Archive for Satanism

The Satanic/Talmudic Origins of Star Trek

Posted in Hollywoodism with tags , , , , , , on May 29, 2009 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

STXI_Jlogo2_s Almost every Trekkie out there views the Star Trek phenomenon as a fantasy of the New age of secular humanism (Enlightened Human Society), but to the adepts and initiates it is a Talmudic doctrine of Satan.the various alien races are various earthly cultures and Vulcans are the the Jews, due to their “wisdom”and The Borg I think are the devilish depiction of Islam and/or “the people of the book”. Think about it, they assimilate cultures by force “Holy Wars” and make them into a collective or “Umah” or nation of Faith (this is the Talmudic depiction of Islam as well). The assimilated is no longer human or partaking in sinful pleasure, but rather abstains from sin. This demonizes the notion of the unity of one nation under God “Umah” and glorifies disunity under the guise of diversity, man’s achievements in place of God’s Creation, and finally promotion of impulsive primal animal-like behavior under the guise of unlocking your potential, developing your superpower, or evolving.

“Nimoy drew upon his own Jewish background to suggest the now-familiar salute. Back in the 1960s, hippies who watched “Amok Time” thought the salute was a variation of the two-fingered peace sign. But we Jews knew better. The Vulcan salute came not from protest marches, but from the pulpit of Nimoy’s childhood synagogue.

The Vulcan greeting is based upon a blessing gesture used by the kohanim (koe-hah-NEEM) during the worship service. The kohanim are the genealogical descendants of the Jewish priests who served in the Jerusalem Temple. Modern Jews no longer have priests leading services as in ancient times, nor do we have animal sacrifices anymore. (Yes, people really do ask about that!) The sacrificial system ended with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in the year 70. C.E. However, a remnant of the Temple service lives on in the “kohane blessing” ritual (duchenen in Yiddish) that is performed on certain holy days. ” excerpt from The Jewish Origin of the Vulcan Salute by Rabbi Yonassan Gershom trekjews.com

Religion seems to be largely absent from the futuristic and secular world of the Federation and in particular from human society. Star Trek’s takes on religious topics are often critical, and they almost routinely close with a victory of science over faith. This is anything but a surprise, knowing that Gene Roddenberry was an active atheist who struggled against any form of religion:

“I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will — and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.” (Gene Roddenberry)

In a Q&A session executive producer Brannon Braga was asked whether there was supposed to be a deity in the stories that he wrote. He said:

“No, there was no consideration in giving humans, talking about God, or talking about those types of things. We wanted to avoid it to be quite frank. But we did very often explore theology through alien characters. Which frankly is much more interesting anyway. Whether it was the Bajorans and their religion or the Borg and their religion. They had the religion of perfection. That, I think, was more interesting. We want to keep Star Trek secular. The human facet of Star Trek secular.” (Brannon Braga, transcript from his former website)” excerpt from: Religion in Star Trek

If daily life is not concerned with familiar economic activities and the whole of life is not informed with religious purposes, then what is life all about in Star Trek? Well, the story is about a military establishment, Star Fleet, and one ship in particular in the fleet, the Enterprise. One might not expect this to provide much of a picture of ordinary civilian life; and it doesn’t. One never sees much on Earth apart from the Star Fleet Academy and Picard’s family farm in France — unless of course we include Earth’s past, where the Enterprise spends much more time than on the contemporaneous Earth. Since economic life as we know it is presumed not to exist in the future, it would certainly pose a challenge to try and represent how life is conducted and how, for instance, artifacts like the Enterprise get ordered, financed, and constructed. And if it is to be represented that things like “finance” don’t exist, one wonders if any of the Trek writers or producers know little details about Earth history like when Lenin wanted to get along without money and accounting and discovered that Russia’s economy was collapsing on him. Marx’s prescription for an economy without the cash nexus was quickly abandoned and never revived. Nevertheless, Marx’s dream and Lenin’s disastrous experiment is presented as the noble and glorious future in Star Trek: First Contact, where Jean Luc Picard actually says, “Money doesn’t exist in the Twenty-Fourth Century.”

So what one is left with in Star Trek is military life. Trying to soften this by including families and recreation on the Enterprise in fact makes the impression worse, since to the extent that such a life is ordinary and permanent for its members, it is all the easier to imagine that all life in the Federation is of this sort. Not just a military, but a militarism. In the show, this actually didn’t work out very well. In the beginning, Star Trek: The Next Generation wanted to remind us of the daily life, children in school, etc. on board; and more than once the “battle hull” of the ship was separated from the “saucer” so that the civilian component of the crew would be safe from hostile action. This cumbersome expedient, however, was soon enough forgotten; and we later forget, as the Enterprise finds itself in desperate exchanges with hostile forces, that small children are undergoing the same battle damage that we see inflicted on the bridge — unless of course it is brought to our attention because there is a story with a special focus on a child, as with Lieutenant Worf’s son. In Star Trek: First Contact, crew members are being captured and turned into Borg. Does that include the children? We never see any. Do Picard’s orders to shoot any Borg include Borg who were human children? This disturbing situation is completely ignored by the movie. Star Trek, therefore, cannot maintain its fiction that military life on a major warship will be friendly to families and children. excerpt from The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism, & Atheism

Jewcy.com
May 19, 2009

As seems de rigeur for this sort of post, let me prove my Star Trek bona fides (or lack thereof) before going forward. I was a child of Star Trek: The Next Generation, only three years old when it premiered, but ten when it concluded and old enough to remember the season finale broadcast. I later caught up on every episode of that series. I have also seen more than a handful of the original series, and about two to three dozen episodes of Deep Space 9. So I’m not trekkie, as it goes. But I’m familiar with the shows, and if my knowledge is not encyclopedic, it is viable. I may not be able to recall the exact science-fiction hook used in season 4, episode seven offhand, but if you hum a few bars, I think I could sing along.

Once said, let’s put that to rest. If my credentials aren’t enough to discuss the new film with any depth, please skip ahead. I won’t be offended. I understand fandom, and if someone wanted to write about the X-Men without an encyclopedic background, I’d thank them kindly to their face and say bad things about them behind their backs. So go ahead. Say bad things.

What struck me about the film was the role of the Jew, or the lack thereof. The Original Series always had Leonard Nimoy as Spock. He was not simply the intellectual rationalist to Kirk’s fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants adventurer, as a number of critics have suggested. What is clear from those earliest episodes is that Spock was an equal partner in the great adventure. He may have brought a cooler head from time to time, but the mission was equally his. As such, he was something of a philosopher-warrior, a Jewish archetype rare in contemporary society, but rich in our history; from the Biblical Joshua, King David, to Franz Rosenzweig writing The Star of Redemption “in the Macedonian trenches,” or maybe David Ben-Gurion.

The Next Generation took the Jew in Star Trek one step further. Despite not having as public a Jewish identity as Nimoy in a main role, one could say TNG was even more Jewish than the Original Series. Watch them argue about the Prime Directive, debate subtleties of ethical and intellectual dilemmas, or entirely forgo physical confrontation in favor of multiculturalism and empathy. Hell, the crew was so neurotic, they kept a full-time therapist on the ship. The greatest triumphs were not the defeat of an adversary, but the breaching of borders, the comprehension of foreign language. Watch “Darmok,” in my most humble opinion the greatest episode of The Next Generation. It is moving beyond words.

I mean, they might as well have called it Star Trek: The Great Jew Extravaganza. The central themes of the Star Trek shows – exploring new worlds, making contact with new civilizations, doing mitzvoth and good deeds throughout the universe – are central tenets of Judaism. Would a Michael Lerner luncheon have been out of place on The Next Generation? Picard was already, always doing birur nitzutzot (elevating the sparks of the universe) and performing tikkun on the galaxies.

I have no doubt the Jew in Star Trek has been explored and interrogated at greater lengths than I could do justice to. Certainly, if there were no Jews in Star Trek, there was still plenty of locations for a Jew to find himself in the show. And yet, now, we have J.J. Abram’s new Star Trek and, despite enjoying the spectacle, I find myself wondering: Where has the Jew gone? At first, the obvious issues; there is no exploration, no new worlds to discover. If anything, there’s the collapse of old worlds – the destruction of Vulcan. There’s a political agenda; sometimes terrorists can’t be negotiated with (Spoiler alert: Eric Bana’s villain chooses to die rather than accept Kirk’s compassion).

Spock is no longer played by a Jew, but by Zachary Quinto (whom I know as the villain Sylar on Heroes). That itself is not a problem, but coupled with the character’s transformation makes him into a non-Jewish figure. He is now quick to rush to anger and violence, not to fight based on logic but based on emotional betrayal. He is vindictive against Kirk, and he now embarks on a fairly public love affair with Uhura. In other words, he is an arrogant bore, and he lacks wisdom, possessing only intellect.

This move is made all the more evident by the inclusion of the old Spock, Leonard Nimoy, in the film. Nimoy is everything that Quinto’s Spock is not. He is thoughtful, caring, and wise. When he calls the young Kirk his longtime friend, the scene is poignant and moving. Tellingly, the character is a man literally caught out of time – a refugee from a future time – much as the ethos he once represented are too caught out of time. This new Star Trek has no place for deliberation over ethics, or warm human contact. Compare Nimoy’s brief moments with Kirk to Quinto’s moments. One is deeply connected to the human. The other, no matter how many times the film may argue otherwise, is deeply alienated from the human experience. No, this Spock is no Jew. He truly is alien.

This would bother me far less if the movie didn’t hold the promise of future installments. The film is doing well in release and I have no doubt a sequel is already in the works. But can they possibly use Nimoy again? It seems unlikely – his role here was as intermediary, ferrying the series from the Roddenberry vision to the Abrams’ vision. I imagine he’ll be gone in the next film and then we’ll be left with no Jew at all, just a bunch of very entertaining goyim canvassing the universe. Maybe they’ll decide to explore strange new worlds, but I doubt it. Abram’s likes his monsters. There’ll be a new villain, a new world-ending catastrophe, another distended-anus snow creature. There isn’t a lot of time for tikkun ha’olem when you’re reacting against terrorists and psychopaths. Or rather, there should be time made, but who will make it? Our only hope, I fear, is that Chris Pine’s Kirk grows into the role Spock once held. He does seem to have sensitivity and a thoughtfulness hiding just behind his impetuousness and impulsiveness. Maybe he’ll cultivate it.

The narrative itself addressed this. Nimoy-Spock tells Quinto-Spock in one of the final moments that he’ll hide out of sight, working on the preservation of Vulcan cultural heritage. And that, finally, is what the Jew of Star Trek has been reduced to: A cultural heritage, a memory of a series long past. Now, we look to the future. Too bad J.J. Abrams is such a goy.

The above article can be found at: Jew Trek

Like many other aspects of the Star Trek world, these dicta are simple “there” – given an explanation only when the story calls for it. Roddenberry used his shows as a type of very passive or yinful propaganda: he merely SHOWED what could be, what humans COULD become if they developed certain potentials.

Likewise, the fact that in the 1960’s the original Trek series had a crew including people of many nations and races, and both genders – and, to top it off, an alien Second in Command, Mr. Spock! Yet this was not explained, it was simply presented. Another beautiful Roddenberrian idea is the Vulcan motto of “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.”

One way of seeing this is that there is a TREND in society. Some people are “hung up” on what could be called personal issues, or behaviors borne of inner conflict like bottled-up rage, broken self-hood, warped sexuality or emotionality, or similar developmental problems. These people seem to “go nowhere” – they don’t Become, because they are “stuck on themselves.” Everything they do is a reflection of their warped selves and inability to grow or develop – their lives play like broken records in what seem to be abortive attempts to repair or correct psychological problems. Satanically speaking, people like this are pent-up/apathetic, and ophionic – two stages of the same problem. They are unable to Become – they only stagnate and Unbecome (self-destruct). Societies where these people predominate do likewise: stagnate and unbecome. They are all increasingly stress-filled, illogical, and inhumane.

And there is another trend in society – this could be called the Progressive movement, or Enlightenment movement. Note the Satanic connotations of these words: Progressive, as in Becoming – and Enlightened, as in The Light or Black Flame. These people tend to focus on very practical problems outside the self: better education for people, improving quality of life, better food, less work, less stress, less crime, etc. Focus is on phenomena – the outer – the world! As in, exploring the galaxy! Enjoying the world, and improving the world for more enjoyment and less pain. The self is not an issue with people like this – and in a sense people like this are “alooof” because they are inwardly content. This latter trend, politically, tends to make societies that are more equitable, less stressful, more humane.

Star Trek is merely a continuation of this latter trend – without the “garbage” associated with the first, negative trend.

excerpt from To Boldly Go… a self admitted Satanic socialist website!

Jewish band celebrates goy baby sacrifice for satan

Posted in Etc. with tags , , , on March 29, 2009 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

black_shabbis-customJewcy.com
March 17, 2009

As a university student in the early 1990s, I fantasized about a Jewish metal band. Not a metal band with Jewish members (there have been plenty of those) but a metal band that drew on Jewish symbols and took delight in their transgression, just as other metal bands twisted and subverted Christian symbolism. My friend Saul (a guitarist) and me (a bassist) formed an imaginary band, Death Matzo, who would celebrate the murder of Christian children to provide blood to make unleavened bread. The idea remained a fantasy not just due to the fact that we couldn’t find a drummer who shared it, but also because the idea was so silly, unlikely and offensive that it was better it stayed within our fertile imaginations.

Yet, in the last few years, my fantasy of Jewish metal has been realised. In Israel, bands like Orphaned Land, Desert, Amaseffer and Arallu have explored Jewish musical and lyrical themes in novel and interesting ways. Elsewhere, Jewish metal is rarer and more underground but if you look hard you find strange projects like the Lubavitch black metal of Schneerson (I kid you not) and the dodgy “Ju Metal” shtick of David Lazzar (The ‘Rocking Rabbi’). Now though, a newly released Jewish metal CD bears the unprecedented imprimatur of the cutting edge of the musical and Jewish world – Black Shabbis, by Jamie Saft.

Jamie Saft Black Shabbis is released by John Zorn’s Tzadik label. It was only a matter of time before the label put out a CD like this. Zorn himself has flirted with extreme metal on his Painkiller project (which featured ex-Napalm Death drummer Mick Harris) and some of his Electric Masada work with Marc Ribot explores the outer limits of guitar noise music. Saft himself is the kind of prolific polymath that the downtown NY Jewish music scene adores, responsible for a host of film music, jazz and way-out -there recordings with a bewildering array of collaborators. In this respect, Black Shabbis is not the product of a metal band rooted in the metal scene, but of a one-off project that sets out to explore a particular aesthetic. Most of the music is played by Saft himself, with a small group of guest artists on some of the tracks (including Mr Bungle bassist Trevor Dunn).

Saft has clearly been thinking along the lines that I was when I fantasised about Death Matzo – except of course he has the ability and seriousness to see it through. The vocabulary of metal is rooted in a fascination with the dark side, with western Christian civilization’s rich and lurid imaginations of evil.Yet the dyad Christ – Satan that is repeatedly explored and transgressed in metal culture (and particularly in black (Satanic) metal) is constructed without reference to the deep-rooted association of Jews with the devil. Jews rarely appear in the metal mythos and when they do it is in the marginal National Socialist black metal scene, whose proponents ironically associate Jews with Christianity. So there is a rich vein of symbolism and mythology that awaits any Jewish metal musician brave enough to mine it.

The cover of Black Shabbis makes the association of Jews with diabolism explicit: a winged goat-headed man with burning red eyes sports a star of David on his forehead. The 9 tracks delve into the dark side of Jewish history. The CD has no lyrics sheet and in any case some of the songs don’t have words, however the inlay sleeve does print a short paragraph describing the themes and sources of inspiration for the songs. I was immediately drawn to the track ‘Blood’, which unlike Death Matzo does not celebrate but condemns the blood libel as a ‘hideous caricature’.

Most of the album’s other tracks are explained by particular facets of anti-Semitic libels and incidents including: ‘Der Judenstein’ (a blood libel by the Grimm brothers), ‘Kielce’ (a post-war massacre of Polish Jews) and ‘The Ballad of Leo Frank’ (victim of an early twentieth century lynching in the American south). This is not the playful ‘*censored* you’ that would satirise anti-Semitism by reclaiming its most outrageous accusations that I dreamt of many years ago, and of course the CD is all the better for it. Unlike my puerile vision of Jewish metal, Saft’s is a serious exploration of the possibilities that metal music may provide for dramatising and exploring the horror of the anti-Semitism that is deep-rooted in western constructions of ‘the Jew’.

Jamie Saft, is a genius at wielding and manipulating the musical tools available in the metal armoury. Contrary to the stereotype of metal as a stock of banal clichés played by morons, metal has diversified enormously in the last three decades, creating a sophisticated and complex panoply of sounds and possibilities. Saft shows no loyalty to any one style and the tracks skip radically between influences and sub-genres: The aforementioned ‘Blood’ has a Slayer-type vibe; ‘Army Girl’ is a twisted metallic rhythm and blues with its constantly repeated line ‘you’re making me crazy’ unsettling the mix; ‘Kielce’ is a disturbingly anarchic mix of free-form drums, guitar noise and black metal screams. Saft’s metal is not the metal of Motley Crüe (not that there’s anything wrong with Motley Crüe) but the ‘hipster metal’ that has in the past few years drawn critics to reconsider this previously revised genre and praise radical metal artists like Sunn 0))), Nadja and Mastodon. In short, Black Shabbis is hipster metal for hipster Jews.

What Saft does not do though is to integrate Jewish music sources into the mix. True, opener ‘Black Shabbis – The Trail of Libels’ is a strange surf guitar piece whose Dick Dale associations vaguely recall Jewish and Middle Eastern music sources, but that’s about as far as it goes for ‘ethnic’. Not that that’s a problem, but it would be intriguing to hear Saft or another Tzadik artist metallically mutate klezmer or some other Jewish sound. For now though, Black Shabbis will provide unnerving delights for anyone like me who is as obsessed with the possibilities of the distorted guitar as they are with possibilities of Jewish identity.

The above article can be found at: Hipster Metal for Hipster Jews

Jewish band celebrates goy baby sacrifice for satan

Nixon, Graham warn of “total domination of media” by “Satanic Jews” in 1972

Posted in Media Watch with tags , , on January 27, 2009 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

20090127234702163_1The New York Times
March 17, 2002

It seemed impossible, when H. R. Haldeman’s White House diaries came out in 1994, that the Rev. Billy Graham could once have joined with President Richard M. Nixon in discussing the “total Jewish domination of the media.” Could Mr. Graham, the great American evangelist, really have said the nation’s problem lies with “Satanic Jews,” as Mr. Nixon’s aide recorded?

Mr. Graham’s sterling reputation as a healer and bridge-builder was so at odds with Mr. Haldeman’s account that Jewish groups paid little attention, especially because he denied the remarks so strongly.

”Those are not my words,” Mr. Graham said in a public statement in May 1994. ”I have never talked publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms.”

That was the end of the story, it seemed, until two weeks ago, when the tape of that 1972 conversation in the Oval Office was made public by the National Archives. Three decades after it was recorded, the North Carolina preacher’s famous drawl is tinny but unmistakable on the tape, denigrating Jews in terms far stronger than the diary accounts.

”They’re the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,” Mr. Graham said on the tape, after agreeing with Mr. Nixon that left-wing Jews dominate the news media. The Jewish ”stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” he continued, suggesting that if Mr. Nixon were re-elected, ”then we might be able to do something.”

Finally, Mr. Graham said that Jews did not know his true feelings about them.

”I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know,” he told Mr. Nixon, referring to A. M. Rosenthal, then the newspaper’s executive editor. ”And all — I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I’m friendly with Israel. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.”

Mr. Graham, who is now 83 and in poor health, quickly issued a four-sentence apology, but he did not acknowledge making the statements and said he had no memory of the conversation, which took place after a prayer breakfast on Feb. 1, 1972.

The brevity of the apology and Mr. Graham’s refusal to discuss the matter further have angered many of the same Jewish organizations that for so long counted Mr. Graham as their best friend among evangelical Christians. The taped remarks have become the subject of synagogue sermons and columns in Jewish newspapers, with some Jewish leaders suggesting that Mr. Graham had hidden anti-Semitic views for decades.

”Here we have an American icon, the closest we have to a spiritual leader of America, who has been playing a charade for all these years,” Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in an interview last week. ”What’s frightening is that he has been so close to so many presidents, and who knows what else he has been saying privately.”

Mr. Foxman urged Mr. Graham to return the award he won in 1971 from the National Conference of Christians and Jews — one of many such awards presented to him.

Yesterday, Mr. Graham’s organization issued a longer apology, in which Mr. Graham acknowledged making the statements, but repudiated them.

”I don’t ever recall having those feelings about any group, especially the Jews, and I certainly do not have them now,” he said. ”My remarks did not reflect my love for the Jewish people. I humbly ask the Jewish community to reflect on my actions on behalf of Jews over the years that contradict my words in the Oval Office that day.”

Mr. Foxman subsequently issued a statement accepting the new apology, but for many Jews the damage had already been done. In a recent column in several Jewish newspapers, the Washington journalist James D. Besser said the remarks should awaken Jews to the intense dislike for them among many evangelical Christians, except insofar as Jews are useful to the fulfillment of Christian apocalyptic prophecies.

The tapes have been particularly disturbing to people and groups who have worked to find common ground between Jews and evangelical Christians, many of whom say that their progress has now been significantly set back. For years, Mr. Graham stood apart from other evangelicals in his refusal to proselytize Jews directly, sharply disagreeing on the issue with his own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. Because of that stance, the American Jewish Committee presented Mr. Graham with its National Interreligious Award in 1977, calling him one of the century’s greatest Christian friends of Jews.

The taped remarks, however, will only help perpetuate the stereotypes that Jews and evangelicals hold about each other, said Rabbi Yechiel Z. Eckstein, president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, based in Chicago.

”Jewish friends are coming up to me now and saying, ‘See, we told you so — they’re all frauds,’ ” said Rabbi Eckstein, an Orthodox Jew who has become a liaison between Israel and evangelical Christians.

Mr. Graham’s friends and biographers have tried to come up with some explanation for an act that so sharply diverges from five decades of almost universally admired public behavior. Lewis Drummond, the Billy Graham Professor of Evangelism and Church Growth at Samford University, a Southern Baptist institution in Birmingham, Ala., said he believed that Mr. Graham was referring throughout his conversation only to those few Jews he considered unethical for distributing pornography.

”There’s not an anti-Semitic bone in his body,” said Dr. Drummond, a longtime friend of Mr. Graham’s who has written a book about him. Dr. Drummond recalled that Mr. Graham had always preached against intolerance, refusing — in the South of the 1950’s and 60’s — to hold his crusades in segregated auditoriums and inviting the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to join him in the pulpit.

Another biographer, William Martin of Rice University, suggested that Mr. Graham was thinking only of liberal Jews with whom he disagreed politically. Mr. Martin said that just as Mr. Graham grew up in a culture of segregation and moved beyond it, he had also evolved beyond what his thoughts were in 1972.

Mr. Graham’s statement yesterday expressed hope that he had grown past his words that day in the Oval Office. Describing himself as ”an old man of 83 suffering from several ailments,” he said his life had been a pilgrimage of growth and change.

”Every year during their High Holy Days, the Jewish community reminds us all of our need for repentance and forgiveness,” he wrote. ”God’s mercy and grace give me hope — for myself, and for our world.”

The above article can be found at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E0D91638F934A25750C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Nixon, Graham warn of “total domination of media” by “Satanic Jews” in 1972

Israel Shahak: Blowing the lid off the Talmud and Jewish fundamentalism

Posted in Essential Reading with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 3, 2008 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

If you read only one author on the subject of Talmudic Judaism, it ought to be Israel Shahak. In his trilogy of books on the subject, Shahak — a highly-respected Jewish-Israeli historian/researcher and human-rights campaigner — reveals the horrific truth behind “Talmudic ideology” and its fundamentalist, anti-gentile world-view.

Shahak’s most important academic contribution lies in the fact that he — as a speaker of Hebrew — is able to provide unparalleled insight into what is written in the Hebrew-language press itself about these contentious topics:

“All modern studies on Judaism, particularly by Jews, …bear the unmistakable marks of their origin: deception, apologetics or hostile polemics, indifference or even active hostility to the pursuit of truth,” Shahak writes on Page 22 of his “Jewish History, Jewish Religion.”

Two pages later, he adds: “Modern scholars of Judaism have not only continued the deception, but have actually improved upon the old rabbinical methods, both in impudence and in mendacity.”

Israel Shahak has written hundreds of thoroughly-researched articles and essays about these topics. His seminal work, however, is his brilliant trilogy of books, which consists of “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” (1994); “Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies” (1997); and “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel,” with co-writer Norton Mezvinsky (1999).

Choosing selections from Shahak’s trilogy is difficult because it contains so much revealing and highly relevant material — but here’s an attempt, nevertheless. The following quotations from “Jewish History, Jewish Religion” will hopefully encourage the reader to download and read all three books in their entirety (see below).

Again, the insight Shahak brings to these traditionally off-limit subjects — as a reader of Hebrew — cannot be overemphasized.

On “Jewish ideology” (i.e., Talmudic ideology) and its influence on Israeli military policies:

“Indeed, close analysis of Israeli grand strategies and actual principles of foreign policy, as they are expressed in Hebrew, makes it clear that it is ‘Jewish ideology,’ more than any other factor, which determines actual Israeli policies.” (Page 9)

“The dangers of the policies of [first Prime Minister of Israel David] Ben-Gurion or [former Israeli PM Ariel] Sharon, motivated by ‘Jewish ideology,’ are much worse than merely imperial policies, however criminal.” (Page 11)

“The influence of ‘Jewish ideology’ on many Jews will be stronger the more it is hidden from public discussion.” (Page 11)

On the longstanding campaign of disinformation perpetrated by mainstream Jewish writers on subjects such as Judaism, Jewish history, Talmud and Kabala, which has been pursued with the intention of deceiving non-Jews:

“Nor can one find in the numerous English-language ‘Jewish histories’ the elementary facts about the attitude of Jewish mysticism (so fashionable at present in certain quarters) to non-Jews: that they are considered to be, literally, limbs of satan… The great authorities, such as [prominent Kabala scholar] Gershom Scholem, have lent their authority to a system of deceptions in all the ‘sensitive’ areas, the more popular ones being the most deceptive and misleading.” (Page 16)

On the seeming contradiction between the racism inherent in Talmudic Judaism and the vaunted Jewish sympathy for the African-American cause:

“Surely one is driven to the hypothesis that quite a few of Martin Luther King’s rabbinical supporters were either anti-Black racists who supported him for tactical reasons of ‘Jewish interest’ (wishing to win Black support for American Jewry and for Israel’s policies) or were accomplished hypocrites, to the point of schizophrenia, capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of rabid racism to a proclaimed attachment to an anti-racist struggle — and back — and back again.” (Page 26)

On the apparently Satanic nature of Jewish mysticism, or Kabala:

“Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the Cabalists, are designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan… Indeed, the Cabalists believe that some of the sacrifices burnt in the temple were intended for Satan.” (Page 34)

On the centrality of the Talmud — as opposed to the Torah, or Old Testament — in modern Judaism:

“There is yet another misconception about Judaism which is particularly common among Christians, or people heavily influenced by Christian tradition and culture. This is the misleading idea that Judaism is a ‘Biblical religion’; that the Old Testament has in Judaism the same central place and legal authority which the bible has for Protestant or even Catholic Christianity. Again, this is connected with the question of interpretation. We have seen that in matters of belief there is great latitude. Exactly the opposite holds with respect to the legal interpretation of sacred texts. Here the interpretation is rigidly fixed — but by the Talmud rather than the bible itself.” (Page 36)

“It should therefore be clearly understood that the source of authority for all the practices of classical (and present day Orthodox) Judaism, the determining base of its legal structure, is the Talmud, or, to be precise, the so-called Babylonian Talmud…” (Page 39)

(For more on this topic — the replacement of the written tradition, i.e., the Torah, with an oral tradition, i.e., the Talmud — see the work of Michael A. Hoffman on “Judaism’s strange goods.” Download the book and accompanying audio files HERE)

On the true reasons — downplayed in mainstream history — for anti-Jewish feeling in medieval Europe, particularly in places like Poland, which saw the frequent oppression of the peasantry by both Jews and nobles:

“The legal status of a Jewish community in the period of classical Judaism was normally based on a ‘privilege’ — a charter granted by a king or a prince to the Jewish community and conferring on it the rights of autonomy — that is, investing the rabbis with the power to dictate to the other Jews. An important part of such privileges, going as far back as the late Roman Empire, is the creation of a Jewish clerical estate which, exactly like the Christian clergy in medieval times, is exempt from paying taxes to the sovereign and is allowed to impose taxes on the people under its control — the Jews — for its own benefit… Similar arrangements existed, within each country, during the whole period of classical Judaism… Because of all this, throughout the classical period (as well as in modern times) the rabbis were the most loyal, not to say zealous, supporters of the powers that be; and the more reactionary the regime, the more rabbinical support it had.” (Pages 54, 55)

“Outside the towns very many Jews throughout Poland… were employed as the direct supervisors and oppressors of the enserfed peasantry — as bailiffs of whole manors (invested with the landlord’s full coercive powers) or as lessees of particular feudal monopolies… in short, in eastern Poland, under the rule of the nobles (and of the feudalized church, formed exclusively from the nobility) the Jews were both the immediate exploiters of the peasantry and virtually the only town dwellers.” (Page 62)

“The peasants suffered worse oppression at the hands of both landlords and Jews; and one may assume that, except in times of peasant uprisings, the full weight of the Jewish religious laws against gentiles fell upon the peasants… These laws are suspended or mitigated in cases where it is feared that they might arouse dangerous hostility towards Jews; but the hostility of the peasants could be disregarded as ineffectual so long as the Jewish bailiff could shelter under the ‘peace’ of a great lord.” (Page 63)

“It must be pointed out that in all the worst anti-Jewish persecutions, that is, where Jews were killed, the ruling elite — the emperor and the pope, the kings, the higher aristocracy and the upper clergy as well as the rich bourgeoisie in the autonomous cities — were always on the side of the Jews. The latter’s enemies belonged to the more oppressed and exploited classes…” (Page 64)

On the unholy alliance, seen throughout modern history, between Zionists and so-called “anti-Semites”:

“Close relations have always existed between Zionists and anti-Semites: exactly like some of the European conservatives, the Zionists thought they could ignore the ‘demonic’ character of anti-Semitism and use the anti-Semites for their own purposes. Many examples of such alliances are well known. Herzl allied himself with the notorious Count von Plehve, the anti-Semitic minister of Tsar Nicholas II; Jabotinsky made a pact with Petlyura, the reactionary Ukrainian leader whose forces massacred some 100,000 Jews in 1918-1921; Ben-Gurion’s allies among the French extreme right during the Algerian war included some notorious anti-Semites who were, however, careful to explain that they were only against the Jews in France, not in Israel.” (Page 71)

“Perhaps the most shocking example of this type is the delight with which some Zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler’s rise to power, because they shared his belief in the primacy of ‘race’ and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews among ‘Aryans.’ They congratulated Hitler on his triumph over the common enemy — the forces of liberalism. Dr. Joachim Prinz, a Zionist rabbi who subsequently emigrated to the USA, where he rose to be vice-chairman of the World Jewish Congress and a leading light in the World Zionist Organization (as well as a great friend of Golda Meir), published in 1934 a special book, Wir Juden (’We, Jews’), to celebrate Hitler’s so-called German Revolution and the defeat of liberalism.” (Page 71)

Download “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” in PDF format HERE

The above represents only a tiny smattering of the many important lines of research pursued by Shahak in “Jewish History, Jewish Religion.” His other two books — “Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies” and “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” (with co-writer Norton Mezvinsky) — are no less essential for the serious student of Talmudic Judaism.

In “Open Secrets,” Shahak exposes Israel’s strategic foreign policy “as it really is.” To quote the back of the book: “Drawing solely on the Hebrew press, and working very much as an insider in the country, Shahak reveals that what Israeli Jews are told about their county’s foreign policy through the national media is entirely inconsistent with what the Israeli government is telling the rest of the world. Shahak demonstrates that, with the support of the US Jewish lobby, Israel is conducting a covert policy of expansionism and aims to gain political control, not just of Palestine, but of virtually the entire Middle East.”

Download “Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies” in PDF format HERE

“Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel,” meanwhile, provides the reader with “a thorough assessment of [Jewish] fundamentalism in modern Israel.” Again, to quote the back of the book: “The authors trace the history and development of Jewish fundamentalism, examining the various different strains, and identify the messianic tendency as the most dangerous… The authors argue that Jewish fundamentalism is essentially hostile to democracy because it opposes equality for all citizens and therefore it poses a considerable threat to democracy in Israel.”

Download “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” in PDF format HERE

Shahak’s work is so good, in fact, that some have suggested that the similarly-named Israel Shamir — who offers his own trilogy of books devoted to similar topics — is a disinformation agent meant to draw readers away from Shahak. For more on this hypothesis, click HERE and HERE [LINKS TO TWO SHAMIR ARTICLES].

Shahak died suddenly at age 68, only two months before the Mossad/CIA-perpetrated 9/11 attacks of 2001. Read his obituary from UK daily The Guardian HERE.

Israel Shahak: Blowing the lid off the Talmud and Jewish fundamentalism