it any coincidence that the Talmud's promotion of "plunder and revenge" has been so readily embraced by modern so-called Jews?)

At any rate, when their kingdom was overrun in a later Mongolian onslaught, hordes of Khazarian Jewish refugees flooded throughout Eastern Europe—mostly settling in the larger cities—where they remained. It is the converted Khazars of Khazaria, as Jewish historian Arthur Koestler makes clear, who are the ancestors of the majority of today's Jews, who are known as Ashkenazi Jews: "Here, then, we have the cradle of the numerically strongest and culturally dominant part of modern Jewry."⁶⁴

As to the heritage of the remaining infinitely smaller portion of Jewry, i.e., those not descended from the Khazars and who are known as Shepardic Jews, we may look to the ancient tribe of Judah. However, this too is misleading because from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the Middle Ages they have disappeared as a race. This happened through several avenues. One was that the vast majority of Judahites abandoned their religion and thus lost their identity through intermarriage during and after the Babylonian captivity, which meant that they subsequently disappeared from history.

Of those relatively few Judahites who didn't abandon their faith during the captivity, most returned to Judea under Zerubabel, Nehemiah and Ezra (known as the Second Temple era), where history remembers them as Judeans. However, a very large portion of their descendants were either slaughtered during the final siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 or during the Bar Kochba rebellion of A.D. 135. Most of those who survived this last ordeal were deported and sold as slaves, which meant that they too disappeared as a racial entity.

Those Judahites who do not fall into the above categories have also lost their heritage through emigration and intermarriage with "gentile" populations. Although prohibited by the Torah from intermarrying with foreigners, the real Jews, or Judahites—at least those for whom religion was a concern—got around this inconvenience by proselytizing, an undertaking at which they were quite successful. Once settled in a new nation the immigrant Judahites would always begin preaching their faith to the natives, gain converts, and then marry among the new "Jews." In time this part of Judah also racially ceased to exist. (The problem of Jewish men marrying "gentile" girls was so widespread that the Talmudic rabbis were forced to address the question of the racial identity of an interracial couple's offspring. The rabbis rendered the judgment that children of these marriages, if the mother was Jewish, are to be considered Jewish; but if the mother was a "gentile" and the father Jewish, then the child is to be considered a "gentile." Although this is the Talmudic judgment, the fact is that children in either case, whether they practiced Judaism or not, were generally regarded as Jewish by both the Jewish community and so-called gentiles.)

As Arthur Koestler makes clear, the descendants of these proselyting "Jews" explain the "black-skinned Falasha of Abyssinia, the Chines Jews of Kai-Feng who look like Chinese, the Yemenite Jews with their dark olive complexion, the Jewish Berber tribes of the Sahara who look like Tuaregs, and so on, down to our prime example, the Khazars."

Koestler continues: "Nearer home, Jewish proselytizing reached its peak in the Roman Empire between the fall of the Jewish state and the rise of Christianity. Many patrician families in Italy were converted but also the royal family which ruled the province of Adiabene. Philo speaks of numerous converts in Greece; Flavius Josephus relates that a large proportion of the population of Antioch was Judaized; St. Paul met with proselytes on his travels more or less everywhere from Athens to Asia Minor. 'The fervour of proselytism', the Jewish historian Th[odore] Reinach wrote, 'was indeed one of the most distinctive traits of Judaism during the Greco-Roman epoch—a trait which it never possessed in the same degree either before or since.'"⁶⁵

As a final blow to any true Judahite heritage, when a Judaized Khazaria became a safe-haven for persecuted "Jews" from around the world, racially diluted "Jews"from other nations flooded there where they intermarried with the converted Khazars. Moreover, when Khazaria eventually fell, these so-called Jews swelled the big cities of Europe, where they continued the practice of proselytizing and intermarriage. (In A.D. 1229 Hungarian Archbishop Robert von Grain complained to the pope that thousands of Jews were marrying Christians, and Arthur Koestler underscores the same problem in Germany: "The children thus begotten of Jewish and German parents were brought up by their mothers in the Jewish faith, their fathers not troubling themselves about the them. It is these children who are said to have been the founders of the first Jewish communities between Worms and Mayence.")⁶⁶

At any rate, intermarriage from the time of ancient Israel to the time of the so-called Dark Ages answers the question of racial origin for those "Jews" who were living in relatively small numbers in Europe prior to the time of Khazaria's conversion to Judaism. It also answer the question of the racial origin of the rabbi who preached Judaism to King Bulan in the eighth century. By the time of Bulan the rabbi's only connection to the ancient Judahites was the holy books of Phariseeism, or Rabbinical Judaism.

This history is very important to this study because present-day, so-called Jewry isn't even related to, let alone descended from ancient tribe of Judah. Such a fact speaks volumes about Judaism's Zionist activities and the deceptive claims foisted upon unsuspecting Christians whose only sympathy with the "Jews" is rooted in the firm belief that they are related to Jesus Christ, descended from "God's chosen people" and have a right to Palestine by virtue of their heritage. As Jewish historian Dr. Alfred Lilienthal writes, "Fundamentalist Christians are victimized by the mistaken equation of modern political Israel with biblical spiritual Israel."⁶⁷

Dr. Lilienthal is right, but he should also include the observant Jews in that statement because they too are victims of their leaders and their religion's fraudulent holy book. It is the sincere wish and hope of this author that the reader, be you Christian or Jew, carefully study the origins of your bible, the tremendous number of contradictions found therein, and the inescapable fact that it is the greatest, most dangerous fraud every foisted upon any people in any land in any age. Let us all hope that both Christians and Jews will give serious consideration to the facts because both faiths have grown so powerful that it is no understatement to say that are they now poised to bring the Western world into the utter ruination of a third world war.

Endnotes

(1) The word Tanakh comes from the three-fold division of the Jewish bible (or the Mesoretic Text from which the Christian Old Testament is translated): The Torah, the Nevi'im and the Kethuvim, or the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. The first letters of the Hebrew words, Torah, Nevi'im and Kethuvim (TNK) are used, along with added vowels, to form the Hebrew acronym Tanakh. Although they are certainly similar, there are some major differences between the Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament.

(2) Erubin 21b, Soncino Edition. The Talmud is the body of Jewish civil and religious law, which includes commentaries on the Torah (the Pentateuch), or the law. The Talmud is divided into four parts: the Mishna, the Germara (which is a commentary on the Mishna), the Halakah (which is the debate between rabbis and scholars on religious legal questions) and the legends and anecdotes to illustrate the law, which is called the Haggada. It is important to note that there are two different writings called the Talmud: one is the Palestinian Talmud, which is also known as the Jerusalem Talmud, and the other is the Babylonian Talmud. The Palestinian Talmud was written by Palestinian Jews between the third and the beginning of the fifth centuries A.D., and the Babylonian Talmud was written between the third century and the beginning of the sixth century. Of the two Talmuds, the Babylonian is supreme because the rabbinic academies of Babylonia survived those in Palestine by many centuries. When one hears a reference to "the Talmud" it is always understood to be a reference to the Babylonian Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud's value is only noted within Judaism when it supports the writings of the Babylonian Talmud: "The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is decisive." R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, From Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic Introduction to the Writings of Judaism, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society) p. 40.

(3) Forlong, J. G. R. Encyclopedia of Religions. (New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1964), vol. 2, p. 397.

(4) The New York Times, April 10, 1993, p. 38.

(5) The Jewish Chronicle for March 26, 1993 notes that in the yeshiva, or a Jewish religious school, students are "devoted to the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else."

(6) Finklestein, The Jews—Their History, Culture, and Religion, (New York: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1949), vol. 4, p. 1332. Finklestein, a past head of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, was chosen in 1937 by the Kehillas, the world's Jewish communities, as one of the top 120 Jews who best represents the "lamp of Judaism" to the world.

(7) My Farewell to Israel, (Mandan, ND: Pro American Educational Foundation, n.d.), p. 8. In The Talmud we find the following: "The study of Judaism is that of the Talmud, as the study of the Talmud is that of Judaism ... They are two inseparable things, or better, they are one and the same ... " Arsene Darmesteter, translated by Henrietta Szold, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1897), as cited in Benjamin H. Freedman's, Facts are Facts, op. cit., p. 63.

(8) Quoted from The Talmud: Heart's Blood of the Jewish Faith, which was the heading of the November 17, 1959 installment of a series by Herman Wouk running in the New York Herald-Tribune. It is also found in Wouk's book, This Is My God (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961), pp. 201-202.

(9) Forlong, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 396.

(10) The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Inc., 1942), article Phariseeism.

(11) Written in the introduction to The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin. Translated into English by Rabbi R. I. Epstein (London, The Soncino Press, 1935). Rabbi Louis Finklestein also backs the above history: "the Talmud derives its authority from the position held by the ancient academies" by which Finklestein means that the Talmud was spawned by Phariseeism. Finklestein, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 1332.

(12) Talmud books Sanhedrin 59a, Aboda Zora 8-6, Szagiga 13.

(13) Libbre David 37.

(14) Shahak, Professor Israel, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: the Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, Ltd., 1994), chapter II. Of Professor Shahak, the famous Jewish scholar Professor Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology writes: "Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value."

(15) Gabler, Neal. An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. (New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1988), p. 280.

(16) op. cit.

(17) Shahak, op. cit., chapter 2.

(18) Bernstein, op. cit., p. 9.

(19) A "Cuthean" is a term derived from the hated "gentile" Samaritans of the first century, and who are referred to in the New Testament with such great contempt, even by Jesus, who calls them dogs.

(20) Article, Gentiles. (See also, Abhodah Zarah 26b) The Jewish Encyclopedia spells out this prayer, which is taken from the Talmud: "[Rabbi] Judah ben Ilai recommends the daily recital of the benediction, 'Blessed be thou [Lord God] . . who hast not made me a goy ... who hast not made me a woman ... and who hast made me an Israelite.'" Article, Benedictions.

(21) Sanhedrin 77a-77b. That the life of a non-Jew has absolutely no value within Judaism, is again made clear in Abodah Zarah 161-16b, which instructs a Jew not to save the life of a "gentile" idolater, meaning, in this case a Christian. We can add to this the Passover prayer "We beg Thee, O Lord, inflict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee. Take away, O Lord, all hope from them. Destroy all foes of Thy nations." (Crach Chaim, 480 Hagah.) This prayer is primarily aimed at the Christians since they are the people among whom most Jews live and, being followers of Jesus Christ, don't believe in the god of the Jews.

(22) The Talmud Unmasked, Rev. Dr. I.B. Pranaitis, p. 75. Rev. Dr. Pranaitis was Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church in St. Petersburg, Russia. His career also included a thorough study of the Talmud in the original Hebrew, which in his time had not been translated into English. His findings were printed in a book, The Talmud Unmasked; The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians (St. Petersburg, Russia: the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1892); the book is still in print and is offered for sale by a number of outlets. True to the Talmudic teaching that anyone who translates the Talmud and revels its secrets to the accused "goyim" should be killed, Rev. Pranaitis was murdered by the Jewish Bolsheviks.

(23) Iore Dea 158,1, cited in Pranaitis, op. cit., p. 75.

(24) The Pranaitis translation, op. cit., p. 77.

(25) Pranaitis, op. cit., p. 77.

(26) Pranaitis translation, op. cit., p. 82.

(27) Paul, David. Apartheid: Israeli Style, (Privately published, p. 2. Posted on the Internet at http://www.aldeilis.net/zion/zionrac15.html). David Paul is a documents librarian at Harvard College.

(28) Paul, op. cit., p. 4.

(29) Paul, op. cit., p. 1.

(30) The New York Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 6.

(31) The Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56b.

(32) Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (London: Verso, 2000), p. 74.

(33) Meir Kahane, Vengeance, Brooklyn, NY, The Jewish Press, June 13, 1980, p. B 13. Kahane's murderous Talmudic opinion certainly included the Aryan peoples of the world, as this remark about the so-called holocaust reveals: "As long as one gentile lives opposite one Jew, the possibility of a Holocaust remains." Meir Kahane, The Story of the Jewish Defense League, 1975, p. 5, quoted in G. Cromer, Negotiating the Meaning of the Holocaust, London: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1987, p. 291.

(34) A sample of the rabbi's mercy is given in Orach Chaiim 57, 6a: "If pigs are to be pitied when they suffer from disease, because their intestines are similar to ours, how much more should the Akum [i.e., a Christian] be pitied when thus afflicted."

(35) Arsene Darmesteter, translated by Henrietta Szold, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1897), as cited in Benjamin H. Freedman's, Facts are Facts, op. cit., p. 64. See also Suzanne L. Stone, In Pursuit of the Counter-text: The Turn to the Jewish Legal Model In Contemporary American Legal Theory, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 813, *813 and *892 "It is time to take stock when an article about the postmodern vitality of liberalism proclaims as its "paradigm" Rabbi Joseph Caro, the sixteenth- century author of one of the most austere codes of Jewish law, the Shulhan 'Arukh, and one of the most fantastic diaries of mystical experience, the Maggid Mesharim. Although that article may pose the most startling juxtaposition yet of new themes in American legal scholarship with Jewish legal history, it is part of a growing body of legal scholarship that is turning (either unabashedly or more indirectly) to the Jewish legal tradition to advance debate in contemporary American legal theory. A careful reading of this scholarship shows that a dual redefinition is taking place. The Jewish legal tradition is being subtly reinterpreted to yield a legal counter-model embodying precisely the qualities many contemporary theorists wish to inject into American law. In turn, American legal theorists are incorporating this new Jewish model into their work, redefining American legal theory.

(36) The Jewish Encyclopedia, article, Gentile.

(37) Pranaitis translation, op. cit., p. 73.

(38) op. cit., p. 1. Also see Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, p. 21.

(39) Translation by Rev. Dr. I.B. Pranaitis, op. cit., pp. 62-63.

(40) Pranaitis, op. cit., pp. 69, 71.

(41) Pranaitis, op. cit., pp. 65-66.

(42) Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition, Jerusalem, Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications, 1992). Steinsaltz openly and frankly discusses the meanings of many of heretofore camouflaged passages in he Talmud.

(43) David Paul, op. cit., p. 1.

(44) See Moment Magazine for August, 1996, and the lead article Jews Run Hollywood, So What? Moment Magazine is edited by Hershel Shanks; their address is P.O. Box 7028, Red Oak, IA 51591-4028. The article's author, Michael Medved, writes: "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.... Men and women of Jewish background enjoy a vastly disproportionate—if not dominate—influence in Hollywood." How this situation came to be so is documented in the pages of the Encyclopedia Judaica: "Since the early years of motion pictures, Jews have played a major role in the development of the industry and have been prominent in all its branches. This is true not only of Hollywood, where the role played by Jews is generally known and acknowledged, but of the German film industry up to the Nazi era, Russian film production up to the time of the Stalinist purges of the 1930's, the British film industry up to the present, and contemporary underground motion pictures in the United States." Vol. 12, p. 446. (Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem: The MacMillan Company, 1971) (45) p. 196, as quoted in Who Brought the Slaves to America, by Walter White (privately published, 1966), p. 27.

(46) Article Jews, 14th edition, Vol. 13, p. 57. In A History of the Jew: From Babylonian Exile to the End of World War II, is found the following admission: "Jews were among the most important slave dealers [in European society]." Grayzel, S., Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1948), p. 312.

(47) Jews and Judaism in the United States: a Documentary History, (New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1984), Vol. 14.

(48) S. B. Liebman, New World Jewry 1493-1825: Requiem for the Forgotten. (New York: KTAV, 1982), pp. 170, 183.

(49) Jews in Colonial Brazil, pp. 72-73, as cited in Duke, op. cit., p. 350.

(50) White, op. cit., p. 17.

(51) op. cit., p. 5.

(52) Moment magazine, article by Samuel M. Katz, 1998, pp. 45-48.

(53) September, 1899 edition of Harper's Monthly Magazine.

(54) Elizabeth Dilling, The Octopus: B'nai B'rith (Metairie, LA.: Sons of Liberty Publications [originally published in 1940] reprinted, 1986)., p. 58.

(55) The reader is also referred to the speech by former Jew, and anti-Zionist activist, the late Benjamin Freedmen, Benjamin H. Freedmen Speaks. In this speech Freedmen explains the Kol Nidre's meaning to Jewish business practices, and the fact that during his time as a practicing Jew, he recited the prayer at each Day of Atonement service. The Kol Nidre prayer is also discussed in Freedman's Facts are Facts, (New York: privately published, 10 Oct. 1954.

(56) In Kallah 1b the rabbis say: "She (the mother of the mamzer) said to him, 'Swear to me.' And Rabbi Akibha swore with his lips, but in his heart he invalidated his oath."

(57) Samuel Roth, op. cit., p. 83.

(58) Pranaitis, op. cit., . 71, citing A. Rohl, Die Polem, p. 20. See also The Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Gentile," citing Mik. viii, 4, referring to Ezekiel l.c.

(59) Pranaitis translation, op. cit., pp. 72-73.

(60) The Jewish Encyclopedia, article Gentile. In the Hebrew original of the Old Testament, i.e., the Mesoretic text, there is no punctuation, so the commandments in Exodus 20 actually read: "Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not commit adultery thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife nor his manservant nor his maidservant nor his ox nor his ass nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (61) The Jewish Encyclopedia, article, Gentile.

(62)Baba Kamma 113b. "In the 'chief repository of the criminal law of the Talmud', which is the book of the Sanhedrin, is this repetition of the animal status of the non-Jew so far as legal or human rights are concerned, in Sanhedrin 57a. The footnote explains that the censor (for the Talmudists) inserted the word 'Cuthean' in substitution for the word GOY or Gentile, to fool the possible non-Jewish reader as to the real meaning." Elizabeth Dilling, The Plot Against Christianity (privately published by Elizabeth Dilling, Chicago, Ill., n.d.), p. 55.

(63) Jewish Encyclopedia, The. 12 Volumes. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1905), article, Chazars.

(64) op. cit. pp. 187-188.

(65) op. cit., p. 188.

(66) Zionist Connection, pp. 487, 490, as cited in Des Griffin, Anti-Semitism and the Babylonian Connection, (Clackamas, Or.: Emissary Publications, 1996), pp. 13-14.

(67) Lilienthal, Dr. Alfred. Posted at www.alfredlilienthal.com

Copyright © 2005 by Darrell W. Conder, Olympia, Washington. All rights reserved.