Zionism Vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology Is Undermining Western Culture
472
Zionism Vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology Is Undermining Western Culture
472eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781546224600 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | AuthorHouse |
| Publication date: | 04/03/2018 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 472 |
| File size: | 725 KB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
The Problem of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament
"The anti-Jewish rhetoric that mars several books of the Christian New Testament has been shown to reflect not historical fact but the rivalry at the time the books were written between Jews who followed Jesus and those who did not."
Abraham H. Foxman
"Once you start calling everyone you don't agree with an anti-Semite, we are in trouble."
Rabbi Levi Shemtov
In the first two volumes, I demonstrated that in order to understand the root of the conflict between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, one has to go back to the gospels and see how the tensions between the two systems set the panorama for the ages — from the first century to the twenty-first. I also demonstrated that the gospels cannot be anti-Semitic at any level for the very reason that the antagonists were all ethnic Jews. Jesus rebuked Peter severely and called him Satan at one time for not setting his mind on "the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23). This was a theological point, not an attack on Peter as a human being. The gospels are filled with theological points such as these.
The gospels, by their very nature, cannot espouse hatred toward people. On the contrary, they put forth a saving interest for all mankind. A classic example would be when a woman of Canaan came to Jesus and asked Him to cast an evil spirit out of her daughter. Jesus told the woman, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs" (Matthew 15:26). Without further reading, one would think that Jesus did not come to save those who were perishing. Yet the story does not end there. The woman responded, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." To which Jesus said, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt"(Matthew 15:27-28).
Jesus may use what seems to be harsh language, but the Savior of all mankind has no interest in preaching hatred. Serious Christians also should have no interest in propounding hatred. What should be of concern to us throughout this investigation is truth.
Moreover, as I argued in the first volume, if the New Testament is anti-Semitic, then the Old Testament by definition would be in the same category, for it pronounces radical statements about Israel's rebellion against God. Consider Isaiah, who writes, "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward" (Isaiah 1:4). In the book of Jeremiah we read, "But thou shalt say unto them, this is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth" (Jeremiah 7:28); "Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast deceit, they refuse to return" (Jeremiah 8:5).
Heinrich Graetz does not consider the prophet Isaiah to be an anti- Semite at all. He wrote, "His words of fire pour forth with inimitable power, chastising like a father, yet comforting like a mother, wounding as with a lash, yet healing as with balm." If that is the case, then could it be that the New Testament was chastising the Jews as well?
It must be emphasized before we move on that the conflict of the ages does not rest on whether your grandparents died in Nazi Germany or not. The conflict of the ages is rooted in theological terms and has serious political and ideological consequences. Israel itself defines the conflict in those ideological terms. This brings us to Shmuel Oswald Rufeisen, who was known as "Brother Daniel." Brother Daniel asked the High Court of Justice in Israel to acknowledge him as a Jew in 1962, but the High Court of Justice denied his request because, well, he became a Christian, which obviously was an unpardonable sin. From a political point of view, this was inexplicable because Rufeisen's entire family was Jewish and they escaped Nazi Germany in Poland in 1922. Rufeisen was a staunch Zionist as a teenager and he even "joined a Zionist youth movement." He stood up against Nazis "and saved many Jews" in the process. But once Rufeisen became a Christian, things completely changed. Rufeisen eventually became a monk and, in 1958, went to Israel to start missionary work there. Even then, he still considered himself a Zionist. He gave up his Polish citizenship and "applied to becomes and Israeli citizen on the basis of the Law of Return, arguing that although he was a Catholic by religion, he was still a Jew by 'nationality.'" We are told: "When his application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior, he petitioned the High Court of Justice. By a four-to-one decision, the court rejected his petition to be given Israeli citizenship on the basis of the Law of Return. He was, however, granted an Israeli identity card, which stated, 'Nationality: Not clear.'"
Israeli historian Shlomo Sand of Tel Aviv University, who provides serious historical depth to the almost two-thousand-year-old conflict (though I would disagree with him on some issues), comments: "Ultimately, Brother Daniel's betrayal of Judaism by joining the religion of the Nazarene overcame the deterministic biological imaginary. It was categorically decided that there was no Jewish nationality without its religious shell. Ethnocentric Zionism needed the Halakhic precepts as its principal criteria, and the secular judges understood this national-historical necessity very well."
But that is not the end of the story. Contrast Brother Daniel's story to Major Binyamin Shalit, who requested the High Court of Justice to recognize his two sons as Jews. The interesting thing is that the mother of Shalit's sons was not a Jew "but a Scottish gentile." The High Court of Justice astonishingly declared that the boys "were Jewish by nationality, not by religion." This, of course, "shook the entire political structure" in Israel.
The plot thickens: Israeli officials and geneticists, according to Sand, cannot use DNA to prove that they are descendants of Moses. Sand points his readers to the work of geneticist Nurit Kirsh, who concluded that there was an ideological effort among Jewish geneticists who desperately wanted to believe that there was "a biological homogeneity among" European Jews. Those geneticists, Sand writes, "internalized the Zionist myth and, consciously or not, attempted to adapt their findings to it ... The Zionist idea of the Jewish nation-race materialized as a solid life science, and a new discipline was born: 'Jewish genetics.' What could be more convincing than publication in respected journals in the Anglo-Saxon world?"
It was this ideological foundation that drove those geneticists into a sort of science madness. And when they were confronted with serious scientific balance, as in the case of Harry Ostrer, they deliberately dismiss it in order to maintain the Zionist myth. Sand writes that "despite the limited resources available in Israel for academic research, it became a world leader in the 'investigation of the origins of populations.'"
The doctrine of Jewish genetics dominated Israel and much of the West for years, but by 2000, Haaretz messed things up by declaring that the so-called biological homogeneity that Israeli geneticists were hopelessly looking for "did not exist." The scientists themselves admitted that their earlier experiment, which they pretentiously hailed as "science," was grounded on ideological foundation and not on serious and detailed and scientific explanations. "The new paper, published first by the American Society of Human Genetics, showed that the sly Y-chromosome had fooled its inexperienced investigators ..." Did the evidence fool investigators, or were the investigators trying to force their ideology upon science?
Sand concludes that anthropologists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries used similar pseudo-scientific criteria to advance their ideological worldviews, which turned out to be detrimental. They used "half-truths to the identity-seeking media ... The bottom line is that, after all the costly 'scientific' endeavors, a Jewish individual cannot be defined by any biological criteria whatsoever. This is not to preclude the potential contribution of genetic anthropology in uncovering important aspects of human history, and importantly in the fight against disease ... But in a state in which the law prevents marriage between a 'Jew' and a 'non-Jew,' we should be very wary about research that seeks genetic markers common to the 'chosen people.'"
Jewish biological determinism, which has enthralled some German and Jewish intellectuals and writers of various stripes, came to a dead end when Israeli-American geneticist Eran Elhaik of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health argued that the Khazar theory is much more scientifically rigorous than previously speculated.
Elhaik doesn't mince words. He called the people who perpetuated the scientific blunder "liars" and "frauds." For Elhaik, geneticists like Harry Ostrer of Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine and author of Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People have not been following the scientific method seriously: they started with an agenda and then forced that agenda upon science. Ostrer argues throughout that genetic science proves that there is a "common Middle East origins shared by many Jewish populations worldwide." The Zionists have used this theory to advance the claim that Jews have every right to maintain a place of their own in the Middle East. But there is a huge problem: Ostrer did not want to reveal even the method he used for this "scientific" breakthrough.
Elhaik called the Rhineland Hypothesis (as articulated by Ostrer and others) "nonsense," and asked Ostrer a simple question: "It was a great pleasure reading your group's recent paper, 'Abraham's Children in the Genome Era,' that illuminates the history of our people. Is it possible to see the data used for the study?" In his response, Ostrer declared that the data he used could not be made available to Elhaik: "It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do. Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people."
Although Ostrer is a scientist, he acts like an ideologue here. "Allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is 'peculiar,' said Catherine DeAngelis, who edited the Journal of the American Medical Association for a decade. "What he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What's this guy trying to hide?'" (Keep in mind that Ostrer's book Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People was published by Oxford University Press and received great reviews.)
Judging from such an unscientific behavior, Elhaik had every reason to say, "First these researchers decided what conclusions they wanted to find, and then they set off to find evidence to support it."
Jews do not have bad DNA in their systems. They are revolutionaries in the metaphysical and categorical sense because they willfully reject Logos, the essence of everything reasonable, logical, and orderly. In the first century, the Jews rejected Christ and metaphysically attacked him. Once reason is abandoned, Talmudic mores and discourse take precedence. This Talmud, which is the essence of being Jewish, is also the essence of anti-Christ in its literal sense.
This is where the conflict actually lies, not in so-called super or bad DNA. Some have irresponsibly postulated that the Jewish revolt against Logos throughout history proves that their rebellion has a racial or genetic basis; hence the oft-repeated rhetorical question, "Is Judaism simply a religion?"
Well, is Christianity just a religion? Is Islam just a religion? Is Buddhism just a religion? Why does the question stop with Judaism? How is that a coherent argument is a basis for a morally unsatisfying hypothesis which ultimately leads to an intellectual traffic jam?
If Christianity has been affecting people's lives for centuries, does that lead to the nonsensical notion that embracing Christianity is a genetically-influenced decision? People who propose the genetic hypothesis do not want to understand that there is a difference between morality and DNA and that the theological substratum upon which both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism operate has enormous ramifications.
Although proponents of the genetic hypothesis understand Newtonian physics and the laws of genetics, they do not want to apply it all the way. Furthermore, if we use their argument against them, the genetic hypothesis is so ingrained in their DNA that they cannot see the obvious. If Jewish behavior is genetic, then the hypothesis that "Jewish behavior is genetic" can be shown to be a self-defeating philosophy. In other words, is there a gene for believing in the genetic hypothesis?
What I have discovered is that many of those who postulate this idea do not want to know; on many occasions, they appeal to silly arguments to make a point. A while back, I tried to reason with a man who thought that Jewish behavior is genetic. I pointed out to him some of the scientific and rational evidence against the theory, highlighting the cardinal error in books such as Ostrer's Legacy and how he cooked up some of his evidence to marshal Zionist propaganda. Yet to my surprise, my email opponent continued to believe what he wanted to believe — even if those beliefs were arguably false.
He even said that Ostrer is still right, even though he forged some of his evidence! All of a sudden, I was the bad guy who wanted to destroy this man's genetic truth. Was his behavior toward me genetic as well? If so, did I make a huge mistake responding to his questions and assertions, thinking that he would change his mind if he saw the evidence?
If Jewish behavior is genetic, how about Christ and His disciples, Solomon Michael Alexander, Hermann Cohen, Baptista Giovanni Jonas, Leopold Cohn, Theodore Ratisbonne, Michael Polanyi, Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Mortimer Adler, Gilad Atzmon, Roi Tov, and other Jews who became Christians? Well, according to the genetic hypothesis, they are just misfits or genetic defects in the evolutionary scale. Even if a Jewish person becomes Christian and rejects the Talmudic hatred of the goyim, he still must have latent genetic behaviors because what happens genetically happens automatically.
Moreover, if Jewish behavior is genetic, why would people be upset when certain Jews act in a certain way? Why shouldn't people like Eli Roth say things like to ruin "'an entire generation' is in my genes"? When Paramount Pictures feared that Darren Aronofsky's Noah may not attract a lot of Christian viewers, Aronofsky declared point-blank, "I don't give a [expletive] about the test scores. My films are outside the scores." Did his DNA compel him to make that assertion?
On what basis should people convince Roth and Aronofsky to act differently? And how did they get that behavior in their genes? Those are the questions that do not get answers because they ruin the ideological force of the genetic hypothesis.
Christ confronted the genetic theory that the Pharisees of His day desperately tried to propose and rejected it out of hand. If there is to be solid research and serious rationality on this issue, we do not need to appeal to a dubious and unnecessary hypothesis which is not rooted and grounded in metaphysical truth.
Over the past few decades, the theological and moral issue with respect to Jewish revolutionaries has been challenged by a number of writers of various stripes. Paul Austin Murphy of the neoconservative flagship American Thinker has insinuated quite subtly that Shlomo Sand is a "self-described communist" who has appealed to the "Khazar theory" to buttress his point. By deduction, the Khazar theory somehow must be false.
The "Khazar theory," Murphy states, is really "Jew-hatred." Even if this theory is false, Murphy tells us, "a confirmed and professional hater of the Jews will simply find another reason to hate them. And that reason will no doubt also be racial in nature." Murphy is certainly locked into the genetic fallacy here, which is a false argument in reasoning and logic.
In formal logic, the genetic fallacy is the idea that you can invalidate a person's belief by pointing out how the belief originated in the first place. Every freshman in logic knows that this is demonstrably and hopelessly false. For example, suppose I pick up a comic book from a trash can. Upon inspection, I discover that the comic book declares that the earth is round. Does that mean that the earth is not round because I picked up the comic book from a trashcan? Obviously not.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Zionism vs. the West"
by .
Copyright © 2018 Jonas E. Alexis.
Excerpted by permission of AuthorHouse.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Preface & Acknowledgements, vii,
Chapter 1 The Problem of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament, 1,
Chapter 2 Between Athens & Jerusalem, 61,
Chapter 3 Neoconservative & Zionist Democracy, 71,
Chapter 4 The Jewish Century, 82,
Chapter 5 Zionism's Covert Operation Against the West, 96,
Chapter 6 The Young Turks Revolution & the Slaughter of Christians, 118,
Chapter 7 The Talmudic License to Destroy the Goyim, 148,
Chapter 8 Zionism Declares War on the West, 158,
Chapter 9 A Brief History of Israel's Terrorism, 170,
Chapter 10 A Final Fork in the Road, 193,
Chapter 11 Puritanism & Zionism, 204,
Chapter 12 The Judaizing Spirit in Calvin's Exegesis, 214,
Chapter 13 Ethnic Cleansing in 1948, 221,
Appendix I The Synagogue of Satan, 240,
Appendix II The Fate of Jews Who Became Christians, 246,
Appendix III The Psychological Establishment & Its Priesthood, 252,
Appendix IV Ayn Rand's Objectivism & Sexual Calculus, 268,
Appendix V Christian Zionism Revisited, 279,
Endnotes, 291,
Volume II Bibliography, 381,
Volume III Bibliography, 427,
Index, 451,