|
|
October 18th, 2008 | #1 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Mazonnawar Citadel
Posts: 775
|
Jews Ritually Murder Non-jewish Children
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jewish Ritual Murder video featuring Arnold Leese's book of same name. Jewish Ritual Murder Revisited part 1 Part 2- Part 3- |
||||
October 19th, 2008 | #3 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Mazonnawar Citadel
Posts: 775
|
JEWISH RITUAL MURDER
by ARNOLD LEESE Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
December 16th, 2008 | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NY, nigger and fag capitol of the east!!
Posts: 93
|
Great info on filthy jews!!! Truly they are the devil's own seed!!
|
January 3rd, 2009 | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: With my awesome parents
Posts: 7,802
|
|
June 4th, 2011 | #6 |
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Erich Bischoff contra Hermann Strack: A Forgotten Chapter in anti-Semitic History
Erich Bischoff contra Hermann Strack: A Forgotten Chapter in anti-Semitic History Like most students of the jewish question I am well aware of Professor Hermann Strack; Protestant theologian and specialist in Hebraica, who wrote the classic defence of jewry against the charge of ritual murder or the ‘blood libel’. (1) This eloquent and learned defence has often been; and continues to be, quoted and cited in jewry’s defence on this score. (2) What I was unaware of however; and I haven’t seen any reference to this in literature so I can only presume it has been either left out or has been forgotten over time, was that Dr. Erich Bischoff; the anti-Semitic academic expert on theology and jewry, who argued that jews could read some of their own works; most notably certain passages in the Zohar, as injunctions on behalf of collecting gentile blood for ritual purposes, was in fact a disciple and student of Strack’s. (3) We can see this in one of Bischoff’s first published works that I have been able to locate; ‘Jesus and the Rabbis’, (4) which takes a detailed look at jewish traditions concerning Jesus. (5) In it Bischoff is not injudicious towards the jews, but takes; much as Strack himself did, strong offense about the various claims made about Jesus by the jews and points out that such traditions can be overcome, but not easily. Bischoff however tells us that his relationship with Strack was that of disciple with his master (6) and it is further confirmed by Strack’s contribution of an afterword to the work. (7) It also happens to have been published as part of a series of monographs by Strack’s own Institutum Judaicum in Berlin! It seems that between 1906 and 1922; the year of Strack’s death, that Bischoff further developed his thought regarding the jews and seemingly unencumbered by Strack’s need to convert jews to Protestant Christianity by being friendly with them. Bischoff went somewhat further and argued that the jews had rendered themselves; via serving their own interests, contrary to Germans and Germany. (8) It is quite possible; even probable, that the pivotal event in Bischoff’s scholarly development towards an actively anti-Semitic position in regards to jews was the first world war. As this helped to fuel the fire of German nationalism and the flowering of anti-Semitic thought in the wake of the Protocols of Zion and the Bolshevik revolution was helped along by this increasingly strident nationalist sentiment among gentiles as well as the rapid spread of militant forms of Zionist and Marxist ideology among the jews. (9) We can see the culmination of Bischoff’s anti-Semitic intellectual development regarding the issue of jewish ritual murder in the publication of his forgotten demolition and critique of his mentor Strack’s case for the defence: ‘Das Blut in jüdischem Schriftum und Brauch’. (10) This makes sense of Bischoff’s later appearance as the principal witness for the defence in the attempted libel suit against Julius Streicher and ‘Der Stürmer’ for arguing that jews have committed; and do commit, ritual murder for religious reasons. (11) Bischoff’s standing as an highly-qualified expert and his then recent publication of a work that argues just what Streicher had done tells us why the German court dismissed the case against Streicher without resorting to the standard intellectual cop-out of arguing that the judge/court was anti-Semitic or ‘biased’ in some way used by some authors to make up for a lack of research on their part. (12) The reason that Bischoff seems to have been forgotten by anti-Semites seems to be, because his writings on the subject of jews were only ever available in German and because of a considerable gap in the literature on anti-Semitism of this period relating to Hermann Strack, Julius Streicher and Theodor Fritsch: Erich Bischoff has simply been largely forgotten. (13) It is somewhat bemusing to note that Alan Steinweis in his recent defamation of anti-Semitic scholars of this particular period seems not to even have known of Bischoff’s existence even though he discusses work in which Bischoff’s work is cited on numerous occasions! (14) That said his work has fortunately been noticed by the odd specialist. (15) I will be commenting extensively on Bischoff’s work in the future and quite possibly translating some of it into English. Bischoff was certainly one of the very best anti-Semitism has ever had to offer; along with Karl Georg Kuhn and Gerhard Kittel, on the subject of the inhumanity and insanity of Judaism. He deserves to be remembered as one of the greatest minds that anti-Semitism has ever produced rather than being simply consigned to obscurity. References (1) Hermann Strack, Henry Blauchamp (Trans.), 1909, ‘The Jew and Human Sacrifice: An Historical and Sociological Inquiry’, 1st Edition, Bloch: New York (2) For example in Jonathan Frankel, 1997, ‘The Damascus Affair: “Ritual Murder,” Politics, and the Jews in 1840’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 468 (3) Arnold Leese, 1938, ‘My Irrelevant Defence’, 1st Edition, Imperial Fascist League: London, p. 5 (4) Erich Bischoff, 1905, ‘Jesus und die Rabbinen’, 1st Edition, Schriften des Institutum Judaicum: Berlin (5) Peter Schäfer, 2007, ‘Jesus in the Talmud’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton echoes many of Bischoff’s judgements however implicitly and sometimes against his own explicit reasoning. (6) Bischoff, ‘Jesus und die Rabbinen’, Op. Cit. (7) Ibid, pp. 104-107 (8) I infer this from Bischoff’s association with Theodor Fritsch after the First World War as this was Fritsch, the Reichshammerbund and Hammer Verlag’s general position on the matter. I can see nothing in Bischoff’s corpus of work to suggest otherwise. (9) See for example Albert Lindemann, 1997, ‘Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 100-101; Robert Lougee, 1962, ‘Paul de Lagarde 1827-1891: A Study of Radical Conservatism in Germany’, 1st Edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, pp. 245-252 (10) Erich Bischoff, 1929, ‘Das Blut in jüdischem Schriftum und Brauch’, 1st Edition, Hammer Verlag: Leipzig (11) Leese, Op. Cit., p. 5 (12) Randall Bytwerk, 2001, ‘Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor of the Notorious Anti-Semitic Newspaper Der Stürmer’, 1st Edition, Cooper Square Press: New York, pp. 126-130 (13) E. Klauke, 2011, ‘Theodor Fritsch (1852-1933): The ‘Godfather’ of German Antisemitism’ in R. Haynes, M. Rady (Eds.), 2011, ‘In the Shadow of Hitler: Personalities of the Right in Central and Eastern Europe’, 1st Edtion, I. B. Tauris: London has realised much as I did a few years ago that Fritsch has barely even been studied (although he has been noticed and commented on in passing by specialists such as Peter Pulzer, Fritz Stern and Richard Levy) by scholars of anti-Semitism in spite of his central importance to giving it much of its intellectual basis and popularising it as well as his important role in helping the NSDAP achieve power and enhancing Goebbels’ anti-Semitism for example. Klauke has promised a biography of Fritsch, which should make interesting reading although it will be no easy task considering the amount of correspondence Fritsch had and also how much he himself wrote in his periodicals. (14) Alan Steinweis, 2008, ‘Studying the Jew: Scholarly anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton (15) David Biale, 2007, ‘Blood and Belief: The Circulation of a Symbol between Jews and Christians’, 1st Edition, University of California Press: Los Angeles, pp. 132-135 ---------------- This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...nn-strack.html
__________________
|
August 7th, 2012 | #7 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9
|
I have to be a bit vague here- but there was a cold case murder of a pre-teen boy in my area some time ago that I wonder about. It took place during Purim and the eyewittnesses described a person of interest Semetic looking. Throat cut, the whole thing. Hushed up ever since. Makes ya wonder..
|
March 8th, 2013 | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,105
|
A more than a century old painting, portraying human sacrifice practiced by Jews revealed
Quote:
|
|
March 9th, 2013 | #9 |
'God Belief, German Piety'
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,910
|
There is no-doubt that Jewish ritual sacrifice is real and not the product of so-called 'anti-Semitism'. I would like to pose a few questions about this issue.
1. Would it be fair to say that ritual sacrifice is connected to Rabbis that follow the Talmud and the Kabbalah? Rather than the Torah itself? 2. Rabbis that follow their religious instruction from the Torah, rather than the Talmud, can they also follow the Kabbalah if they so choose? 3. Apparently, the Kabbalah is the mystical occult teaching behind Freemasonry. Do Freemasons conduct ritual sacrifice as well? 4. It is claimed that Freemasonry is in fact Satanism by another name. Are Rabbis that follow the Talmud, and Kabbalah, practicing Satanists? 5. Where does this leave orthodox Jews that follow the Torah? “Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer.” I don't know what to make of Viki Polin and her infamous appearance on Oprah Winfrey. She may well have been severely traumatized by the years of sexual abuse by her father. And to come to terms with this, her psyche 'invented' the Satanic element encouraged by her Jewish psychiatrist. However, Viki Polin has never gone back on her words and said she was wrong about her claims on the show. That her Jewish family were indeed Satanists and a Rabbi raped her on the Torah scrolls. Her personal demeanor today, as witnessed in the above video, is vastly improved from her appearance on the Oprey Winfrey show.
__________________
"Man is not God. But he is God's birthplace. God exists and grows in man. If God does not come in man, He never comes~ Hence the German religion is the religion of high faith in man."-Alfred Rosenberg Last edited by Gerry Fable; March 9th, 2013 at 11:13 PM. |
September 26th, 2016 | #10 |
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Brother Theobald’s Testimony on Jewish Ritual Murder
Brother Theobald’s Testimony on Jewish Ritual Murder In the first classic jewish ritual murder case in the medieval world, which concerned the murder of the twelve year old William of Norwich by local jews. The only chronicler of the details of the case, Thomas of Monmouth, cites the testimony of one of his fellow brethren named Theobald in regards to why the jews committed the deed. Thomas of Monmouth writes: ‘We also interpose as an argument of faith and truth what we have heard told by Theobald, a person who was once a Jew and later one of our monks. He told us that in the ancient writings of their ancestors it was written that Jews could not achieve their freedom or ever return to the lands of their fathers without the shedding of human blood. Hence it was decided by them a long time ago that every year, to the shame and affront of Christ, a Christian somewhere on earth be sacrificed to the highest God, and so they take revenge for the injuries of Him, whose death is the reason for their exclusion for their fatherland and their exile as slaves in foreign lands. Therefore, the leaders and rabbis of the Jews who dwell in Spain, at Narbonne, where the seed of kings and their glory, flourishes greatly, meet together, and cast lots of all the regions where Jews live. Whichever region was chosen by lot, its capital city had to apply that lot to the other cities and towns, and the one whose name comes up will carry out that business, as decreed. In that year, however, when William, the glorious martyr of God, was killed, it so happened that the lot fell on the men of Norwich, and all the communities of the Jews of England offered their consent by letters or by messengers for the crime to be performed at Norwich. ‘I was at the time in Cambridge, a Jew among Jews, and the crime of the action performed was not hidden from me. With the passage of time, when I learned of the glorious miracles which by divine virtue happened through the merits of the blessed martyr William, I was greatly afraid and, consulting my conscience and left Judaism and converted to the faith of Christ.’ These words, indeed, of the Jewish convert we believe to be all the truer for having learned them from a converted enemy, revealed by someone privy to the secrets of the enemies.’ (1) Theobald, a convert from Judaism, has long been the subject of debate. Nearly all scholars dismiss his assertions as groundless, but some scholars have even claimed that Theobold never existed. (2) That said modern historians tend towards the belief that he did in fact exist. (3) Now contrary to much of the previous commentary on Theobald: (4) I don’t think Theobald’s claims are as far-fetched as these scholars assume. Langmuir has argued that ‘we would know’ about such a cult or practice due to the ‘massive amount of documentary evidence’ that we have. (5) This is not necessarily true because there are a lot of things we don’t know about Judaism despite the aforementioned ‘massive evidence’. We don’t know why the meat and milk differentiation in the laws of Kashruth came to be interpreted figuratively (i.e. you cannot mix meat and milk) in the Mishnah when it was only previously interpreted literally (i.e. you cannot cook an animal in their own mother’s milk). (6) For another we have little information concerning the Cathar heresy in a similar time period, which has led some scholars to conclude that it was never a defined religious community but rather the figment of the imagination of Catholic scholastics. (7) Thus saying ‘we would know about it’ is not an argument against Theobald’s assertions and nor is it absurd that we wouldn’t know about it. After all what has survived to be studied and read by historians to this day from the pre-modern past is largely a historical accident. I contend that there are actually traces of this kind in the historical record, but that in order to see them. We have to get forget the absurd presumption, common to many modern historians, that the jews have never done anything wrong and therefore we must always look for alternative explanations for accusations levelled at them. Horowitz has for example demonstrated that when we remove this intellectual filter and examine jews as we would any other people. We see that they have frequently exhibited an intense religious based hatred of Christians and particularly of the twin symbols of the cross and crucifix. This leads to us taking seriously credible accounts from both jewish and non-jewish sources of jews deliberately urinating in baptismal waters and on crosses, (8) attacking crosses during a Christian processions, (9) provocatively throwing meat bones into a Church while mass was being celebrated on Good Friday (10) as well as simply burning down churches. (11) Before and during the medieval era; jews are known to have beat Christians with canes (for religious reasons) and scourged crucifixes in the privacy of their own homes. (12) The epicentre of these activities was Spain (13) which is the same place that Theobald alleges was the centre of this cult/group. It is therefore not much of an intellectual stretch to suggest that if Spain had a history of jewish anti-Christian religious violence that such could have been transmitted to jews in other parts of Europe. To counter Theobald’s testimony Rose discusses the successful efforts of Rabbi Jacob Tam to bring together circa one hundred rabbis from across Europe to discuss questions of jewish law in 1150 AD, which is six years after William was killed. (13) This is notable but doesn’t actually relate to Theobald’s testimony since Thomas specifically refers to the jews of Spain meeting in Narbonne and then whichever region is selected also meets to determine which of their communities are to do the deed. Thus it isn’t likely to be what Thomas and Theobold are referring to. Rose however does point out that Theobold must have had significant jewish learning because he was aware of the Nasi (i.e. Prince of the jews) in Narbonne in the twelfth century. (14) This means that Theobold must have himself have been jewish as Thomas of Monmouth doesn’t demonstrate similar learning in the rest of his ‘The Life and Passion’ and isn’t likely to have acquired that knowledge either. This therefore suggests we have to take Theobald seriously as a source on the ritual murder accusation. I don’t wish to delve too deeply here into the William of Norwich trial. And I would point out however that while Theobald’s testimony is likely conflating a much smaller jewish group, likely based around a single obscure Rav’s teachings, within Judaism with ‘all the jews’. What it does mean is that it is imminently probable that Theobald is telling the truth about what happened as he understood it. His knowledge and presence within the case by his own admission as well as his inexplicable sudden conversion to Christianity and desire of a religious life (which freed him from the judgment of secular courts) also suggests an intriguing possibility: was Theobald himself one of the murderers of William of Norwich? It is both an eminently plausible and provocative theory, but as I shall explore in another article: it is likely to be something approaching the truth of the case. References (1) Thomas of Monmouth, The Life and Passion of William of Norwich, 2:11 (Rubin translation) (2) Gavin Langmuir, 1984, ‘Thomas of Monmouth: Detector of Ritual Murder’, pp. 22-24 in Alan Dundes (Ed.), 1991, ‘The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore’, 1st Edition, The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison (3) Ibid; E. M. Rose, 2015, ‘The Murder of William of Norwich: The Origins of the Blood Libel in Medieval Europe’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 82-83 (4) For example Langmuir, Op. Cit., pp. 22-24 (5) Ibid, p. 23 (6) Jordan Rosenblum, 2010, ‘Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 141-142 (7) Cf. R. I. Moore, 2014, ‘The War on Heresy: Faith and Power in Medieval Europe’, 1st Edition, Belknap Press: Cambridge (8) Elliot Horowitz, 2007, ‘Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 165-167 (9) Ibid, p. 150 (10) Ibid, p. 153 (11) Ibid, p. 160 (12) Ibid, pp. 174-179 (13) Rose, Op. Cit., p. 85 (14) Ibid, p. 86 -------------------------------------------- This was originally published at the following address: http://bit.ly/2deHxhT
__________________
|
January 24th, 2017 | #11 |
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Jewish Ritual Murder and Jack the Ripper
Jewish Ritual Murder and Jack the Ripper The subject of Jewish Ritual Murder - or the Blood Libel as it is often pejoratively called by its critics – is one that is close to my heart. Since it was the study of it and my scepticism towards the hand-waving and weird claims of the ‘jews would never have done that’ camp was the original impetus for beginning my study of jews and Judaism. I would thus be remiss if I didn’t mention the occasional references that have suggested that tales of Jewish Ritual Murder may have influenced or been the motive for Jack the Ripper’s killing spree. (1) This was certainly believed to be a possibility at the time of original Ripper killings since no less than ‘The Times’ newspaper suggested that this was indeed a plausible motivation (and in a sense solution) that lay behind them. (2) However it also true to say that anti-Semites themselves have not historically put much credence in the claim that the Jack the Ripper murders were a revival of Jewish Ritual Murder in England. (3) Possibly the best attempt to argue this case has been made by Robert House in ‘Ripperologist’ in 2005. In ‘Aaron Kosminski Reconsidered’ he writes as follows: ‘By the time Aaron was an adolescent, there was widespread anti-Semitism in Russia. Influential newspapers forgot their Jewish sympathies, and anti-Semitic literature appeared, containing both intellectual and obscene content. Anti-Semitism also began to gain a semblance of intellectual respectability as a result of the new ‘scientific’ anti-Semitism of western, mostly German, origin. In 1878, when Aaron was 13 or 14 years old, the myth of the ‘Blood Libel,’ outlawed by Alexander I, was revived in Kutais in anti-Semitic newspapers like Novoye Vremya. Based in part on the ritual murder of the child Simon of Trent and others, this myth held that the Jews participated in the ritual murder of Christian children, using their blood to appease the wrath of God. Specifically, the blood libel myth held that that ‘Jews had kidnapped a Christian child, tied him to a cross, stabbed his head to simulate Jesus’ crown of thorns, killed him, drained his body of blood and mixed the blood into Passover matzohs.’ If a Christian child was found murdered near Easter or Passover, there was a good chance that local Jews would be blamed. Into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, at least two dozen ritual murder trials took place in Central and Eastern Europe.’ (4) This is fine as far as it goes, but I note with pointed interest that the ‘blood libel’ – which is incidentally a pejorative propaganda term used to delegitimise free and open discussion of allegations of jewish ritual murder – that what he is citing here is the fully fledged ritual murder accusation as a point of comparison. (5) House cites as his primary examples the ritual murders of Saint Simon of Trent and Saint Andreas of Rinn. He claims that in the case of Saint Simon of Trent; the jews sliced pieces of Simon’s flesh off and ate them in addition to mixing his blood with their Pesach matzo so they could consume it. (6) However I cannot find any reference to anything of the kind in the literature of the subject. (7) The perpetrators eating the flesh of the victim in a case of jewish ritual murder is almost unheard of. The charge of host desecration is similar and would have been viewed as such at the time of the trials at Rinn and Trent. Unfortunately for House of course, as with jewish ritual murder, the charge that it was and is a ‘libel’ is absurd as Horowitz has demonstrated. (8) House’s argument that Kosminski ‘carried this the blood libel over’ from Eastern Europe and acted it out in London (9) is thus unfounded, because jewish ritual murder involves the torture of the victim in imitation of the suffering of Christ (the crown of thorns, whipping/flaying, the wounds in his hands and feet and the wound in his side) and the collection of blood to be eaten with matzo on Pesach. None of the Ripper killings bear any likeliness whatsoever to this description, but House’s suggestion that Kosminski could have been working to kill Christian women of the ‘underclass’ could certainly be true. After all non-jewish women seeking to have sexual intercourse with jews – and it is worth remembering that all Jack the Ripper’s victims were non-jewish prostitutes in a heavily jewish part of London – would be viewed pejoratively as traditional dangerous foes of the jewish community (i.e. as shiksas) and would thus Kosminski could have killed them for that reason, but that is something best discussed elsewhere. It is sufficient to say here that the Jack the Ripper murders were without doubt not cases of jewish ritual murder, because the evidence does not support this claim. References (1) For example: https://antizionistleague.com/2014/1...murder-proven/ (2) Judith Flanders, 2011, ‘The Invention of Murder’, 1st Edition, Harper Collins: London, p. 442 (3) Arnold Leese, 1938, ‘My Irrelevant Defence’, 1st Edition, The IFL Printing Company: London, p. 55 (4) Robert House, 2005, ‘Aaron Kosminski Reconsidered’, Ripperologist, No. 58 (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-koshouse.html) (5) Darren O’Brien, 2011, ‘The Pinnacle of Hatred: The Blood Libel and the Jews’, 1st Edition, The Hebrew University Magnes Press: Jerusalem, pp. 63-65 (6) House, Op. Cit. (7) Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia, 1992, ‘Trent 1475: Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 46-47; 62-68 (8) Cf. Elliot Horowitz, 2007, ‘Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton (9) House, Op. Cit. ------------------------------------ This was originally published at the following address: http://bit.ly/2jYcgD3
__________________
|
January 27th, 2018 | #12 | |
Bread and Circuses
|
Polytheism and Human Sacrifice in Early Israelite Religion
Quote:
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H. |
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|