I want to get right to the Obama/Taliban Army/Anti-Christ connection today, but before I can dive into that, we need to review a couple of important items. Continue reading “Jews Pick Messiah, Saudi Lusts For Temple Mount And Obama The Abomination Of Desolation? We Will Know Soon.”
The following information provides an excellent history of the establishment of the Natsarim as the first and only true church or body of believers who walked in the Way. Sha’ul (aka ‘Paul’) was the organizer and chief teacher of the Way. He was personally selected by Yahusha Himself to develop the Gentiles as Natsarim. The ‘Mystery of Lawlessness’ that Sha’ul spoke of was the encroachment of paganism and the rejection of Torah by outsiders who crept into congregations and introduced pagan thought among the people. – JWD
Who were the original followers of the Jewish Messiah? Was Christianity the original “sect” spoken of in scripture concerning the followers of Messiah? Who were the original Protestants? Were most of the early Christian “Church Fathers” antisemitic? Were the scripture translations afterwards tainted by Gentile Christians who sought to usher in Pagan “holidays” and shun Jewish festivals, persecuting Jews and all who didn’t follow their new teachings? Who are “Sabbatarians”? These questions and more will be answered below so that the Truth can finally be told — after so many years of continual falsehoods being told.
I am going to start out by giving you scripture that will enlighten us all to what the name of the people who were the first followers of the Jewish Messiah, or “Mashiach” or “The Anointed One” were called. Continue reading “I Am Natsarim. Natsarim Follow The Way. The Way Is Straight And Narrow, And Few People Find It.”
Talmud Permits Child-Adult Sex
Talmud law permits sexual intercourse between children and adults. This doctrine is contained in a number of Talmud Mishnahs. Before we examine them, however, it is necessary that the reader be familiar with the word kethubah.
According to the Soncino Talmud Glossary:
KETHUBAH (Lit., ‘a written [document]’); (a) a wife’s marriage settlement which she is entitled to recover on her being divorced or on the death of her husband. The minimum settlement for a virgin is two hundred zuz, and for a widow remarrying one hundred zuz; (b) the marriage contract specifying the mutual obligations between husband and wife and containing the amount of the endowment and any other special financial obligations assumed by the husband.
— Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Talmud Glossary
Zuz is a unit of currency. We see, then, that a dollar (or zuz) value is put on virginity.
Now let’s look at a Mishnah from Kethuboth 11a:
MISHNAH. WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN (7) HAS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH (8) A LITTLE GIRL, (9) OR WHEN A SMALL BOY (10) HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR [WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY] INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD (11) — [IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ] …
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 57
The translator, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, amplifies the text with footnotes:
- A man who was of age.
- Lit., ‘who came on’.
- Less than three years old.
- Less than nine years of age.
- Lit., ‘One who was injured by wood’, as a result of which she injured the hymen.
— Rabbi Dr. Daiches
Let’s review the above-cited Mishnah: “When a grown-up man has had sexual intercourse with a little girl, or when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman …” It is obvious that sex activity between a grown man and a little girl, and between a grown woman and a little boy, is a part of the woof and the warp of everyday Talmud life; such relationships, in the eyes of the Sages, are unremarkable. There is no prohibition on sexual activity between adults and young children — it is simply regulated. Recall the words of the Very Reverend the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire the late Dr. Joseph Herman Hertz:
Religion in the Talmud attempts to penetrate the whole of human life with the sense of law and right. Nothing human is in its eyes mean or trivial; everything is regulated and sanctified by religion. Religious precept and duty accompany man from his earliest years to the grave and beyond it. They guide his desires and actions at every moment.
— Rabbi Dr. Hertz (38)
Thus, if the Talmud permits girls three years old and younger to be sexually used by adults, that is the law. The concern of the Sages is to ensure that the adult is not, technically speaking, in violation of any of the rules.
In the Gemara that follows the Mishnah of Kethuboth 11a (cited above), the Sages discuss the issues. They say having intercourse with a girl younger than three is like putting a finger in the eye. Rabbi Dr. Daiches explains in the footnotes that, just as tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.
GEMARA. Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood. (1) When I said it before Samuel he said: ‘Injured by a piece of wood’ does not apply to (2) flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself: (3) [As to] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman, Rab said, he makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: ‘Injured by a piece of wood’ does not apply to flesh. R. Oshaia objected: WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN HAS HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A LITTLE GIRL, OR WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD — [IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]; SO ACCORDING TO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A GIRL WHO WAS INJURED ACCIDENTALLY BY A PIECE OF WOOD — HER KETHUBAH IS A MANEH! (4) Raba said, It means (5) this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, (6) it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; (7) but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as ‘a girl who is injured by a piece of wood,’ and [with regard to the case of] ‘a girl injured by a piece of wood,’ itself, there is the difference of opinion between R. Meir and the Sages.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 57-58
Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches amplifies the text with footnotes (page 58):
- Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.
- Lit., ‘is not in’.
- I.e., the difference of opinion between Rab and Samuel with regard to that question was recorded without any reference to R. Judah.
- The Sages differ only with regard to a girl injured by a piece of wood, but not with regard to a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman. This shows that the latter case cannot be compared with the former case. The Mishnah would consequently be against Rab and for Samuel.
- Lit., ‘says’.
- Lit., ‘here’, that is, less than three years old.
- I.e., tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. Cf. Nid. 45a.
— Rabbi Dr. Daiches
To a person unaccustomed with the Talmud culture, it may seem that discussion of sexual intercourse between grown men and very young girls is merely theoretical. But as we shall see, cases are cited, judgments are weighed and debated, and the Sages discuss the wounds suffered by the young girls as a result of the intercourse.
More on Regenerating Virginity
We know that the amount of a woman’s kethubah depends on her virginity on her wedding day. But what of a woman who, as a little girl below the age of three years, was raped or otherwise subjected to sexual intercourse? The Sages rule that the kethubah of such a woman is set as if she were still a virgin.
MISHNAH. A WOMAN PROSELYTE, A WOMAN CAPTIVE, AND A WOMAN SLAVE, WHO HAVE BEEN REDEEMED, CONVERTED, OR FREED [WHEN THEY WERE] LESS THAN THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD — THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ]. AND THERE IS WITH REGARD TO THEM THE CLAIM OF [NON-]VIRGINITY. (17)
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 11a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 54
This seems like a generous and humanitarian ruling, the creation of a legal fiction of virginity when the woman is no longer physiologically a virgin. But Dr. Daiches corrects us. He tells us that, according to the Sages, the hymen of a girl younger than three literally grows back again.
- If they had sexual intercourse before they were three years and one day old the hymen would grow again, and they would be virgins. V. 9a and 11b and cf. Nid. 44b and 45a.
— Rabbi Dr. Daiches (25)
See also the discussion of Niddah 44b and 45a, below.
As we continue to explore the Talmud doctrines on child-adult sex, we will see further confirmation that the Talmud Sages believed that the hymen regenerates in a girl younger than three.
“… Of Lesser Age, No Guilt is Incurred”
In modern America, sex between an adult and a child is condemned in proportion to the youth of the child. That is, Americans generally consider sex with a fifteen year old, a twelve year old, a six year old, and a three-year-old on a continuous scale of condemnation. The younger the child, the greater the condemnation.
Talmudic law works on the reverse scale: sex with younger children is less significant than sex with older children. How did this doctrine come about?
Scripture states thus:
- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
— Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
The Old Testament prohibits a man lying with a man; but notice, the Old Testament does not prohibit a man lying with a boy. Thus, the Talmud Sages arrive at their position on pederasty. In the following, bestiality said to be committed “naturally” when a man uses the vaginal passage of the beast, and “unnaturally” when a man uses the anal passage of the beast. The Sages make a similar distinction for the couplings of a woman with a beast.
GEMARA. … Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that. (2) What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect]. (3) But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman. (4)
It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; [55a] [he] who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally; or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment. (5)
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54b – 55a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 371
The translator, Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, amplifies the text with footnotes. Note particularly footnote 2: “… but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred.” See also the final sentence of footnote 5: “… nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.” (See Soncino Talmud Glossary for definition of Baraitha.)
- I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
- At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
- Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.
- (Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab’s contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
The plain English meaning of the Talmud text is clear, but if there is any doubt, the Soncino scholars put the matter to rest: No guilt is incurred with a boy child younger than nine, even in incest. Thus we see that Orthodox Jewish doctrines concerning homosexuality are not accurately represented by Dr. Laura and other Orthodox spokesmen.
Out of Context?
When quoted, those passages in Tractate Sanhedrin 54b and 55a are sometimes said to be taken out of context. Theologian James Trimm is one who makes this protest.(6) But now the full context of Sanhedrin 54b and 55a — and indeed, the complete Sanhedrin — is available to the readers of Come and Hear™.
Rabbi Michael Rodkinson, whose English translation of the Talmud was republished in 1918, censored the Sages’ teaching on this issue. The 1918 Edition of Rabbi Rodkinson’s Talmud was published under the editorship of Rabbi Dr. I. M. Wise, the pioneer of Reform Judaism. Rabbi Rodkinson explains his censorship in a footnote:
We deem it expedient not to translate about two pages of the text preceding the next Mishna, treating of miserable crimes with men and animals, and giving the discussion with questions and answers, it would be undesirable to express in the English language …
— Rabbi Rodkinson (26)
For further discussion, see “Rabbi Rodkinson Censors the Talmud” in Do Not Censor the Talmud, Please.
Censorship, expurgation, and denial of the clear and obvious meaning of basic religious text do not help inter-religious understanding. It does not help people of different religions understand each others’ faiths. See What We’re About.
The lack of reliable authoritative information on the doctrines of Judaic law is a significant problem as American society and law becomes more Talmudized. Such information gaps can cause unwanted societal consequences.
America Is Rapidly Becoming Talmudized
In 1999, the Supreme Court agreed to consider an amicus brief based wholly on Talmudic law (see Sentence and Execution).
In November 2002, the American Orthodox Jewish community held a kosher dinner in the Supreme Court building to celebrate the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law. (31) The dinner was attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices. The purpose of the Institute is to introduce Talmudic laws into the US legal system and law schools.
It is thus the clear civic duty of every American to become intimately acquainted with the Talmud. Read articles at:
Death Penalty: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html
Kosher Dinner: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jp-11-09-2002 and http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jw-01-08-03
According to Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman (footnote 5, above), in Sanhedrin 54b-55a the Sages confirm, “in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day.” Therefore, a mother who encourages her son to have sexual intercourse with her incurs no guilt if her son is younger than nine years old and a day. In such an arrangement, the mother would be the “passive” adult, of course.
Adult Male Homosexuality
MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 54a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 367
This clears matters up. Consenting adults who engage in homosexuality suffer the death penalty. But homosexuality with a male child under the age of nine years and a day is not punishable (Sanhedrin 54b-55a, above). Recall Rabbi Dr. Freedman’s clear statement of the doctrine:
- I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman (21)
But what of female homosexuality?
GEMARA. … Women who practise lewdness with one another are disqualified from marrying a priest.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 76a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 512 – 513
The same statement appears in Shabbath 65a, page 311. The ruling, then, is only that a woman who “commits lewdness” with another is disqualified from marrying a priest. Thus a woman who never had ambitions to marry a priest suffers no sanction for her homosexual activity.
All of this paints a different picture of Orthodox Jewish doctrine on homosexuality — as enshrined in the G-d-given law of the Talmud. What would Dr. Laura say if she knew? Or does she?
More on Oedipal Incest
In the following passage, the question before the Sages is this: If a mother committed incest with her son, would she still be eligible to marry a priest? As we shall see, the answer depends on the son’s age. Again, incest with a young boy is not a concern, while incest with an older boy brings consequences to the adult. Here, the Sages debate the threshold age.
GEMARA. … Our Rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son [a minor], and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to the priesthood. Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda’s name; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze’iri’s name: All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not: (2) their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on the earlier generations, but (3) Beth Hillel hold that we do not.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 69b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 470
The translator, Dr. Freedman, uses “cohabitation” to denote sexual intercourse. (32) He amplifies the text with footnotes.
- So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less that eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not
- When a boy of that age could cause conception.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
The issue rests on the boy’s theoretical ability to cause conception. Since (theoretically) a boy younger than nine cannot cause conception, he cannot (theoretically) engage in sexual intercourse (see above, from page 58, footnote 1, “… the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act”). This is a specialized definition of sexual intercourse.
The boy’s youth also exempts the man who sodomizes him — from moral guilt and legal liability. That is, the young boy cannot “throw guilt” on a man who lies with him, and the Scripture does not apply. If the boy is old enough to cause conception, the man who lies with him is in violation of Scripture.
And now we have the answer to a question that might have occurred to the reader when we discussed incest between mother and son, above: Why wouldn’t a mother like that be charged with incest? We have seen this explanation from Rabbi Dr. Freedman before, but it warrants further study. In a synthesis of logical premises unique to Talmudism, the translator again helps us out with a footnote. The language is complex, but the meaning of the last few lines is clear: By reckoning back and forth between the definition of “man,” “cause conception,” “active,” and “passive” participants in a sexual act, the conclusion is drawn that incest is not punishable with a boy younger than nine years old.
- [Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab’s contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman (24)
American Puritanism vs. Rabbinic Tradition
Forward reports criticism of Young Israel’s award to Dr. Laura.
The problem, according to her liberal critics, is that Ms. Schlessinger pushes a conservative, pro-life platform that is out of touch with the mostly liberal American Jewish public. Worse, they say, is that her “sanctimonious” moralism and harsh style are more a reflection of American Puritanism than the ancient rabbinic tradition.
“It’s sad that with all the outstanding individuals doing great work, the National Council of Young Israel has chosen someone whose comments have been so divisive within and outside of the Jewish community,” said Rabbi Douglas Kahn, the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco.
Rabbi Kahn said he was referring in particular to the controversy sparked by Ms. Schlessinger’s claim that homosexuality is “deviant” and a “biological error.” Last year gay rights organizations and other liberal groups organized a boycott of Ms. Schlessinger’s new television show, which was eventually canceled due to poor ratings.
More than a dozen Jewish leaders signed a critical letter to Ms. Schlessinger, including Rabbi Paul Menitoff, the executive vice president of the Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis.
Indeed, Rabbis Kahn, Menitoff, and other Reform rabbis are right. Dr. Laura is not representing “the ancient rabbinic tradition,” which allows ample room for homosexuality and pederasty. But why didn’t Rabbis Kahn and Menitoff and their Reform colleagues publicly correct Dr. Laura and her Orthodox mentors, in particular Rabbi Moshe Bryski, by using the authority of direct quotes from the Talmud?
Children as Concubines, Babies as Wives
The ancient Hebrews were permitted to use children as concubines. Moses established the precedent. In the passage below, the Hebrews have just massacred the Midianite men. They return home with booty, and the Midianite women and children. Moses directs them to slaughter the captive women and children with this exception: virgin girl children are to be kept as concubines for the Hebrews.
- And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
- And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
- And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
- And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
- Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
- Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
- But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
— Numbers 31:12-18 (KJV)
In the following, the Talmud Sages reason that, since Phinehas was among the Hebrews who were permitted a child concubine and Phinehas was a priest, Numbers 31:17-18 is Divine sanction for the marriage of priests with girls under the age of three — babies. The rabbis describe the babies as proselytes. The American Heritage Dictionary defines proselyte as “a Gentile converted to Judaism.” In the following passage, a bondman is a male slave, and a bondwoman a female slave.
GEMARA. … It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, (2) for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) and Phinehas (4) surely was with them. And the Rabbis? (5) — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. (6) If so, (7) a proselyte whose age is three years and one day (8) should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, (9) but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently (10) it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit (11) for cohabitation. (12)
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402
This is a special definition of cohabitation. The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:
- She is not regarded as a harlot.
- Num. XXXI, 18.
- Who was a priest.
- How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai, which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?
- Not for matrimony.
- That, according to R. Simeon, Num. XXXI, 18 refers to matrimony.
- So long as she has ‘not known man’.
- Num. XXXI, 17.
- To reconcile the contradiction.
- I.e., one who had attained the age of three years and one day.
- Not one who had actually experienced it.
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
The doctrine that Jewish men may have sexual intercourse with non-Jewish children (“proselytes”) under the age of three is expanded in the following passage; “Rabbi” is Judah the Prince.
GEMARA. … R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. (13) Said R. Zera to R. Jacob b. Idi: Did you hear this (13) explicitly or did you learn it by a deduction? What [could be the] deduction? — As R. Joshua b. Levi related: There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, (14) and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest. (15)
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 403
The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:
- That a proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
- And was married to a priest.
- I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband.
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
Not every Sage agreed with this practice. The Talmud records the words of one Sage who objected to one case, though it does not record the specifics of his objection.
GEMARA. … A certain priest married a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean by] this? (12) — The other replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that the halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. (13) ‘Go’, the first said, ‘and arrange for her release, or else I will pull R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear’. (14)
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 404
The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with footnotes:
- I.e., on what authority did you contract the marriage.
- V. supra p. 403. n. 13.
- He would place him under the ban and thus compel him to carry out his decision which is contrary to that of R. Jacob b. Idi.
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
How Old Is the Screamer?
In Talmud doctrine, if a wife is a screamer — that is, her voice can be heard by the neighbors — she can be divorced without her kethubah.
MISHNAH. THESE ARE TO BE DIVORCED WITHOUT RECEIVING THEIR KETHUBAH: A WIFE WHO TRANSGRESSES THE LAW OF MOSES OR [ONE WHO TRANSGRESSES] JEWISH PRACTICE … [SUCH TRANSGRESSIONS INCLUDE] ALSO THAT OF A WIFE WHO CURSES HER HUSBAND’S PARENTS IN HIS PRESENCE. R. TARFON SAID: ALSO ONE WHO SCREAMS. AND WHO IS REGARDED A SCREAMER? A WOMAN WHOSE VOICE CAN BE HEARD BY HER NEIGHBOURS WHEN SHE SPEAKS INSIDE HER HOUSE.
— Babylonian Talmud, Kethuboth 72a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 449
However, in the current context of the child bride, the matter becomes another issue. It is surely possible that a three or four-year-old wife screams in pain when required to perform her marital duties. On reading further, the Gemara explains that if the wife screams during intercourse, it may be a sign of a physical defect.
GEMARA. … R. TARFON SAID: ALSO ONE WHO SCREAMS. What is meant by a screamer? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: One who speaks aloud (10) on marital matters. In a Baraitha it was taught: [By screams was meant a wife] whose voice (11) during her intercourse in one court can be heard in another court. But should not this, then, (12) have been taught in the Mishnah (13) among defects? (14) — Clearly we must revert to the original explanation. (15)
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 72b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 453
Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki amplifies the above Gemara in the following footnotes. He tells us these were not screams of pleasure — they were screams of pain.
- Lit., ‘makes her voice heard’.
- Her screams of pain caused by the copulation.
- Since her screaming is due to a bodily defect.
- Infra 77a.
- Of course it should. Such a case in our Mishnah is out of place.
- That given in the name of Samuel.
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
In some cases, however, the screaming wife may be one who is so young and physically underdeveloped, her sexual organs cannot accommodate those of a grown man. It seems this child is at risk of being divorced without her kethubah. That is, of course, a concern.
A Different Viewpoint
There is not Talmud prohibition against sexual activity between an adult and very a young child on the basis that such activity could wound the child. Instead, the concern of the Sages is focused on interpreting Biblical injunctions and technicalities that absolve the adult from guilt or liability: At what age, they ask, does the child begin to cause “defilement” of the adult who uses the child for sex?
This next passage illustrates the point once more. The Sages debate “from what age does a heathen child cause defilement”? Is it nine years, or is it three years? If the correct threshold age is observed, the Jew incurs no guilt for the act of pederasty.
GEMARA. … From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day, [37a] for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl [communicates defilement] from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux. This is obvious! — You might argue that he is at an age when he knows to persuade [a female] but she is not at an age when she knows to persuade [a male, and consequently although she is technically capable of the sexual act, she does not cause defilement until she is nine years and one day old]. Hence he informs us [that she communicates defilement at the earlier age].
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah 36b-37a
Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 178-179
This may surprise the American reader who encounters it for the first time. In our society, of course, an adult who uses a child — particularly a very young child — for sexual activity is criminally censured.
Brother Takes Three-Year-Old Widow
In Tractate Niddah, again there is approval for priests to marry and copulate with baby girls. This passage describes a situation in which a priest dies without children, leaving a three-year-old widow. In such case, the priest’s brother (the yebam) can acquire the girl by having sexual intercourse with her. The ellipsis (…) in the following Mishna indicates the omission of non-germane text. The full text is available through the link at the Come and Hear™ link, below.
MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED BY INTERCOURSE; … IF SHE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH.
— Babylonian Talmud Tractate Niddah 44b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 308
Terumah is the word for temple offerings eaten by priests. This statement indicates that the three-year-old bride is the widow of the priest in all respects and privileges.
In the passage below, we see that the widow of a man who is not a priest can be sexually possessed by her erstwhile brother-in-law and thereby become his wife.
GEMARA. … R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 55b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 376
Wounding Young Brides by Intercourse
The Sages go on to discuss sexual intercourse with a girl younger than three years old: Wounding the child and causing her to bleed is one possible result. From the Sages’ description, it is apparent that the baby bleeds again and again from copulation with a grown man, and the Sages, once again, attribute the bleeding to the repetitive rupturing of the hymen (i.e., virginity growing back).
In the following Mishnah, non-germane text is omitted (…). Please follow the source link to view the complete Mishnah.
MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED BY INTERCOURSE; … IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 44b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 309
The image of “a finger in the eye” is once again explained in the following Gemara. The possibility that the three-year-old committed adultery with a stranger is also addressed:
GEMARA. … IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE. It was asked, Do the features of virginity disappear and reappear again or is it possible that they cannot be completely destroyed until after the third year of her age? In what practical respect could this matter? — In one, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her before the age of three and found blood, and when he had intercourse after the age of three he found no blood. If you grant that they disappear and reappear again [it might well be assumed] that there ‘was not sufficient time for their reappearance, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years it would be obvious that a stranger cohabited with her. Now what is your decision? — R. Hiyya son of R. Ika demurred: But who can tell us that a wound inflicted within the three years is not healed forthwith, seeing it is possible that it is immediately healed and it would thus be obvious that a stranger had cohabited with her? Rather the practical difference is the case, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her while she was under three years of age and found blood and when he had intercourse after the age of three he also found blood. If you grant that the features disappear and reappear again the blood might well be treated as that of virginity, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years, that must be the blood of menstruation. Now what is your decision? — R. Hisda replied, Come and hear: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE; what need was there to state, LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE’ instead of merely saying: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS of no consequence’? Does not this then teach us that as the eye tears and tears again so do the features of virginity disappear and reappear again.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 45a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 309-310
Rest for the Intercourse Wound
This Gemara from Tractate Kethuboth takes up the discussion of the pre-pubescent bride who is wounded by intercourse.
GEMARA. … R. Hisda objected: If a girl, whose period to see [blood] had not arrived yet, got married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her four nights, and the disciples of Hillel say: Until the wound is healed up. (1) If her period to see [blood] had arrived and she married, Beth Shammai say: One gives her the first night, and Beth Hillel say: Until the night following the Sabbath [one gives her] four nights.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 6a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 20-21
The translator, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, amplifies the text with this footnote.
- The blood that comes out is attributed to the wound and not to menstruation. Ordinarily, after the first intercourse further intercourse is forbidden until the coming out of blood, i.e., menstruation, is over. But in this case, in which the young bride had never yet had any menstruation, it is assumed that the blood is not due to menstruation but to the wound caused by the intercourse. According to Beth Shammai this assumption holds good for four nights, and according to Beth Hillel it holds good ‘until the wound is healed up.’ As to the definition of this phrase, v. Nid. 64b. V. also Nid. 65b, where it is finally decided that after the first coition no further intercourse must take place until the flowing of blood has stopped, even in the case of a young bride who had not yet had any menstruation. V. also Eben ha-‘Ezer, 63, and Yoreh De’ah, 193.
— Rabbi Dr. Daiches
We have been told that according to Jewish law, a post-pubescent bride who bleeds after the first intercourse does not have intercourse again until after her next menstrual period (above). The situation is different, however, for a bride who has not reached the age of menstruation. What are the rules concerning the bleeding pre-pubescent bride? Shammai rabbis say the intercourse wound should be given four nights rest. The Hillel rabbis recommend abstinence until the wound is healed (Kethuboth 6a). See also Tractate Niddah, as follows:
MISHNAH. IF A YOUNG GIRL, WHOSE AGE OF MENSTRUATION HAS NOT YET ARRIVED, MARRIED, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: SHE IS ALLOWED FOUR NIGHTS, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: UNTIL THE WOUND IS HEALED.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 454
Again, there is no prohibition of a sexual practice that would almost certainly cause physical damage to a young girl due to the mismatched sizes of genitals between an adult’s penis and a child’s vagina or anus.
Old Fashioned Torah Values?
At a time when Americans are displaying an ever-increasing interest in all things Jewish — from kabbala to Senator Joseph Lieberman to “Kosher Sex” — Dr. Laura is the most popular source for a healthy dose of Jewish nagging, guilt trips and what she presents as lessons in good old-fashioned Torah values.
We have seen in Numbers 31:12-18 that Moses permitted grown men to use little girls as concubines. In the Talmud, grown men are permitted to have sexual intercourse with female babies and children, and homosexual relations with boys younger than nine.
Those “good old fashioned Torah values” are not quite as Christian America remembers them.
Marital Duties of the Pre-Pubescent Bride
The marital duties of the pre-pubescent brides are addressed in at least three tractates in almost the same words (Yebamoth 12b and 100b, Niddah 45a, and Kethuboth 39a).
In the following passage, the Sages discuss the use of contraception. All the Sages agree that a wife younger than eleven — a wife who is too young to become pregnant — is required to carry on “marital intercourse” in the normal manner. Recall that those brides can be as young as three, and sometimes younger.
GEMARA. … Three classes of woman may use an absorbent (1) in their marital intercourse: (2) A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor,(3) because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother, (3) because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal. (4) A nursing mother, (3) because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely, (5) and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a ‘minor’? (6) From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under (7) or over this age (8) must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner and mercy (9) will be vouchsafed from heaven, for it is said in Scripture, The Lord preserveth the simple (10) …
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 45a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 311
The translator, Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, amplifies the text with these footnotes:
- Muk, flax or hackled wool.
- To avoid conception.
- Is permitted the use of the absorbent.
- A fish-shaped abortion. Lit., ‘flat-fish’.
- On account of her second conception which causes the deterioration of her breast milk.
- Of whom it has been said that she is capable of conception but is thereby exposed to fatal consequences.
- When conception is impossible.
- When conception involves no danger.
- To protect them from harm.
- Ps. CXVI, 6; sc. those who are unable to protect themselves. At any rate it was here stated that a minor under eleven years of age is incapable of conception. …
— Rev. Dr. Slotki
Did Girls Reach Puberty Earlier Then?
It is sometimes claimed that in the days when the Talmud Sages walked the earth, girls matured earlier; hence, sexual intercourse with girls three years old and younger was not inappropriate. However, the Talmud itself repudiates this assertion.
In Tractate Niddah 45a (quoted above), the Sages argue: “From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day” a girl may use an “absorbent” (contraception) “because otherwise she might become pregnant and die.” The Sages also say girls younger (than eleven) must carry on sexual intercourse “in the normal manner.” Therefore, as a general rule, the Sages did not expect a girl younger than eleven could get pregnant. The statements in Niddah 45a indicate that sexual maturation of women in the time of the Talmud Sages compares with sexual maturation of women in our own day.
Or consider the passage that appears just previous in Niddah 45a:
GEMARA. … It is related of Justinia the daughter of ‘Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi. ‘Master’, she said to him, ‘at what age may a woman marry?’. ‘At the age of three years and one day’, he told her. ‘And at what age is she capable of conception?’ ‘At the age of twelve years and one day’, he replied. ‘I’, she said to him, ‘married at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at my father’s house’. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years?
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 45a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 310
Justinia’s assertion that she had a child at seven is surprising, and it even surprises the Sages (“But can a woman conceive at the age of six years?”). But note that Rabbi (Judah the Prince), who was familiar with far more than a single girl’s experience, estimated twelve as the earliest age for childbearing. Rabbi would of course be familiar with all phases of human life from his career of counseling, judging, and recording. Remember (Talmud Laws of Menstruation), the rabbis were intimately familiar with the physiological details of their female parishioners, consulted even on specimens of a woman’s vaginal discharge. Rev. Dr. Slotki remarks on the above Gemara in footnote 10 on the following page:
- … At any rate it was here stated that a minor under eleven years of age is incapable of conception. How then is Justinia’s story to be reconciled with this statement?
— Rev. Dr. Slotki (3)
The Rights of the Child
The treatment of children in Orthodox Judaism has caused concern in Italy. A Genoa court, ruling in a custody dispute, accepted the report of psychologists that Orthodox Judaism views “exploitation and cruelty to minors as legitimate … and perverted behavior as normal.” For more details, see Appendix: The Rights of the Child.
The Rudin Standard
Let us consider again Forward‘s coverage of Dr. Laura’s National Heritage award from Young Israel.
With 20 million listeners and a tendency to present her conservative views as an outgrowth of her Orthodox Jewish faith, Dr. Laura may well be Judaism’s top ambassador to middle America.
— Forward (5)
But we notice Dr. Laura never tells Middle America about the doctrines of Orthodox Judaism on child-adult sex. We wonder how things would work out for her ratings if she followed the advice of Rabbi A. James Rudin, Senior Interreligious Adviser of the American Jewish Committee.
In February 2002, Rabbi Rudin wrote an article for Forward, commenting on the Vatican’s decision to open its World War II archives — partially. In that context, Rabbi Rudin offered the Vatican the following advice:
… one thing is clear. Partial, incomplete or pre-selected archival records will not be enough in a world where transparency and full disclosure is now the norm if an institution — whether political, financial, or spiritual — is to maintain its integrity.
— Rabbi A. James Rudin (8)
If it is important to fully disclose records of historical events, surely it is more important to fully disclose fundamental religious doctrines that may soon be embodied in US law — especially when those doctrines are controversial.
On the subject of child-adult sex, there is a great divide between Talmud culture and American culture. However, the extent of that divide is known only to one side. Rabbis in America know and understand American culture, Americans know almost nothing about Talmud culture. When the fundamental doctrines of the Talmud are examined carefully, we find that feminist writer Judith Levine, author of Not Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Kids from Sex, is truer to classical Judaism than Dr. Laura.
Jewish leadership — from the most liberal of the Reform rabbis to the most conservative of the Orthodox rabbis — have done Judaism a disservice by not coming forward with the facts and applying Rabbi Rudin’s standard of full disclosure. How can we achieve understanding between people of different religious faiths if we do not take courage and stand behind our own religious convictions?
(This article is on line at http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html )
Originally posted on September 16, 2019 @ 10:07 am
Continued from “Jewish Leader Says The “Jews” In Israel Are Not Jewish, But Are European Khazars.”
Read Page 1 first. The audio of Mr. Freedmans speech is at the top of Page 1.
“They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe — and to reduce this so you don’t get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe — they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were.
Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don’t want to go into the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.
Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either Christianity, Islam — the Moslem faith — or what is known today as Judaism — really Talmudism. So, like spinning a top and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,” he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.
He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people — 800,000 thousand square miles — and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn’t one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:
“Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God’s chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It’s your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.”
Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted]. And it’s just as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty four million! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.
Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves ‘Arabs’. Imagine! Why, you’d say they’re lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.
The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren’t different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the faith — Talmudic faith — they had no choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody — they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system — so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!
Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God’s chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.”
Now, could there be a bigger lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than that?
And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn’t call black black anymore — you’d start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe — World War I and World War II — if it wasn’t possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to — like you flush the toilet — because they couldn’t get along, did they have to say, “Well, we’re going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us”?
I can’t understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I’m telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don’t care whether you know all this or not. It doesn’t make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me. I’ve got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don’t want them to go and fight and die… like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they’ve died all over the world. For what?
To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years? Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State — the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?… which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?
In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don’t blame Mr. Kennedy. I’m fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he’s a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He’s playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you’ve got to play with the fish. Let ’em out and pull ’em in. Let ’em out and pull ’em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy’s father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don’t think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.
But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate — not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy. And tell him, “I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen”. I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.
Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But I don’t think it’s necessary to do that. You’re above the average group in intelligence and I don’t think it’s necessary to impress this any more.
But. . . I want to tell you one more thing. You talk about… “Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion”. But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day… and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser. I’m here to give you facts.
When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand — and it’s the only prayer for which you stand — and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months — any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.
The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.
And further than that, the Talmud teaches: “Don’t forget — whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge — remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that”.
How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.
And we’re going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. You can’t depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow’s going to be a long day.
Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: “well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it.” Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I’m telling you. And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement. And when I couldn’t find a newspaper to take them — I paid cash, not credit — what happened? My lawyer told me, “There’s an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement”. So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that’s how I met him.
So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: “Well, I think he’s a little anti-Semitic. I don’t know whether I can get him over here. So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.
Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications. I say it without any reservations. And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn’t for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with “Common Sense” — he’s been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year — if it wasn’t for the work he’s been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through “Common Sense”.
Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could. I’m not as flush as I was. I cannot go on spending the money. . . I’m not going to take up a collection. Don’t worry. I see five people getting up to leave. (laughter)
I haven’t got the money that I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally. So I said, “With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job”. So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them. Well, there’s always a bottom to the barrel. I suppose we’ve all reached that at times.
I’m not so poor that I can’t live without working and that’s what worries the Anti-Defamation League. I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He’s sick and he’s going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they want to close up “Common Sense” more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.
So I just want to tell you this. All they do is circulate rumors: “Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of ‘Common Sense’.” The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don’t send any money to Common Sense. They don’t need it. The’ve got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer. That all has strategy. They don’t want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off “Common Sense”. And all I’m telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven’t been able to. And I will be very honest. One thing I won’t do is lie. In the last year I’ve had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.
How he’s managed to survive, I don’t know. God alone knows. And he must be in God’s care because how he’s pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don’t know. But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of “Common Sense” go out with a new message. And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around. Plow that field. Sow those seeds, you don’t know which will take root, but for God’s sake, this is our last chance.
[Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to ‘buy more stuff’, play golf, etc., and use the money to keep “Common Sense” going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials. He then asks for questions from the audience.)
Freedman: All right, I’ll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I’m going to make an attempt. In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.
Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as ‘j’, and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts ‘ghu’. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic… all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn’t exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I’ve seen those early… the earliest scripts available.
In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.
There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as ‘gyu’, “jew”. At the time, there was no printing press.
Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes… I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word ‘gyu’ which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ‘ gyu ‘, then ‘ giu ‘, then ‘ iu ‘ (because the ‘ i ‘ in Latin is pronounced like the ‘ j ‘. Julius Caesar is ‘ Iul ‘ because there is no ‘j’ in Latin) then ‘ iuw ‘, then ‘ ieuu ‘, then ‘ ieuy ‘, then ‘ iwe ‘, then ‘ iow ‘, then ‘ iewe ‘, all in Bibles as time went on. Then ‘ ieue ‘, then ‘ iue ‘, then ‘ ive ‘, and then ‘ ivw ‘, and finally in the 18th century… ‘ jew ‘. Jew.
All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as ‘Jew’, and any theologian — I’ve lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe — there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was ‘gyu’ — Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a ‘lab’, and gasoline ‘gas’… a tendency to short up.
So, in England there were no public schools; people didn’t know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian to say that you can’t harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I’d like to know where in the scriptures it says that. I’d like to know the text.
Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews — the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers — they weren’t Jews, as I just explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who’d been converted to Talmudism. There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn’t exist. They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.
Just like ‘anti-Semitic’. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don’t like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn’t one Jew who’s a Semite. They’re all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I’ll convince him and it’ll be one step in the right direction. I’ll go wherever I have to go to meet him.
Yes, ma’am. Well… I can answer that. First of all, your first premise is wrong. Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong. Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the Jewish ‘race’; that they are the Jewish nation; that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff.
But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war.
The Eastern Europeans said, “What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, ‘Go to hell. We’ll make any deal you want’, but they don’t have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people”. So, they’re not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .
Now, I’ll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who — on behalf of the British Cabinet — negotiated the deal with these Zionists.
And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it. The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible – probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry… who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian ‘race’? or a Christian religion?… or are the Christians united?
So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I’ll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal
[Question inaudible] Freedman: You know why? Because if they don’t, they’re decked up. They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don’t . . . oh, you’re anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got to give.
In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name. Then, the buyers are told, “When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven’t got a gold star, tell them that you won’t buy from them until they have the gold star”. BLACKMAIL. I don’t know what else you can call it.
Then what do they do? They tell you it’s for ‘humanitarian purposes’ and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they hadn’t sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit — that air pocket — the gullible Christians have to make up.
They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland? And you say, “Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no place to go and they’ve been persecuted all their lives”. They’ve never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.
Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England? King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn’t a Jew. But do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it’s a sin to charge ‘rent’ for the use of money. In other words – what we call interest [usury] is a sin.
So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn’t pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders. So the king finally said — and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First. And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.
But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, “I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders. If they’re killed you have to pay me, because I’m his sole heir”. That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that’s how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.
When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion. It has never happened. It’s always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.
[Question inaudible] Freedman: Yes, sir. Well, they say most of those things themselves. It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of those things they say themselves. But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.
When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object. The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.
When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that’s the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia — who they were — that they had practiced this Talmudic faith — the Christians in Western Europe said, “They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!”
And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that — and he’s probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true… they say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they’ve written in which they say the same thing: When they have money they become tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless. They’re only barbarians. They’re the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.
What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn’t want that. When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.
There was no need for that. But they thought, “Now is the time”, and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word ‘Bolshevism’, you’ll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of them is, “Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you’ve got”. It would pay you to read that.
You’d also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.
[Question inaudible] Freedman: Well, I can’t advocate that you do anything that’s criminal, but I can tell you this. You can start what I call an endless chain. If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement: Mr. Kennedy’s office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office — was in his office — and gave me this. He delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:
“For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th”. “Israel is here to stay. It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party. The White House must take the lead. American intervention. We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation”.
Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression? Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that? Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed — the Texans were disarmed — and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What would the United States say?
Would we say it’s aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other. Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?
Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, “No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!”, or “No, those Mexicans are in Texas. they declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else”.
Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes? So now, you’ve got to write to President Kennedy and say, “We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations — fifteen times in the last twelve years — called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms”.
[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]
Originally posted on August 31, 2019 @ 6:00 am
It is possible that war might begin over the attack on the Saudi oil fields. As is common in politics, it is just as likely that Israel manipulated a proxy into attacking the Saudi oil facility to make it look as if the Iranians are behind this attack, all to reinforce the position of Benjamin Netanyahu as he fights his way to being re-elected.
He is not doing well, and a “war” would help him quite a bit. And as suddenly as this attack took place, right on que, Donald Trump offers a “mutual defense pact” to Netanyahu, making it more likely that Netanyahu will be re-elected.
Continue reading “War? Saudi Oil Facilities Destroyed. Israeli Machinations? A Lot of Mischief At Work Here…”
Originally posted on September 14, 2019 @ 8:41 pm
Jewish Defector Benjamin Freedman: The “Jews” In Israel Are Khazars, Not Hebrew.
Full transcript of Benjamin Freedman Speech below. Copy and repost.
A Jewish Defector Warns America:
Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism
This should do it! For the second and last time we are updating the transcript of Ben Freedman’s 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel.
The piece has been posted for over a year now. A few months ago, a person challenged the authenticity of the transcript, because his version stated that Samuel Untermeyer had used the Columbia Broadcasting studios when he declared a worldwide boycott against Germany — in his words: ‘A Holy War’. We could not debate the issue, having never heard the actual recording of Mr. Freedman’s speech. Today, I discovered that we have a cassette tape of the speech, so I listened to the entire tape while reading the posted transcript. According to Mr. Freedman the radio station used by Untermeyer was, in fact, ABC.
There had also been some simple rearrangements of sentence structure in that transcript, and a line or two omitted in places. For the sake of authenticity, the corrections have been made. The transcript is now word for word from Mr. Freedman’s speech.
The original transcriber had ‘tidied up’ Mr. Freedman’s responses during the Q&A period, omitting superfluous and repetitious words. For the most part, we’ve left the tidied up version as it was, since it didn’t change the response, and actually helped to clarify Mr. Freedman’s answers. If the names were changed, he could have been making that speech yesterday. — Jackie — April 8, 2003
Here is our first update notice, about a year ago:
The original posting of this speech was taken from an existing web site. In going through our files we recently discovered a full transcript of the speech and realized the original posting was not complete. Here is the transcript from our files, with additional text at the beginning – some within the body of the speech – and a question and answer section at the end that had not been included in the original posting. There will be further postings from other writers and quotes that will confirm much of what Mr. Freedman said here. Many of you will see the truth of it, as it stands. — Jackie —
The Truth will stand on its own merit
A Jewish Defector Warns America:
Benjamin Freedman Speaks
by Benjamin H. Freedman
Introductory Note — Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century.
Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.
Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.
This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us — his warning to the West — is more urgent than ever before. — K.A.S. —
A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST
Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United States into a third world war. It was made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew. He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker’s platform to present Benjamin Freedman.
What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I’m not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I’m here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.
Now, first of all, I’d like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 — that was shortly before elections — Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.
In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.
Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe… when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.
You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.
I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations — and of the ninety-nine nations there, I’ve consulted with maybe seventy of them — and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we’re not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.
And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy — or he was then Senator Kennedy — made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.
Not only that… they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world’s total population. Eighty percent of the world’s population. Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians… the non-white nations of the world, and that’s what we face.
And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this — time I’ll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement — the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.
Now, you say, ‘well, that’s a very broad statement to make’, but let me show what happened while you were — I don’t want to wear that out — let me show what happened while WE were all asleep. I’m including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened?
World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?
Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week’s food supply facing her — and after that, starvation.
At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”
Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn’t believe what I’m saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”
The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”
In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”
Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German — totally pro-German — because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.
The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. And they were no good.
Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” And that did happen. That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.
Now the war — World War One — in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there — we were railroaded into it — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.
Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it’s history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?
The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.
Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.
You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”
It was a sellout that I can best compare — suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit. We offer you peace terms. Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass.
Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn’t be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews. “We’ve been so nice to them”; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”
Now, Nahum Sokolow — all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today — they, in 1919, 1920, ’21, ’22, and ’23, they wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that “the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them.”
The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious.
Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisrael” or “Our Father.” No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.
You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 — three hundred! — small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: “We must slap down Germany”, because there isn’t one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.
They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.
Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could? They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn’t know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can’t treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.” Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?
They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . . (You want to ask a question? — Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time. they were called ‘Social Democrats.)
Well, I don’t want to go by what they were called. We’re now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.
Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former — their status — and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone’s head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn’t fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.
Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money — you know the way the Mark was devalued — they bought up practically everything.
Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr.Untermeyercame back to the United States — who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference — and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:
“The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.”
And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. Their labor. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.
Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page — a whole page — in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA” . [National Recovery Administration] — which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.
Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it.
In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked “made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs: “Hitler”, “murderer”, and so forth, and like — something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.
R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “made in Germany”. Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I’ve been observing women’s legs in the last twenty years, I haven’t seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “MURDERS” and “HITLERITES”, and so forth.
Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, “Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?” They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.
Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
That continued for some time, and it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.
Now, for anyone to say that — I don’t like to use the word ‘anti-Semitism’ because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it — the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three — did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott — and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.
In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It’s going to be Christian or it’s going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: “We’re going to keep it Christian if possible”. And they started to re-arm.
And there intention was — by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 — the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: “Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.” The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.”
And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.
Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.
The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it’s known all over the world.
Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your son’s. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren’t permitted to know it.
Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other ‘s knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.
I was ‘confidential man’ to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.
Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that’s how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.
Now, at this moment… at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don’t stand a chance even if they don’t use nuclear bombs. How can the United States — about five percent of the world — go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground? How can we do it… send our boys over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their ‘commonwealth’? They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” That is correct. I don’t know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.
Now, what are the facts about the Jews?
The Jews — I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn’t a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.
Now what happened? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.
Originally posted on August 31, 2019 @ 6:00 am
You might be executed in a year or so, or you might reject Yahusha under their threat of death. Either way, we have long expected to be hunted.
Originally posted on August 4, 2019 @ 2:49 am