Get PJ Media on your Apple

Barbier, Beelzebuth, and Anti-Semitism: The French Socialists’ Conundrum

The French socialists need Muslims to win elections. Some are prepared to overlook or condone their virulent anti-Semitism.

by
Michel Gurfinkiel

Bio

August 11, 2014 - 8:25 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page

These words were written by Christophe Barbier, the publisher and leading editorialist of France’s flagship left-of-center magazine, L’Express:

How will Jews who fear an antisemitic upsurge in France and opt to leave behind them those other Jews who cannot or do not want to go away clean themselves from an accusation of cowardice?

French Jews have been subjected to unprecedented violence and intimidation for weeks. Many of them are losing heart and considering emigrating, or are actually emigrating — by the thousands — to Israel or other places, including North America and Australia. Still, in the eyes and under the pen of the country’s leading journalist, they should be reviled as “deserters.

In fact, Barbier goes even further. He blames French Jews for many more sins beyond emigration: indulging in self-defense, “bunkerization,” support for the Benjamin Netanyahu government in Israel, and, last but not least, an alleged growing sympathy for Marine Le Pen and the far Right. French Jews, as he sees it, are becoming a threat to France as a nation and as a republic.

He warns them: “If they think that it is problematic to be Jewish while French, they vindicate those who say that it is problematic to be French while Jewish.”

Then there is the headline under which he runs his piece: ”Les Nouveaux Baal Zebud” (New Baal Zebuds). That Barbier or L’Express are unsure about the spelling of Baal-Zebuth (or Beelzebuth) is one thing (in the editorial proper, the correct, biblical orthography is restored). That they rhetorically and yet blatantly associate French Jews with Canaanite gods — described in the Hebrew Bible as sanguinary and deceptive, and widely identified in the Christian and post-Christian tradition and culture with the Devil himself — is another.

I will always remember how shocked I was in 1967 when General de Gaulle, the former head of the French Resistance and the founder of the French Fifth Republic, whom my French Jewish family venerated, blamed Israel for the Six-Day War. He also characterized the Jewish people as a whole as “an elite, assertive and domineering people, with large resources in “money, influence and propaganda in many countries, especially AmericaMutatis mutandis, I feel the same about Barbier today.

For years, I have wondered — and so have many other citizens of France — why de Gaulle indulged in anti-Semitism, or took up again with anti-Semitism, at the very end of his administration. I found some answers, from his education and early military career; grand strategy calculations. I now wonder why Barbier, the diminutive media de Gaulle of 2014, is turning against the Jews, too. I see at least one answer.

Anti-Jewish violence and abuse have been endemic in France ever since the early 2000s. As in other European countries, this has to do primarily, albeit not exclusively, with the growth of Muslim immigrant communities, where a casual, unreconstructed, almost candid anti-Semitism is part of everyday life and culture. Muslim anti-Semites are virulent by themselves. In addition, they grant French anti-Semitism at large a “critical mass,” and a new veneer of respectability or acceptability. Witness the success of Dieudonné Mbala Mbala, the French-Cameroonese anti-Semitic humorist and agitator.

In many ways, Muslim-linked anti-Semitism fluctuates according to the situation in the Middle East and the way it is covered both by Muslim media, either foreign or domestic (satellite TV channels from Arab countries, internet websites), and the mainstream French media (which, for various reasons, tend to be pro-Arab or pro-Islamic). A first peak of Muslim and non-Muslim violence was reached in the years 2000-2002, as a reaction to the so-called Second Intifada. Further outbursts occurred in 2006 (the Israel-Hezbollah war), in 2008-2009 (the first confrontation between Israel and Hamas), and in 2012 (the second Israel-Hamas confrontation).

Muslim and non-Muslim anti-Jewish violence may happen as well in between Israel-related conflicts. Although incidents may be fewer, they are often more lethal. Both the kidnapping and torturing to death in the Paris area of Ilan Halimi, a young Jewish salesman, in January 2006, and the murder in cold blood of a Jewish teacher and three Jewish preteen children in Toulouse in March 2012 occurred during periods of relative calm between Israel and the Palestinians. The same is true of the massacre at the Jewish museum in Brussels last May, presumably by a French Muslim terrorist.

Everyone expected the third Israel-Hamas confrontation this summer to translate into anti-Jewish violence. What came as a surprise, however, was the level of violence. BNVCA (the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti- Semitism), a private agency founded and directed by Sammy Ghozlan, a former police commissioner and a board member of Consistoire (the National Union of French Synagogues), reported at least one hundred anti-Semitic aggressions in less than three weeks. They ranged from verbal abuse to attacks on persons or property, including shops, restaurants and synagogues. Some attacks were carried out by just a few individuals; others were conducted by mobs in the wake of pro-Hamas demonstrations, and were very much like pogroms, a completely unprecedented outcome.

Top Rated Comments   
The irony is that a large majority of Jewish voters in France, like in the US, have voted for the socialist agenda over many decades. I feel little pity for leftist Jews.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Regarding antiSemitism on the left, Historian Robert Wistrich
Documented the long hateful relationship:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0803240767?pc_redir=1407281554&robot_redir=1
But as far as Muslim
AntiSemitism, it has little to do with Palestinian Arab 'suffering' and
Everything to do with the 1400 year teachings of the original Muslim
Terrorist, Muhammad.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
“What is going on now in terms of anti-Semitism is very worrying. … First, what is at stake is our Jewish brothers. … Then, it should be stressed that everybody is going to be somebody else’s Jew. … The next step is hatred for all French people.”

Bingo.

Sarkozy gets it.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (75)
All Comments   (75)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
All we are doing here is documenting the extinction of Jewish existence in Europe. With barely 1 million Jews remaining in Europe, all of Europe, and the reality that no matter what, no matter how bad things get no more than half will ever want or be able to emigrate we're witness to perhaps the last generation of any viable coherent recognizable Jewish community there. Say for the sake of argument a half million Jews emigrate in the next decade. This will leave the last half million of old, poor, assimilated Jews who will wink out in a generation or less. After that, we shouldn't worry or care what happens to Europe next. We can only hope they'll manage to lop off the heads of everyone who knew how to keep their nuclear weapons maintained.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, and several Rabbis even praised Hitler as being an angel sent by God to exterminate the Jewish people who don't follow Rabbinic teaching. One such praise-laidened sermon was even leaked out. You'd be pretty surprised at how little several of the Rabbis actually cared for the Jewry during that time, one by the name of Rebbe even acted as a Kapo for the Nazis. That's like the Pope actively promoting the extinction of Catholicism, to give an apt comparison.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
EJO1 seems to be a curious case of a antisemitic zionist -- someone who supports Israel and is against the Marxist attacks on it, and yet blames Marxism itself on the evil "Talmudic Jews" and their "secret teachings", old antisemitic canards espoused, most famously, by Hitler himself.

He is not alone, curiously enough. Julius Streicher (of all people!) declared in Nuremberg that he's a zionist, since in his own mind he was merely against the "parasitical Talmudic-Marxist Jews", not "real" non-Marxist Jews who want their own country. Another was G. K. Chesterton, who wrote a pro-zionist book as early as 1919(!) - but he wanted all Jews in Europe be forced to wear oriental clothes, to remind everybody (and themselves) they are really a seperate Palestinian nation, not "real" Brits (or French or European).
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
First of all, I'm against Marxism, period. If Marxism does try to attack Israel, guess what, I have every intention of defending Israel from it. And I have no intention of emulating the Nazis, since they were effectively Marxists in all but name only, even Hitler admitted this.

And BTW, I could care less if they wear the same clothes as us or anything like that. Again, I have no problems with the Jews themselves. Heck, I have a lot of respect for the Messianic Jews, and I don't have any problems with those few Jewish people who actually follow the Torah over, if not instead of, the Talmud. It's specifically the Talmudic Jewish people I have a huge problem with, and my problem with them doesn't even have anything to do with their hating Christianity. I can name several religions that inevitably hate Christianity, anyways, and even Jesus admitted as much when he said his words would divide households. My problem with the Talmud is specifically that it tries to supplant and destroy the Old Testament (and this isn't even opinion either, even the Talmud itself explicitly states this was the purpose. I even gave you guys a citation).
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Two thoughts. First, it seems, France is headed for a two-state solution: one for the indigenous French, and one for the Muslims. Of course, the Muslims may not accept that. They'll want a one-state solution: all of France.

Secondly, Barbier uses a very convenient tactic: You deserve what you're getting and you're a coward if you leave. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Were that the 6 million who perished in WWII have been such cowards.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Secondly, Barbier uses a very convenient tactic: You deserve what you're getting and you're a coward if you leave. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Were that the 6 million who perished in WWII have been such cowards."

The funny thing is, if you think about it, he was technically correct, at least regarding the Leftist Jewish people. It was effectively the Jewish people's fault that this current situation is occurring (after all, they did vote in large masses a Socialist government). And considering their leaving for Israel to either repeat the process there and Israel in much the same manner, or worse, report success, it does come across as cowardly (Had they truly had a shred of decency, they would have stuck around, tried to fix the damages they caused, even if it means losing their lives in the process. Had I been in their situation and I was effectively responsible for the very thing that's going to kill me, guess what, I'd stay behind and fix that mistake by stopping it, even if it costs me my life in the process). Heck, since you mentioned World War II and the deaths under the Holocaust, let me remind you of the Frankfurt School members: They fled Nazi Germany when they, for good reason, picked up the hint that they are going to massacre them for their Jewish heritage. Guess what? We basically played "Good Samaritan" on them, and they repaid us by trying to ruin America with a similar idea to, if not the exact same ideology and tripe that resulted in Germany coming under control of the Nazis. Honestly, had it been up to me, I'd just deny their entry into America and deport them, knowing full well they'll just use their refugee status to basically destroy America from within with their Socialist teachings.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Stop already with the Frankfurt School. A bunch of Germans who happen to be Jews talking to each other and with no effect what so ever on anything. Jews in Germany constituted 1% of the population. How in the world did they have an effect on anything? Similarly in France, Jews constitute less than 1% of the population. It is almost immaterial what they think and how they vote. Somehow you must believe that Jews have outsized powers that allow so few to influence so many. You must think Jews are supermen from some alien planet (Krypton anyone?). Don't Germans think for themselves? Don't French think for themselves? Don't Americans think for themselves. Jews don't have mind control. I've encountered others like you. You are simply so full of hate you that you have become divorced from Christianity. Yes, you wear it out to parade it before everyone. Inside, though, you are not a Christian, you're something quite different.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hitler wasn't really all that wrong in thinking that vast majority of the French would think that the "Final Solution" was a pretty good deal from their point of view, although they didn't want to know all of the details.

The French haven't changed.

One of the Biggest Lies of WW2 is that the "Resistance" in France ever had widespread support. Hitler was the one who had widespread support, but of course once his regime fell, the French did their thing and worked overtime to convince everyone "Oh, we always hated him!!"

sure you did.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
To be fair, we Americans were also slightly guilty of this as well, as we sent several Jewish refugees back to Germany due to quota systems in place, despite intelligence making clear Jewish people were at the very least being persecuted, maybe even shipped to Death Camps.

And honestly, it was Voltaire's fault that France supported anti-Semitism. Back when France was the Sister of Rome, while they did have unease of Jewish people, and there were renegade Christians who tried to exterminate Jewish people for crimes they didn't commit, they most certainly didn't try to exterminate them from the face of the Earth (heck, Jewish people were even allowed to practice in private), unlike, say, Islam tried to do with them as doctrine.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Slight correction. Jewish religious law does not require praying for France in particular, of course - such a prayer is not said in American synagogues, of course. There is, however, a Talmudic recommendation to pray for the safety of whatever country a Jew is a citizen of, since "were it not for government, each will eat the other alive". In other words Jews are required - religiously - to be good citizens. One way to express this is that in many synagogues and countries they pray for their country's good.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here's the bit I don't get. Europe is watching it's Jews leave and being replaced by Muslims. The university professors and Nobel prize winners go and the car burners come. Purely out of self interest and even self preservation you'd think they'd be shouting out something. Again, I don't get it.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, you would think so. But European antisemitism is irrational.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
It makes as much sense as mimes, and thinking that Jerry Lewis is the Greatest Comedian who Ever Lived.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Muslims bring death and destruction to all 'others' whereever they gain even a small degree of influence - almost always as a part of the greater Left. That France doesn't realize it is importing its own destruction, even as the leaders of our own country urge just such an action here, is indicative of the West's decline in general.

Am Chai Israel.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Unfortunately, Talmudic Judaism is not any different (I've read some of the stuff from the Talmud, and it even practices something very similar to Taqqiya, not to mention desecrates and destroys the Old Testament). Even if it weren't for the Muslims, we'd probably still be in this rut right now, especially with socialism. I could care less about whether they wish to follow Jesus, as not everyone will follow him. It would be nice, but not all Abrahamic religions believe in Jesus as being God's Son. What I cannot tolerate, however, is religions supposedly being of the Abrahamic religion utterly tarnishing the Old Testament when they were sworn to uphold them, and that includes certain Protestant sects and even Cafeteria Catholics on our end. That's why I have disgust for Talmudic Judaism, as they are not serving God at all. I won't mind Judaism that actually follows the Old Testament/Torah to the best of their ability, and again, if they don't believe in Jesus Christ, fine with me, as long as they at LEAST follow the Old Testament to the best of their abilities. If they not only don't follow the Old Testament, but even go so far as to desecrate it like the Talmud does, I'm sorry, but I simply cannot tolerate that. God is our Master, our Ruler, the one we have to pour our lives into and be eternal Slaves to. Desecrating the laws he, our Superior, made is not good at all.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Please read anti-Jewish diatribes by Christians against Jews which begin in the Second Century. The problem is that what you know of Jewish diatribes against Christianity is from people who one-sidely present those diatribes. They do not present the other side, the Christian diatribes. So for you, Christianity is all sweetness and light and Judaism is the opposite. While that makes you feel good, look at depredations inflicted on Jews by European Christianity over the last 1700 years (after Rome became Christian). It is not a pretty picture. Christian love was certainly not at the forefront of Christian actions all during that period.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
We Christians have messed up at times, I'll be the first to admit that. However, unlike Islam or Judaism, Christianity hasn't had a doctrine requiring that we exterminate and lie to anyone who isn't one of us. Read this if you don't believe me, and he cites a lot of Jewish people who made this clear, even a few rabbis: http://talmudical.blogspot.com/

Heck, they even supplanted the Torah. But hey, don't take it from me, read this: Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).”
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you understand Talmudical logic, you would understand that the statement does not supplant the Torah. Rather, the Torah is a written document and can easily be referenced. The words of the Scribes were transferred orally and could be forgotten (until the redaction of the Mishnah and then the Gemara). Hence, their words had to be heeded more carefully so as to not to be forgotten. BTW The words of the Scribes gave flesh to the bones of the Torah. The Torah is a document that cries out for completion. But that is its beauty. To wit, when God created the world, He left it for humankind to complete. Comparably, when He gave Israel the Torah, He left it for Israel to complete it as well. That is what you get in the Talmud.

Also I looked at your link. A wonderfully antisemitic site. If that's your source for information, no wonder you have such a jaundiced attitude of Jews and Judaism. Before you judge Jews and Judaism through the filter of that link, maybe you should sit down and learn the Talmud. You should start with Baba Meteziah (since you seem to have access to the Soncio edition). You will find it is a combo of Jewish Law (as spelled out in the Mishnah, but ultimately from the Torah) and discussions in the accompanying Gemara on the sources and clarifications of the Law found it the Mishnah. Occasionally there are stretches of folklore (aggadatha). Thus, for example, Chapter 5 of Gittin discusses aspects of the Destruction of the Second Temple. Of course, Gittin, being a tractate about divorce, is an appropriate place for such a discussion, in an allegorical way.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't know if you have read the Talmud, but:

1. First, the vast majority of anti-Christian quotes allegedly from it are either pure invention or distortion from anti Semitic web sites. For example, the accusation that the Jews are required to desecrate the host celebrated in mass, or to use blood in Passover, are pure invention.

2. The Talmud is about 3000 pages - and while, yes, it has anti-Christian feelings, put together they amount perhaps to a few pages; to judge all of the Talmud by that is like judging all of the NT by the antisemitic passages in John. This, incidentally, as opposed to the Koran, where killing the infidels or their coming destruction is a major theme.

3. Finally, it might be hard for a non-Jew to understand this, by not everything anybody says in the Talmud is binding religious law. And that includes the disparaging comments about Jesus by some rabbis. They are no more than their opinion.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
1. I heard that claim, but unfortunately, one of my sources revealed that the Talmud actually does say those things, and in fact, the translations often omit those things to deceive people who aren't Jewish. It's taqqiya in other words. This site even makes this clear, and BTW, it's run by an actual Rabbinic Jewish group, the Lubaviches: https://web.archive.org/web/20140621024650/http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm

2. There are two Talmuds, actually: The Babylonian Talmud, and the Jerusalem Talmud.

3. Except when a passage in the Talmud explicitly states that the Talmud is to be elevated to such an extent that it's actually required that the Jewish people actually ignore the Torah.

In fact, I suggest you read this: https://web.archive.org/web/20140401112132/http://revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

As well as this: http://talmudical.blogspot.com/

And believe me, he cites a lot of sources from various places besides the Talmud, some of which are even of Israeli origin.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
(Sigh)

Yes, there are two Talmuds, but when someone speaks just of *the* Talmud, the meaning is the Babylonian Talmud. In any case there is little in the Jerusalem Talmud to do with Jesus, either. I happen to be reading the Talmud in the oriignal Hebrew and Aramaic. If you can tell me where, exactly, it demands desecrating the host, or using blood for matzos, I will be thankful. I certainly never noticed such a claim. Can you give the tractate and page where these "commands" allegedly appear?

Incidentally, since the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist dates only from the 13th century, it would be far-sighted indeed for the Talmudic sages to demand the host be stabbed or desecrated, considering the Talmud was sealed by 500 AD.

The other claims you make stem, I fear, from ignorance of history. For example, yes, the Talmud exagerrates the number of deaths caused by various rulers. So what? So do ALL ancient sources, from the Egyptians to mideaval writers. Hindu writing often speaks literally of billions and hundreds of billions of enemies slaughtered, arrows shot in battle, etc. Are all Hindus therefore evil liars? Also, OF COURSE Jusaism today is different than the Judaism of the OT -- or else you'll have Jews publicly executing anybody who drives on Saturday, or eats shellfish. Christianity today is also different from Jesus' teaching, as is EVERY religion.

Finally, the point of having the Talmud claimed as "more authoritive" than the Bible, is the same as that of claiming the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is never wrong: the purpose is to avoid splits and sectionalism, because it is always possible for some sect to claim it is "more true to the original" than the current Church (or Jewish establishment). It is not really a theological point, but a political one.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is only one real citation to Jesus by name. It is in Sanhedrin around 86. All other citations that are claimed to slander Jesus do not mention his name. Some such places clearly refer to a different time period than Jesus and so, unless cleverly disguised, are not about him. It's just that people like EJO1 like to take them out of context and throw it in our faces. They and he ignore the bitter Christian diatribes against Jews in that period.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'll give you citations, but I don't ever recall actually claiming the Talmud specifically stated they "desecrate" the host, or the article claiming such (though they most certainly claimed that Jesus is boiling in hot excrement and that his mom was a prostitute, that Jesus is one of the "infidels," and have even mandated that they conduct book burnings of the New Testament whenever possible, as cited by BT Shabbath 116a for the NT burning bit specifically. Heck, the bits about Jesus and the Virgin Mary are even stated in the prayers people are obligated to say daily after bar mitzvah/bat mitzvah, which, BTW, was exclusive to the Talmud.).

And as far as the blood from matzos, if you're referring to the blood sucking during circumcision, also known as "metzitzah b’peh", it's basically advocated in the Mishnah and the Gemara (more specifically, Shabbath 19:2 and Shabbat 133b, respectively), as well as successive halachic texts. In fact, Shabbat 133b contains the commandment requiring that Jewish infant males are to undergo metzitzah b'peh.

Like I said, I could care less if they think Jesus is the savior or believe in the New Testament. After all, not everyone will believe in Jesus anyways. While it would be nice if everyone did, even Jesus realized not everyone will believe. My main concern is with their desecrating the Old Testament and even arrogantly placing the Rabbis above even God himself. That's my main problem, and if Christians decided to do just that, guess what, I'd go against the sects of Christianity that decided to do just that all the same.

And about your point about the Talmud being more authoritative, the difference that the Pope at least is obligated to still be submissive to God himself, simply being God's representative, and still uses Biblical teaching and paid respect to both Testaments except those specifically stated by Jesus to no longer apply such as shellfish, while the Talmud explicitly states within its texts that the Torah (Old Testament) is to be ignored ("My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).” --Erubin 21b (Soncino edition), Babylonian Talmud), that they consider God Himself to be inferior to the Rabbinic council to such an extent that He must submit to their vote ("Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” —BT Bava Metzia 59b) and Tikkunei Zohar 1:27 even admits that the Talmud, despite the PR, was never actually from Moses, but "where Moses is buried."

Oh, and BTW, Jesus in Matthew 23:31 accused the Pharisees of being the descendants of the men who murdered the prophets (most notably Isaiah), which even the Talmud admits pridefully was true in BT Yebamoth 49b. Even "The International Review of Jewish Genealogy" expressed doubts about Talmudic Judaism being of lineage from King David, by any of the families listed, citing there isn't any positive proof of this.

And BTW, the Talmud also advocates several things that are eerily similar to certain stuff from the Quran:

Only Jews are human. Non-Jews are not human.
—BT Bava Metzia 114b. BT Kerithoth 6b and 58a.

Regarding a Jew stealing from a non-Jew, the act is permitted.
— BT Sanhedrin 57a.

Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a gentile.
—BT Baba Kamma 113a.

If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
—BT Moed Kattan 17a.

I'm doubtful even the Catechism promoted similar things to the ones listed above, though I can't be absolutely certain about that.

And that's not even getting into some things the Rabbis themselves stated and were on record for stating, even in Israeli publications, plus stuff like the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Since I gave you specific citations from the Talmud, I suggest you start reading them in Aramaic/Hebrew, especially when even rabbis admit that the English versions of the Talmud omit certain things from the original.

I would never dream of killing the Jewish people, as I'd rather convert them than commit genocide. That alone proves I'm not anti-Semitic, as if I were, I'd be calling for genocide.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
You simply don't understand the Talmud. I looked up the business about Isaiah's death. The story is folklore and is centered on the evil of King Manasseh. Consult II Kings to see how the bible viewed him (the worst of all the kings of Judah). I also looked up the comment about non-Jews not being human. The reference is to ritual defilement. For purposes of ritual defilement, dead non-Jews are considered not to be ritually defiling to Jews. In that regard, you have to consider that the Pharasaic objective was to make the Torah a living and livable document (as part of God's dicta to them). They interpreted the law to exclude dead non-Jews from defiling Jews, thereby making life a lot easier.

And BTW, to quote Matthew in the absence of knowing the history of the period is simply less than bright. The Sadducess, the Pharisees, the Essense and othe groups used polemic all the time against each other. You're simply giving me one polemic against the Pharisees. You also ignore the fact there were no Pharisees in the First Temple period and that all Jews, including Apostles, were descendants of those Jews whom you accuse of killing Isaiah. Of cours, you contradictorily say that no Jews are descendant of David in that period. Since King Manasseh, a sion of David, supposedly killed Isaiah, you cannot cite Matthew to me. (Actually, Matthew was probably referring to the death of the priest Zachariah mentioned near the end of II Chronicles.)

We can go on like this, but your comments are off the wall for the most part because you have no clue about Talmudic logic.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
You're right. Having never read the Talmud at all, and only attending one Bar Mitzvah for a friend of mine who was Jewish, I can't claim to understand Talmudic logic. But Michael Hoffman, who has spent a whole decade doing intensive study of not only the Talmud, including the Aramaic/Hebrew texts, but also read up on several Jewish publications, many of them being pro-Talmud, most certainly does fully understand Talmudic logic, so I do have to place trust in what he, Tzvi Marx, and all those guys have to say, especially when one of them, a Rabbi, actually has full working knowledge on the Talmud (has to if he's going to be a Rabbi) and thus most certainly knows what he is talking about.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
(Sigh) practically all your quotes are taken out of context - details in this excellent web site - http://talmud.faithweb.com . Please look it up. You seem to be getting all your "information" about the Talmud from antisemitic web sites, which is like basing one's view of black people on kkk web sites.

Incidentally, the commandment of "metzizah bapeh" has to do with circumcision rituals. It has nothing at all to do Passover or the ingredients for matzah - the unleavened bread of the Passover Seder. How you connect the two is beyond me.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Okay, my mistake regarding the matzah. In that case, the source I'm using definitely doesn't use that. Sorry for the mix-up.

And BTW, Michael Hoffmann is NOT an anti-Semite. Heck, he actually told off Stormfront, a racist, white-supremacist, anti-Semitic group, for using his works for the promotion of anti-Semitic principles. He's also had ten years to do all the research on the Talmud, both extensive reading on it and even consulting various people who definitely would know the Talmud well (ie, Rabbis) and have been well-versed in its study to verify their claims, and even using various Israeli-published texts. And besides, he also made clear he is not motivated by hate, but love.

And BTW, he has linked to a site that is actually owned by a Rabbinic Orthodox Hasidic Jewish group called the Lubavitch group, and they confirmed that the so-called "forgeries" in the Talmud are in fact all valid. Here's the site in question: https://web.archive.org/web/20140621024650/http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm

And considering at least one student who had pro-Soviet biases told me that the Soviets took Marx out of context even when it was blatantly clear that they definitely took him in context, no, that tactic of "I'm taking things out of context" is not going to work on me, especially when that phrase is more or less a way to cover your or someone else's butt of wrongdoing even when it is blatantly obvious they are guilty. Besides, do you expect me to believe that a person who for ten whole years not only heavily invested his time in doing in-depth research on the Talmud, but also consulted various quotes and works made by various Jewish people, even scholars, would "take it out of context?" That's like saying God took his Bible out of context.

And I'm doubtful an anti-Semite would even consult to the works of Jewish people specifically because they were Jewish, yet Hoffman clearly did, and from people high on up in the ranks, not to mention, and even from people within Israel. Heck, I can even name one of the books he consulted: Hesronot Ha-shas, which was reprinted in 1989 and reveals all the things that were censored in the non-Hebrew/Aramaic versions of the Talmud. Keep in mind this was made in Israel and in fact published in Tel Aviv.

I might as well point out that the Rabbis have a tendency to lie to those who aren't Jewish to advance the cause. In fact, that's exactly what happened in a debate during the 13th Century between Nicolas of Donin and Rabbi Yeheil. Yeheil claimed, when asked, that the Talmud had no attacks on Jesus, but Nicolas of Donin, who not only was well-versed in Hebrew/Aramaic, but was himself a Jewish convert to Christianity, knew he was lying. Rabbi Tzvi Marx in the May-June 1994 issue of Tikkun: A Bi-Monthly Jewish Critique magazine even confirmed that non-Hebrew/Aramaic texts of the Talmud specifically omit several things to fool non-Jews.

I don't wish to believe that the Talmudic Jewish people are backstabbing us, I want to believe that they actually do practice the Old Testament faithfully, but unfortunately the evidence that they are desecrating it for the Talmud is overwhelming, with even Talmudic Jewish people, several of them being very high up, admitting this.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nations that persecute the Jews never seem to prosper. It's almost as if it were some sort of test. As for the Jews, once the canaries start to die the survivors owe nothing more to the coal miners. It's time to leave.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
You know, the Anti-Defamation League was one of the reasons why America never seems to prosper, and that was a Jewish organization (and not even a secular one, but a religious one. Heck, it's full name even referenced the act of circumcision, and Abe Foxman was apparently a religious jew from what I could gather) and seemed to be heavily biased for Judaism and left-wing politicking, and is probably one of the biggest reasons for America's decline. And I think one of the May 1968 riots ringleaders, nicknamed "the Red" for his ginger hair and for his Communist leanings, had parents who were Holocaust survivors. Just pointing out that Jewish persecution isn't always the reason why nations never prosper.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
America never prosper? Are you nuts? We've prospered like gang-busters since WW II. Yea, we've had slow periods, but the arc has always pointed up.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let's see, we've got Abe Foxman claiming that Passion of the Christ was somehow anti-Semitic, both before and after seeing the movie, even though it was an accurate portrayal of the death of Jesus Christ, and constantly claims Christianity mercilessly tries to exterminate Christianity, and the ADL implements hate speech constantly to shut down all criticisms, no matter how valid, about what is going on, and their organization was founded on a lie (namely, that Leo Frank was a victim of anti-Semitism even though he was found guilty of murdering a teenage girl in date rape with the evidence being extremely overwhelming against him), and yet when the Weinstein Brothers made 40 Days and 40 Nights, a blatantly anti-Catholic raunchfest that was actually released during Lent, the ADL does absolutely nothing to even defend the Catholics who quite understandably see it as being extremely anti-Catholic in its depiction of Catholics. Yes, America is in fact going down the tubes, and the ADL is definitely not helping things.

Yes, America is still an influence over the world, but so was the Roman Empire, yet it was blatantly corrupt during its later years even with its firm grip on most of Europe. That's what I mean by it "not prospering." Not merely it being a superpower, but I mean morally, spiritually, especially when we've got a lot of shows on right now that promote decadent behavior, and a lot of education that is promoting decadent behavior and anti-Christian propaganda.

And BTW, May 1968 basically resulted in the collapse of France right now (heck, Generation Identity even made that bit clear in its manifesto).
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

France wrote its own death warrant when it chose to import cheap ME labor rather than deal with its demographic decline. The wind was sown then, the whirlwind is ripening. The land will endure, but will there be any French people left in a century?
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, France may have written its Death Warrant when they started listening to the likes of Rousseau and Voltaire instead of to God, raised humanity and liberty as their God, and tried to destroy Christianity back during the Enlightenment. The ME situation was probably the last straw.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Once dubbed the world's 'richest apartment building’.. The 18-room, 7-1/2 bath duplex apartment featured five fireplaces was reportedly used to host parties on an almost daily basis”

The French Republic should take back everything it said about Marie Antoinette.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ann Coulter mirrored similar sentiments about how Marie Antoinette was unfairly reviled, as did TraditionInAction.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
"In Greater Lille, where half the population is deemed to be Muslim”

And so pass the French people from the face of Earth. Adieu Assur, adieu Ecbatana, adieu Paris.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
More like "Damn good riddance".
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
France used to be the sister of Rome. I as a Catholic will not just give up on it. I will make sure its Catholicism is restored to its full glory, and that the Philosophes are thrown into the void of history where the belong, completely forgotten, and that Christianity is fully dominant in France once again as it was before the Revolution.
10 weeks ago
10 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All