PART IV: REFLECTIONS
Table of Contents
Chapter 13: Religion and Politics
Talmud vs. Bible
The historic persecution of Jews by Christians is well-documented, but few people understand the motivation. In this chapter, I will set aside religious beliefs and focus on the ancient conflict between Jews and Christians by first analyzing passages from the Bible and the Talmud, then exploring the historical and political implications. It is not my intention to claim that Christianity is better than Judaism. To the contrary, I will show that many aspects of Christianity have strayed dramatically from the teachings of Jesus through the misguided interpretation of the self-appointed Apostle Paul, a Pharisee. Although Jesus preached to love our enemies, he made it abundantly clear that the Pharisees were in fact his enemies.
The Pharisaic sect of Judaism no longer exists per se, but its teachings have become the mainstay of modern Judaism through Pharisaic teachings documented in the Talmud. In AD 200, the teachings of the Pharisees on Jewish law were incorporated in the Mishna which became the first volume of the Talmud.1 The Talmud—a set of 63 books written by ancient rabbis—contains the legal code which is the basis of Judaism and Jewish law. It was edited centuries after the birth of Jesus and is the textbook used to train rabbis.2
Persecution of Jews
Jews were expelled from virtually every country in Western Europe from 1290 through 1551. During this time the Catholic Church instituted the Inquisition to combat heresy throughout Europe. In 1478 Pope Sixtus IV authorized the well-known Spanish Inquisition which resulted in the burning of about 2,000 people at the stake and the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492.3 In general, Jews were accused of the following offenses:
Much to my surprise, after studying the Talmud and various historical sources, I have concluded that the stated offenses are promoted under Talmudic law.
The first offense—continual lying and treacherous behavior—is encouraged through the annual recitation of an ancient Jewish prayer, the Kol Nidre, which frees Jews from fulfilling vows taken throughout the ensuing year. The Kol Nidre is widely known among Jews because it is recited—sung to a melody—on the eve of Yom Kippur. Typically the song is sung as part of the temple’s service and Jews respond by making the following declaration which is written in the Talmud book of Nedarim:
|Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null.|
(Talmud, Nedarim, 23a)
The Kol Nidre is good for a year. Therefore it must be restated annually on the eve of Yom Kippur. Apologists for the Kol Nidre abound. The popular explanation is that it applies only to vows made to God. The rationale is that in the Middle Ages, Jews were forced to take Christian vows. The Kol Nidre was intended—we are told—to give oppressed Jews a way of voiding such vows made to God under duress. This explanation sounds good, but it does not match the Talmud’s rationale. The following is a full description of the Kol Nidre prayer as written in the Talmud book of Nedarim:
|He who desires his friend to eat with him, and after urging him, imposes a vow upon him, it is ‘a vow of incitement’ and hence invalid. And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, "Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null." HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID, PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW. (Caps in original.)|
(Talmud, Nedarim, 23a)
Clearly, the practice of breaking vows is intended for vows made to humans, not to God. The Talmud specifically states that "He who desires his friend to eat with him, and after urging him, imposes a vow upon him, it is ‘a vow of incitement’ and hence invalid." In other words, if two businessmen have lunch together—one is a Jew, one is a Christian—and the Christian gets the Jew to agree to a specific business deal (which is a vow), then the Jew is not bound to honor the terms of the business deal because it is a "vow of incitement" and therefore invalid. This explains why Jewish leaders in Israel rarely honor the terms of Arab-Israeli peace treaties, cease-fire truces, or border agreements.
The late Benjamin Freedman(Footnote 51) described the Kol Nidre in a speech he delivered in Washington, DC in 1961. The following text is an excerpt from that speech:
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? …
(Benjamin Freedman, excerpt form a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, 1961)
For Gentile readers interested in hearing the Kol Nidre’s melody, go to a video store and rent The Jazz Singer(Footnote 52) starring Al Jolson. In the movie, Jolson gave a stirring rendition of Mammy and the Kol Nidre.
The second offense—practicing witchcraft—receives tacit endorsement in the Talmud. The following passage clearly states that some forms of sorcery are entirely permitted, while others are exempt from punishment, yet forbidden, and others are punished by death. The following text is from the Talmud book of Sanhedrin:
|Abaye said: The laws of sorcerers are like those of the Sabbath: certain actions are punished by stoning, some are exempt from punishment, yet forbidden, whilst others are entirely permitted. Thus: if one actually performs magic, he is stoned; if he merely creates an illusion, he is exempt, yet it is forbidden; whilst what is entirely permitted? — Such as was performed by R. Hanina and R. Oshaia, who spent every Sabbath eve in studying the Laws of Creation, by means of which they created a third-grown calf and ate it.|
(Talmud, Sanhedrin 67b)
The Talmud further reveals a specific instance where an ancient Rabbi—in around AD 200(Footnote 53)—tried and executed other Jews in Palestine for practicing witchcraft just as the Catholic Church did centuries later in Europe during the Inquisition. The Rabbi’s name was "Simeon B. Shetah." He hanged 80 women in the city of Askelon, located on the Mediterranean Coast of Palestine, for practicing witchcraft at an "alarming rate." Ironically, Rabbis later commented in the Talmud that the executions were illegal—not because they were inhumane or cruel, but because two defendants must not be tried on the same day. The following text is from the Talmud book of Sanhedrin:
|MISHNAH. ALL WHO ARE STONED ARE [AFTERWARDS]
HANGED: THIS IS R. ELIEZER'S VIEW, THE SAGES SAY: ONLY THE BLASPHEMER AND
THE IDOLATER ARE HANGED. A MAN IS HANGED WITH HIS FACE TOWARDS THE
SPECTATORS, BUT A WOMAN WITH HER FACE TOWARDS THE GALLOWS: THIS IS THE VIEW
OF R. ELIEZER. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A MAN IS HANGED, BUT NOT A WOMAN.
WHEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO THEM: BUT DID NOT SIMEON B. SHETAH HANG WOMEN
AT ASHKELON? THEY RETORTED: [ON THAT OCCASION] HE HANGED EIGHTY WOMEN,
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT TWO [MALEFACTORS] MUST NOT BE TRIED ON THE SAME DAY.44
(44) Hence this occurrence cannot be brought forward as a valid precedent, owing to its extraordinary nature. Witchcraft amongst Jewish women prevailed at that time to an alarming extent, and in order to prevent a combined effort on the part of their relations to rescue the culprits, he had to execute all of them at once. He hanged them, then, to prevent such practices and to avoid rescue, but his action is no precedent, and in itself was actually illegal, as the Sages pointed out.
(Talmud, Sanhedrin 45b)
The third offense—blasphemous ridicule of Jesus—appears to be quite valid. The Talmud makes about sixty references to an apparent alias for Jesus: "Balaam." Most references to Balaam are extremely hateful and often vulgar. The Talmud itself discloses that some people believe Balaam is an alias for Jesus, and Phinehas the Robber is an alias for Pontius Pilate. The following text is from the Talmud book of Sanhedrin:
|(6) According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for Jesus, Phinehas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilatus, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel (v. Herford op. cit. 72ff.). This view is however disputed by Bacher and others: cf. Ginzberg, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLI, 121.|
(Talmud, Sanhedrin 106b)
The Talmud further discloses that Balaam was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him:
A certain min(Footnote 54) said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days, [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle,(Footnote 55) in which it is stated, ‘Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.’ Mar, the son of Rabina, said to his sons: In the case of all [those mentioned as having no portion in the future world] you should not take [the Biblical passages dealing with them] to expound them [to their discredit], excepting in the case of the wicked Balaam: whatever you find [written] about him, lecture upon it [to his disadvantage].
(Talmud, Sanhedrin 106b)
The last sentence, "lecture upon it to his advantage," appears to be an instruction to Rabbis to actively teach in opposition of Jesus and Christianity.
When the Mishna (the first of the 63 books of the Talmud) was compiled in around AD 200, it incorporated the teachings of the Pharisees on Jewish law. This is what the Mishna states about Balaam:
MISHNAH 19. WHOEVER POSSESSES THESE THREE THINGS, HE IS OF THE DISCIPLES OF ABRAHAM, OUR FATHER; AND [WHOEVER POSSESSES] THREE OTHER THINGS, HE IS OF THE DISCIPLES OF BALAAM, THE WICKED. THE DISCIPLES OF ABRAHAM, OUR FATHER, [POSSESS] A GOOD EYE, AN HUMBLE SPIRIT AND A LOWLY SOUL. THE DISCIPLES OF BALAAM, THE WICKED, [POSSESS] AN EVIL EYE, A HAUGHTY SPIRIT AND AN OVER-AMBITIOUS SOUL. WHAT IS [THE DIFFERENCE] BETWEEN THE DISCIPLES OF ABRAHAM, OUR FATHER, AND THE DISCIPLES OF BALAAM, THE WICKED. THE DISCIPLES OF ABRAHAM, OUR FATHER, ENJOY [THEIR SHARE] IN THIS WORLD, AND INHERIT THE WORLD TO COME, AS IT IS SAID: THAT I MAY CAUSE THOSE THAT LOVE ME TO INHERIT SUBSTANCE AND THAT I MAY FILL THEIR TREASURIES, BUT THE DISCIPLES OF BALAAM, THE WICKED, INHERIT GEHINNOM, AND DESCEND INTO THE NETHERMOST PIT, AS IT IS SAID: BUT THOU, O GOD, WILT BRING THEM DOWN TO THE NETHERMOST PIT; MEN OF BLOOD AND DECEIT SHALL NOT LIVE OUT HALF THEIR DAYS; BUT AS FOR ME, I WILL TRUST IN THEE.
(Mishna, Avoth Chapter 5)
Reference Appendix C for a summarized listing of anti-Christian passages from the uncensored version of the Talmud.
An additional offense—blood libel (the ritualistic sacrifice of children)—is obviously the most controversial, but it appears to have a historical basis. On November 16, 1491, five men were executed at Avila for the ritualistic murder of a four-year-old Christian boy (later known as the "Holy Child of La Guardia"). Two of the men were Jews, the other three were "conversos"—Sephardic Jews who converted to Christianity. The boy’s heart was reportedly cut out and used with two stolen consecrated hosts in a ritual of black magic against the Christians.
For centuries the case was tainted because the five executed men had been tortured prior to confessing. But in 1931, historian William Thomas Walsh offered persuasive evidence in his book, Isabella of Spain, that the charge of blood libel was in fact true. Walsh found the testimony of a Jew who stated that he witnessed the crime, and had not been subjected to torture. Although the Spanish Inquisition was already underway, it was ritualistic murder of the young boy that resulted in expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492. It was the last straw.
Before the executions, two independent judicial panels had reviewed and confirmed the Inquisition’s findings.4 On November 24, 1805, the murdered boy was canonized as St. Christopher on the authority of Pope Pius VII.
Jesus Warned Against Pharisaic Rule
The Talmud teaches Rabbis to oppose and discredit the teachings of Jesus because he criticized the Pharisees. As previously stated, Pharisaic law is reflected in the Talmud, particularly in the book of Mishna—the original book of the Talmud.
Here are a few examples of Jesus’s words of contempt towards the Pharisees from the book of Matthew, Chapter 23 (King James edition):
(26) Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. (27) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres [burial vaults], which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and all uncleanness. (28) Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (29) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous. (30) And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. (31) Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. (33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
(34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
(The words of Jesus: King James Bible, Matthew, Chapter 23)
Even the well-known "render unto Caesar" passage was instigated by the Pharisees. Here is a reminder:
(15) Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. (16) And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither, carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. (17) Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? (18) But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, ‘Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?’ (19) ‘Show me the tribute money.’ And they brought unto him a penny. (20) And he saith unto them, ‘Whose is this image and superscription?’ (21) They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’ (22) When they had heard of these words, they marvelled, and left him and went their way.
(King James Bible, Matthew, Chapter 22)
Balaam: References in Bible and Talmud
As previously stated, the Talmud apparently uses "Balaam" as an alias for Jesus. It is also worth noting that Bible mentions Balaam several times as well, particularly in the Old Testament book of Numbers, Chapters 22 - 24. In fact, there is an interesting story about Balaam in the Bible (Numbers 22:20 - 22:35) that is remarkably similar to a reference of Balaam in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 105a, 105b).
The two passages must have originated from the same source because the sentence structures and word choices in the two sections are too similar to be coincidence; however, two different stories are told. The Biblical reference depicts Balaam as a protector of the Israelites, whereas, the Talmudic reference depicts him as one who commits bestiality.
It makes no sense for the Talmud to view Balaam with contempt, often referring to him as the "wicked Balaam." Such contempt for a man who protected the Israelites further supports the belief that Balaam is in fact a Talmudic alias for Jesus.
In the Biblical reference, Balaam’s donkey spoke to him as he traveled to the city of Moab to meet with its King, Balak. The king had solicited Balaam to put a curse on the Israelites camped ominously on the plains of Moab. While en route to Moab, an angel appeared but only Balaam’s donkey could see it. The donkey stopped, and Balaam struck the animal to get it to continue. After three blows, the Lord spoke to Balaam through the donkey’s mouth. The beast warned Balaam that he should not put a curse on the Jews for King Balak. Balaam took heed of the advice and hence became a protector of the Israelites.
The Talmudic reference to Balaam’s talking donkey makes a vulgar assertion that Balaam committed bestiality with the animal—a sin punishable by death under Talmudic law.
Here is the Biblical reference to the words spoken by Balaam’s donkey:
 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee?
(King James Bible, Numbers 22:30)
Here is the Talmudic reference to the words spoken by Balaam’s donkey:
But the ass said to [Balaam], ‘Am I not thine ass?’ — ‘Merely for carrying loads’, [he replied]. ‘Upon which thou hast ridden.’ — ‘That was only by chance.’ ‘Ever since I was thine until this day,’ [she added]. ‘Moreover, I serve thee as a companion by night.’
(Talmud, Sanhedrin 105a, 105b)
The Talmudic reference to the talking donkey appears to be a distortion of the Biblical account. Both accounts state that the donkey made the following statement: "Ever since I was thine until this day." But the Talmud added the following reference to bestiality: "Moreover, I serve thee as a companion by night."
Here is the Talmudic reference in full context where it clearly states that Balaam committed bestiality:
R. Johanan said: Balaam limped on one foot, as it is written, And he walked haltingly. Samson was lame in both feet, as it is written, [Dan shall be a serpent by the way,] an adder in the path that biteth the horse's heels. Balaam was blind in one eye, as it is said, [and the man] whose eye is open . . . He practised enchantment by means of his membrum.(Footnote 56) For here it is written, falling, but having his eyes open; whilst elsewhere is written, And Haman was fallen on the bed whereon Esther was.
It was stated, Mar Zutra said: He practised enchantment by means of his membrum. Mar the son of Rabina said: He committed bestiality with his ass. The view that he practised enchantment by means of his membrum is as was stated. The view that he committed bestiality with his ass [is because] here it is written, He bowed, he lay down as a lion and as a great lion; whilst elsewhere it is written, At her feet he bowed, he fell.
And knoweth the mind of the most High. Now, seeing that he did not even know the mind of his ass, could he know the mind of the most High! What [is this about] the mind of his ass? — For they [the elders] said to him, ‘Why didst thou not ride upon thy horse?’ He replied. ‘I have put it [to graze] in the dewy pastures. But the ass said to him, ‘Am I not thine ass?’ — ‘Merely for carrying loads’, [he replied]. ‘Upon which thou hast ridden.’ — ‘That was only by chance.’ ‘Ever since I was thine until this day,’ [she added]. ‘Moreover, I serve thee as a companion by night.’ ......
(Talmud, Sanhedrin 105a, 105b)
Here are the Old Testament references to Balaam:
Here are the New Testament passages to Balaam:
The Plot to Kill Jesus
As previously stated, Jesus was extremely critical of the Pharisees which obviously upset them a great deal. In addition, he performed miracles which was viewed by the Pharisees as magic—a form of sorcery punishable by death under Jewish law. When the Pharisees learned that Jesus had reportedly raised Lazarus from the dead, the Sanhedrin(Footnote 57) decided to take action. They plotted to kill him.
The high priest of the Sanhedrin at that time was Joseph Caiaphas. He was the man who ordered the death of Jesus, although the deed was officially carried out by Roman Governor Pontius Pilate.(Footnote 58) Caiaphas was the last priest to interrogate Jesus before delivering him to Pilate for a formal inquisition and subsequent crucifixion. Assisting Caiaphas in the interrogation of Jesus was his father-in-law, Ananus, who also had served as the previous high-priest of the Sanhedrin.
According to the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37/38 - 100), Caiaphas was appointed high-priest and official head of the Sanhedrin by Roman Governor Valerius Gratus around AD 18. Caiaphas held that position for about 18 years until he was replaced in AD 36. Governor Gratus was the predecessor of Pontius Pilate.5 Pilate was appointed Governor around AD 26, stayed for ten years, then was ordered back to Rome by Vitellius in AD 36 to appear before the Emperor Tiberius regarding complaints made against him by the Jews; however, Tiberius died before Pilate reached Rome.6 Shortly thereafter (AD 36), Vitellius took over as Governor and immediately removed Caiaphas as high-priest. Caiaphas was replaced by Jonathan, the son of Ananus.7 Ananus was the first member of the Sanhedrin to interrogate Jesus after his arrest by the Sanhedrin guards.8
According to the Gospels, Pilate did not want to kill Jesus and was somewhat intimidated by him. Pilate’s wife, Claudia Procula, begged him to leave Jesus alone because she had a bad dream(Footnote 59) about the "just man."9 But Caiaphas, Ananus and their colleagues at the Sanhedrin had already spread malicious rumors about Jesus to the crowds that surrounded the Governor’s palace. When Pilate asked the crowd what to do with Jesus, they shouted "Crucify him!"10
Pilate tried to calm the crowd because he did not want to kill Jesus. But Caiaphas, Ananus and their colleagues had whipped the crowd into such a frenzy that a riot nearly occurred. At that point, Pilate gave in and ordered Jesus to be crucified. Before issuing the order, he publicly washed his hands before the crowd and said, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person."
They replied, "His blood is on us and on our children."11
Ironically, according to Josephus, Caiaphas and Pilate were both replaced in their respective positions of authority within five years after Jesus was crucified.12
The Bible is quite clear about who bears responsibility for Christ’s execution. It was not Pilate. In fact, several Christian churches have canonized Pilate’s wife, Claudia Procula, and in some instances even Pilate himself, for their defense of Christ against the Jewish priests. In my research, I have found two days, June 25th and October 27th, designated by various Christian churches (Greek Orthodox, Abyssinian, Coptic) to recognize either St. Pilate, or St. [Claudia] Procula, or both.
Josephus—a non-Christian source—described Jesus in his book, Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), in a manner remarkably similar to the Gospels. The following is an excerpt about Jesus:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
(Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, p. 3)
Notice that, according to Josephus, Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross "at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us." Those men were Joseph Caiaphas, head of the Sanhedrin, and his predecessor and father-in-law, Ananus.
The Apostle Paul, a Pharisee, Distorted Jesus’s Message
I believe the Apostle Paul was a false prophet working for the Pharisees. In fact, he openly boasted of being a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5).13 As previously stated, Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees. Paul’s mission was apparently to water down the teachings of Jesus; however, it should be remembered that Jesus warned of false prophets in the following passage:
| Beware of false prophets, which come to
you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(The words of Jesus: King James Bible, Matthew 7:15 - 7:23)
The Apostle Paul’s original name was Saul of Tarsus. Initially, Paul was a bitter enemy of Christianity—a Pharisee—then converted and did more than anyone to promote the burgeoning religion. Paul’s message, however, differs substantially from the Gospels. If one examines the letters of Paul, it becomes clear that he paid little attention to the teachings of Jesus. Instead, Paul focused almost entirely on the theological aspect of Jesus as the son of God, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the concept of predestination.
Paul was not given any sort of authority by Jesus or any of his Twelve Apostles to spread the Gospel. This plus the fact that Paul the Apostle was a Pharisee should not be taken lightly. Furthermore, Paul’s view of Jews is somewhat confusing, while Jesus was quite clear and consistent on that topic. Jesus viewed Pharisaic Jews as evil and corrupt. At one point he accused their father of being the devil, to which the Pharisaic Jews responded by casting stones at him,14 but he hid to escape their wrath.15 Throughout the Gospels, there is a constant conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. Paul, however, is inconsistent on this issue. In some of his writings, he addressed Jews in a loving sense, but in others he addressed them in a hateful, scornful way.
For example, Paul wrote poetically of Jews in Galatians:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(King James Bible, Galatians 3:28)
In Thessalonians, Paul was not so poetic when he accused the Jews of killing Jesus:
| For ye, brethren, became followers of
the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have
suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
(King James Bible, Thessalonians 2:14 through 16)
Clearly Paul was a skilled writer, but much of his rhetoric makes no sense. Most of the confusing dogma associated with Christianity can be attributed to Paul. Here are some examples of Paul’s poetic, but muddled rhetoric about Jesus:
|For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;|
(King James Bible, 1st Corinthians 15:3)
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(King James Bible, Romans 6:23)
Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.
(King James Bible, Romans 15:7)
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
(King James Bible, 1st Corinthians 1:17)
Notice that Paul created many of the popular phrases used by Christians today. They include the following: "Christ died for our sins"... "the wages of sin"... "Christ also received us to the glory of God"... "the cross of Christ"... and so on.
In the Gospels, the death and resurrection of Jesus was additional proof that he was in fact the son of God. In my view, the words of Jesus alone are powerful and courageous. Whether we choose to believe that he was the son of God is a matter of individual faith. Nevertheless, Jesus was a wise man in his own right. But Paul ignored his powerful teachings and focused almost exclusively on his death and resurrection. Paul took the crucifixion to a completely new level which, in my view, weakened the original message substantially.
The Ancient Kingdom of Khazaria
The notion that Jews are God’s chosen people is not only untrue, but ridiculous. It is a myth that most Jews have an ethnic relationship to Israel. In reality, most Jews have a stronger kinship to the ancient Kingdom of Khazaria than to modern or ancient Palestine/Israel.(Footnote 60) Khazaria was a country in eastern Europe that flourished as an independent state from about 650 to 1016. In about 740, the king of Khazaria issued a decree whereby the national religion became Judaism. Prior to that, the main religion was Shamanism, a type of paganism from which Wicca later evolved. Wicca is a religion of sorts, but is really a euphemism for witchcraft. In fact, Wiccans openly refer to themselves as witches. In addition, Wiccans openly acknowledge Shamanism as a "mother religion."
Benjamin Freedman described the Khazars in a speech he delivered in Washington, DC in 1961. The following is an excerpt from that speech:
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.
They were phallic worshippers,(Footnote 61) which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews.
There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.
(Benjamin Freedman: excerpt from a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, 1961)
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (Fraud or Real?)
In the early 20th Century, Czar Nicholas Romanov disseminated The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion which he claimed was a seditious document used by Jews to dominate the world. Consequently, Czar Nicholas began persecuting and expelling Jews from Russia. Some say he merely used the Protocols as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism.
In 1921, Philip Graves of The Times (London), explained that the Protocols bore a resemblance to a satire by the French lawyer Maurice Joly on Napoleon III published in 1864 and entitled Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ("Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu").16
Regardless of the document’s origin, many of the Protocols bear a striking resemblance to reality. And quite frankly, the general tone of the Protocols is similar to that of the Talmud. To demonstrate my point, I will discuss a few example protocols from the entire suite. The following three specific protocols appear to be part of a working ideology:
The first example—Protocol XII, Control of the Press—clearly reflects reality in modern America. The US news media is almost completely dominated by Jewish individuals at the executive and ownership levels (reference Introduction: Media Moguls). The following text is an excerpt from Protocol XII:
… WE CONTROL THE PRESS
[4.] NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
[5.] If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....
[6.] Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest ....
FREE PRESS DESTROYED
[7.] We turn to the periodical press. We shall impose on it, as on all printed matter, stamp taxes per sheet and deposits of caution- money, and books of less than 30 sheets will pay double. We shall reckon them as pamphlets in order, on the one hand, to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and, on the other, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. At the same time what we shall publish ourselves to influence mental development in the direction laid down for our profit will be cheap and will be read voraciously. The tax will bring vapid literary ambitions within bounds and the liability to penalties will make literary men dependent upon us. And if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions in print the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.
[8.] Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.
[9.] In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.
[10.] In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.
[11.] In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, off position, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.
[12.] All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions - aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
[13.] In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.
[14.] THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders.
ONLY LIES PRINTED
(Excerpt from the Protocols of Zion: Protocol XII, Control of the Press)
Anyone who analyzes the American news media knows that Protocol XII is a real strategy because the media is dominated by Jewish executives, owners, reporters, and writers (reference Introduction: Media Moguls). As previously stated, six media conglomerates in America are controlled by six Jewish men. Gerald Levin, Michael Eisner, Edgar Bronfman, Jr, Sumner Redstone, Dennis Dammerman, and Peter Chernin—all Jews—collectively control AOL Time Warner,(Footnote 62) Walt Disney Company, Universal Studios, Viacom, Inc, General Electric, and News Corporation Limited. These six media conglomerates own or control ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.
And Si Newhouse owns two dozen daily newspapers from Staten Island to Oregon, plus the Sunday supplement Parade; the Conde Nast collection of magazines, including Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Allure, GQ, and Self; the publishing firms of Random House, Knopf, Crown, and Ballantine, among other imprints; and cable franchises with over one million subscribers.
David Sarnoff and William Paley—both Jews—ran NBC and CBS television when President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Walter Lippmann—an ardent Zionist—was an influential newspaper commentators during Kennedy’s Presidency. In 1917, Lippmann served briefly as an assistant to Secretary of War Newton D. Baker. In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson sent Lippmann to France to take part in the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles. Martin Agronsky—a Jew—was an influential television news correspondent for NBC when Kennedy was killed. Agronsky used his position to aggressively promote Lyndon Johnson as a qualified successor to the slain president (reference Chapter 1).
Jewish political forces control and influence every facet of American media outlets. This includes the electronic news media, newspapers/journals, and the entertainment industry: movies, music, and book publishing industries. Anyone who claims that Protocol XII, Control of the Press, is untrue is simply not paying attention.
The second example—Protocol V, Despotism and Modern—is used to control public opinion regarding controversial topics. The following text is an excerpt from Protocol V:
[9.] We shall assume to ourselves the liberal physiognomy of all parties, of all directions, and we shall give that physiognomy a VOICE IN ORATORS WHO WILL SPEAK SO MUCH THAT THEY WILL EXHAUST THE PATIENCE OF THEIR HEARERS AND PRODUCE AN ABHORRENCE OF ORATORY.
[10.] IN ORDER TO PUT PUBLIC OPINION INTO OUR HANDS WE MUST BRING IT INTO A STATE OF BEWILDERMENT BY GIVING EXPRESSION FROM ALL SIDES TO SO MANY CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS AND FOR SUCH LENGTH OF TIME AS WILL SUFFICE TO MAKE THE "GOYIM" LOSE THEIR HEADS IN THE LABYRINTH AND COME TO SEE THAT THE BEST THING IS TO HAVE NO OPINION OF ANY KIND IN MATTERS POLITICAL, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. …
(Excerpt from the Protocols of Zion: Protocol V, Despotism and Modern Progress)
The stated approach of "exhausting the patience of the [listeners]" was used extensively to cover-up the facts about the Kennedy assassination. The American public has been besieged about this crime for thirty-seven years (as of 2002). Many people are still interested in the topic, but they simply don’t know what to think because they’ve been inundated with so much nonsense. A close analysis of both the critics and advocates of the Warren Report reveals that Protocol V was used extensively by the conspirators. No one demonstrates Protocol V better than Dr. Cyril Wecht who pontificated ad nauseam on The Men Who Killed Kennedy (1988) about the Single Bullet Theory (reference Chapter 7). His comments about John Connally’s wounds were completely misleading. And he totally ignored the fact that there was a four second delay between the time Kennedy grabbed his neck and the time Connally reacted to being hit—thereby missing a chance to publicly refute the Single Bullet Theory in the simplest terms possible.(Footnote 63) Given that he is an illustrious and eminent pathologist, he cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.
Other examples of false critics are Robert Groden and Oliver Stone (reference Chapter 7). Both made a concerted effort to direct the public away from Jewish involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Prominent defenders of the Warren Report are Noam Chomsky, Michael Kazin, Maurice Isserman, Gerald Posner, David Belin, and Arlen Spector (reference Introduction for the latter two names). Chomsky in particular confused the public because he is a prominent opinion leader among intellectuals. Protocol V, is not only an effective technique for controlling public opinion on controversial topics, it is probably the most widespread propaganda tool employed today.(Footnote 64)
The third example—Protocol VII, Worldwide Wars—is extremely troubling because it advocates war. A serious observer of the Middle East cannot deny that Israel is one of the most war-mongering nations in history. The following text is an excerpt from Protocol VII:
[3.] We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.
[4.] The principal factor of success in the political is the secrecy of its undertakings: the word should not agree with the deeds of the diplomat.
[5.] We must compel the governments of the GOYIM to take action in the direction favored by our widely conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly promoted by us through the means of that so-called "Great Power" - THE PRESS, WHICH, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY BE DISREGARDED, IS ALREADY ENTIRELY IN OUR HANDS.
(Excerpt from the Protocols of Zion: Protocol VII, Worldwide Wars)
Protocol VII certainly explains the actions of President Johnson regarding the Six Day War and the Vietnam War. It also explains the blood-thirsty Likud-party prime ministers of Israel—Begin, Shamir, and Sharon—not to mention other aggressive leaders like David Ben Gurion.
Revised History of the Twentieth Century
The formation of the Jewish state in Palestine played a dominant role in world history throughout the Twentieth Century—particularly regarding World War I and II—although Western historians have largely ignored its significance. Over the years, many "alternative" historians have attempted to set the record straight, but their writings have been suppressed or their careers destroyed by Jewish political forces. In general, the new breed of historians take exception to the "official" explanations regarding the following historical events:
The first exception to conventional history—US entry into World War I—is similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to large-scale involvement in the Vietnam War by the United States military. When the World War I began in 1914, the conflict pitted Britain, France, and Russia on one side against Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey on the other. In 1917, the United States entered the war but for reasons that are somewhat ambiguous. The official explanation given was because a German submarine sank a French passenger ship, the SS Sussex. Some Americans were killed because they were passengers on the French vessel, but Germany did not intentionally attack an American target. That begs the question: Why would America declare war on Germany for sinking a French ship, especially when Germany was already at war with France? Most modern historians agree that the reasons for America’s entrance into World War I are ambiguous, but they have little interest in exploring it farther. Benjamin Freedman gave a different explanation in a speech he delivered in Washington, DC in 1961. According to Freedman, the United States entered World War I for reasons far more complex than the sinking of a French vessel by a German submarine. The following text is an excerpt from Freedman’s speech:
World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful.
They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever.
It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it - - the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war."(Footnote 65) That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into—if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into— that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that. …
(Benjamin Freedman, excerpt from a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, 1961)
The Balfour Declaration was a brief official communiqué reportedly written by Sir Arthur James Balfour,(Footnote 66) British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and sent to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild of the English Zionist Federation on November 2, 1917. The Balfour Declaration stated the following:
|His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.|
(Balfour Declaration, November 2, 1917)
The second exception to conventional history—anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany after World War I—has never been adequately addressed by Western historians. Freedman gave the following explanation in his 1961 address:
…. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.(Footnote 67) I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers—the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers—and the press was filled with their statements—that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema’ Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.
(Benjamin Freedman, excerpt from a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, 1961)
There is another reason why post-World War I Germans detested Jews. Popularly known as the "stab in the back theory," it was because the German Social Democratic Party (a Jewish-led communist regime) demobilized Germany’s military at the end of World War I.17
A few months prior to the end of World War I, Russian Czar Nicholas Romanov abdicated the throne at the end of the Russian Revolution. In July 1918, the Bolsheviks executed the Czar at Yekaterinburg along with his immediate family.18
By autumn of 1918, German/Prussian Kaiser William II realized Germany would soon be defeated. On November 9, 1918, he fled to Holland because he feared the Bolshevik Communists would take over Germany as they did Russia and he would meet a similar fate as Czar Nicholas and his family. In the interim, the German government was taken over by the Jewish dominated Social Democratic Party. Fearful of being overthrown by more radical communists led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht (both Jewish), the Social Democratic Party demobilized the German armies.19 This put Germany in an extremely weak negotiating position with the Allied forces after the initial Armistice agreement on November 11, 1918. The original agreement did not require demobilization of German armies, only that all German armies withdraw to pre-war boundaries.20 A fully armed Germany expected Wilson’s Fourteen Points21 which he had formulated as the basis for a just peace. After the disarmament of its military, Germany got the Versailles Treaty which was extremely harsh. Again, this is what many people call the "stab in the back theory."
It appears that Germany actually got stabbed in the back twice by two different Jewish groups. Bernard Baruch et al inserted the first dagger by getting America into World War I in exchange for the promise of Palestine by Britain as specified in the Balfour Declaration. Later, Jewish Communists inserted the second dagger by demobilizing Germany’s military before the Armistice agreement was finalized. As a result, Germany got the short end of the stick at Versailles.
The third exception to conventional history—Hitler’s conflict with Jewish political forces—is quite a bit different than Western historians portray. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. On that point, everyone agrees. But thereafter, things get muddy. Freedman summarized Hitler’s problems with Jews as follows:
… After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."
And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time.
Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.
At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous. …
(Benjamin Freedman, excerpt from a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, 1961)
Ironically, the American Jewish Archives corroborated Freedman’s description of Samuel Untermyer as a Zionist Jew who organized a boycott against German goods. The following is an excerpt from a biographical sketch on Untermyer (1858 - 1940) found in the Archives:
… After the advent of Hitlerism, Untermyer became president of the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League to Champion Human Rights, to counter Nazi propaganda and lead in the boycott of German goods. Other activity in the Jewish community included serving as vice-president of the American Jewish Congress until 1926 and president of the Palestine Foundation Fund for several years. …
(American Jewish Archives, March 200222)
The fourth exception to conventional history—The Night of Broken Glass—is presented by Western historians as a night, on November 9-10, 1938, when the Nazis brutally attacked Jews at Hitler’s order because of their religion. The name, Night of Broken Glass, refers ironically to the litter of broken glass left in the streets after the night of rioting. It is also referred to as Kristallnacht, a German word meaning "crystal night." The following is Freedman’s description of events:
…. The [international Jewish] boycott [against Germany] continued for some time, but it wasn't until [November 7] 1938, when a young Jew [Herschel Grynszpan] from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German [diplomat, Ernst vom Rath], that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth. ….
(Benjamin Freedman, excerpt from a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, 1961)
Western historians have traditionally underplayed the murder of vom Rath by Grynszpan. In fact, The Night of Broken Glass is often referred to as the November Pogroms. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica described vom Rath’s murder as follows: "The pretext for the pogroms was the shooting in Paris on November 7 of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by a Polish-Jewish student, Herschel Grynszpan."23 Historian David Irving,(Footnote 68) however, found a memo sent by Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, dated November 10, 1938. The Hess memo reveals that Hitler tried to protect Jews from arson attacks during the night of rioting. The following text is an English translation of the memo:
To all Gauleiter HQs for Immediate Action! Directive No. 174/38. Repeating Telex of November 10, 1938. On express orders from the very highest level arson attacks on Jewish businesses and such are not to occur under any circumstances or conditions whatever...24
The Night of Broken Glass remains highly controversial amongst historians. Jewish political forces would have us believe that the Nazis terrorized innocent Jews without cause. Western historians acknowledge that a young Jew did in fact shoot and kill a German diplomat in Paris, but the incident is surprisingly viewed as unrelated.
According to Freedman, The Night of Broken Glass was not an official implementation of "pogroms" against Jews, but rather the culmination of tensions between German Gentiles toward Jews after a five-year Jewish boycott—instigated by Samuel Untermyer—which hurt the German economy badly. In addition, German citizens felt betrayed by Jews over their defeat in World War I. When Herschel Grynszpan murdered German diplomat Ernst vom Rath, that was the last straw. Violent insurrections against Jews followed. Vom Rath’s cold blooded murder by a young Jew had set off anti-Jewish furor that was difficult to contain. Emotions came pouring out—so much so that Hitler told Hess to issue a directive telling Nazi officials not to commit "arson attacks on Jewish businesses….under any circumstances or conditions whatever."
The fifth exception to conventional history—the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor (Dec. 7, 1941)—has been shown by historians to be a ruse perpetrated by President Roosevelt to get America into the European war against Nazi Germany. Author Robert B. Stinnett(Footnote 69) built a powerful case in his book, Day of Deceit, that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the attack—which killed 2,400 military persons and wounded 1,100 more—and allowed it to happen, even encouraged it. Given that Roosevelt’s top adviser, Bernard Baruch, was an ardent Zionist, Stinnett’s explanation seems highly plausible.
In 1999, the US Senate voted to exonerate Hawaii commanders Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short for lack of preparedness after the Pentagon declared that blame should be "broadly shared."25 Prior to Stinnett’s work, researchers concluded that the US Government did not crack Japanese military codes before December 7, 1941; however, Stinnett provided numerous cables of decryptions to refute that claim. He also proved that a Japanese spy in Hawaii had transmitted information—including a map of the bombing target—beginning on August 21, 1941, and that American intelligence knew about it. In a word, Stinnett proved how Roosevelt allowed the attack to occur. The only part missing from his book, Day of Deceit, is Why. But Benjamin Freedman answered that question long ago when he delivered his speech in Washington, DC in 1961. Not only did he explain World Wars I and II, but he essentially predicted the Six Day War, the Vietnam War, The Persian Gulf War, and the present war with Afghanistan (in 2002). The following text is an excerpt from that speech:
… What do we face now [in 1961]? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.
(Benjamin Freedman, excerpt from a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, 1961)
Prior to the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt was under heavy political pressure not to get the United States involved in military action against Germany. In 1940 and 1941, the America First Committee—led by Senator Gerald P. Nye—conducted Senate hearings which openly questioned the Zionist movement. Members of the Committee even accused Jewish movie moguls in Hollywood of stirring up war fever in various movie productions. Though failing in its campaigns to block the Lend-Lease Act, the use of the U.S. Navy for convoys, and the repeal of the Neutrality Act, its public pressure undoubtedly discouraged greater direct military aid to a Great Britain besieged by Nazi Germany. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (Dec. 7, 1941), the committee dissolved and urged its members to support the war effort.26
The sixth exception to conventional history—details about Hitler’s persecution of Jews—is probably the most important of all. Actually, the politically correct word to use in this discussion is Holocaust. The word was introduced in 1978 in the TV mini-series, The Holocaust, directed by Marvin Chomsky and starred Meryl Streep and James Woods. Before 1978, the term Holocaust was not associated with Nazi Germany and Jews. In 1976, William Stevenson wrote a book, A Man Called Intrepid, which discussed the deaths of six million Jews during World War II a great deal, but Stevenson never used the term Holocaust because that term had not been introduced to the public in 1976.
It is difficult to discuss Hitler and the Holocaust openly because so many opinions are based on raw emotion, not intellect. One of the most controversial topics discussed today among intellectuals is the total number of Jews that died in Nazi Germany. The official number is six million. But there appears to be a double-standard among historians as to how they tallied the number of dead in the Holocaust versus the numbers killed in other atrocities.
It is amazing to me that historians are unable to agree on the number of German and Japanese civilians murdered by the allied forces in the fire-bombing of Dresden or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet virtually all mainstream historians agree with great certainty that six million Jews died in Nazi Germany over a seven year period (1938-45) under the most clandestine circumstances. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were there one day, gone the next. Determining the number dead in those three cities should be relatively uncomplicated, but for some reason, historians cannot agree. For a complex atrocity, everyone agrees; for simpler ones, everyone argues. This double-standard should raise red flags regarding the credibility of historians on this most controversial topic. Are historians being pressured to lie about the Holocaust? If so, why?
British historian David Irving has publicly stated his belief that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust was intentionally inflated for political reasons. According to Irving, if the number of Jewish dead in the Holocaust was only a million, then Hitler was no more of a war criminal than Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, or Stalin. In order to villainize Hitler for political purposes, the number of Jewish dead had to be exaggerated significantly. That is why the number six million is so important.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents