By M.K. Styllinski
“We are in a deep hole because we are so heavily biased in favour of Israel. And the whole world knows it.” And they are astounded by it. They can’t comprehend why America, with its great cherished traditions, would close its eyes to the dreadful punishment that we have enabled Israel to inflict on virtually defenceless people.”
– Paul Findley, US Congressman
If we are able to suspend our beliefs and knee-jerk reactions when discussing all things Jewish we’ll discover very quickly that this is one of the most important issues in the world today. Cool heads and critical analysis on this subject is fraught with difficulty. It’s safe to say that Zionists and some avenues of Jewish influence have used all manner of linguistic acrobatics, reverse psychology, double-speak and paralogistical discourse to entrench its socio-political and cultural pre-eminence. As a minority, its institutionalised propaganda is impressive. An industry of victimhood goes counter to the pluralism that popular Jewish discourse claims to espouse. Unfortunately, theological reality proves that these claims are far from true. The highly sensitive truth is that the Jewish community has allowed the parasite of Zionism to feed on a variety of hosts in order to use persecution and past atrocities as political leverage. By holding the world to ransom it secures positions of power.
Israeli policies in the occupied territories, Israeli lobbyists in America and the undercurrent of Zionism flowing through America will continue to create serious problems for the Jewish psyche and the hope for global peace if it is not seen for what it is: a political movement with a history of subterfuge, deception and extraordinary racism.
So, after reading the above paragraph and previous posts, have I immediately been assigned the label of “anti-Semite”?
Unquestionably for some.
Well, there are many taboos and hot potatoes regarding a free, constructive discussion of the issues within Judaism, the MOSSAD, Jewish sects and the Jewish tribe in general. Commentary veers between the bravest Jewish academics like Norman Finkelstein and philosophers like Gilad Atzmon and the more subjective and authoritarian gatekeepers of Zionism such as Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein and David Axelrod. Then you have a layer of the ultra-right wing, anti-Semites stirring the pot … It’s a veritable mine-field of hysteria and pathology.
How did we reach a stage where fear and self-censorship regarding this subject pervades all domains of society?
Why does Jewish identity have the monopoly on suffering?
And is there an historical reason why so much hostility and hatred has been directed at the Jewish community?
I can’t say I’ll be able to answer that, but I can at least add to the chorus of reasonable persons who would like some answers for the sake even a small slice of peace in the world.
Similarly, if this blog is about exploitation of humanity’s psyche by a minority of psychopaths then Jews and Judaism have clearly been both the victims and perpetrators of such ponerological strains. For an ethnic minority of relatively few, the diverse tribe of Jewish people have also managed to exert an extraordinary influence in the modern world. Therefore, no exploration of this kind can be even partially complete without its inclusion. And if you’ve been reduced to walking on glass when discussing issues of “Jewishness” then you’ll hopefully understand why it’s necessary that there is a frank and open debate for everyone’s sake.
For what it’s worth, I consider my Jewish friends and Jewish people as a whole as some of the most creative people on the planet. In my life, I’ve met many young Jewish and Palestinian men and women who just want to live together despite their religious differences. However, Judaism and Zionism continue to play a hugely important – some would say – disproportionate role in Western society, culture and in particular geopolitics. But Zionism and government policies are designed to eradicate harmonious integration of ordinary Jews and Arabs and the natural tendency for humanity to get along.
Psychopaths have had a long and ruthless history hiding behind the label of Revionist Zionism just as they have with the Anglo-American Establishment. And so the Israeli-Arab schism remains one of the worst vortices of conflict on this beautiful planet costing many young lives and causing untold generational pain. That being so, we have to try and understand the incredible resilience and adaptability of this minority in the face of fluctuating hatred and an age-old persecution which never seems to fade. The complex history of the Jewish people is fascinating, and one to which I cannot possibly do justice. But what can be done is to explore the present status quo of Zionism and it effects. Judaism and its Jewish tribes are facing a period of massive soul searching it seems, which will be embraced voluntarily or it will be forced upon them as external events come to a head.
My fear is it will almost certainly be the latter.
“Sand traces how Zionist ideology drove the project of Jewish nationalism by turning Judaism “into something hermetic, like the German Volk …” (255). He argues that history and biology were enlisted “to bind together the frangible secular Jewish identity.” Together, these engendered an “ethnonationalist historiography” which was typified by the mid-19th century German Jewish historian Heinricht Graetz and his friend Moses Hess, who “needed a good deal of racial theory to dream up the Jewish people” (256).”
In 1947, following on closely from the outpouring of sympathy and grief for the Jewish Holocaust, Zionists were able to secure a vote at the United Nations for the partition of Palestine into two states. Israel served as a valuable strategic interest for the U.S. whereby continual financial assistance ensured a long-term channel into the Middle East. They did it by usurping the waning dominance of the British in the region. Since that time, it has resulted in the gradual ascendance of Orthodox Jewish fundamentalism, Zionist dogma and the present day intransigence of three primary objectives. Firstly, to make the destruction of Palestinian society palatable by claiming a religious moral high ground where paramilitary reprisals are seen as an evil attacking an exclusive mandate from God. Secondly, to expel or “transfer” Palestinians to areas outside Palestine and to “import” Jewish peoples from all over the world in line with messianic prophecy and to offset the increase in their population. Despite promises of free transportation, cash allowances and free housing from land stolen from the Palestinians themselves – this plan failed. But the objective to make life as unbearable as possible for Palestinians, they believe, must in the end pay dividends parallel to US proxy wars carving up the Middle East. This is what the Israeli Government is banking on with assistance from America, representing the third and most pertinent objective overall.
A recent UN-sponsored independent report comprising of academics and past and present government officials from 19 different countries said: “the conflict over Israel and the Palestinian territories is the central driver in global tensions.” At the same time, the UN itself has been severely co-opted and effectively acts as an apologist for the world’s only super power and partner in crime: Israel.  
Understanding the root causes includes a comprehension of ponerological factors inherent in the situation. As we have already seen, truly humanitarian peoples have achieved enormous successes despite operating behind the bars of a system of control that defines their limitations. The inaction, ineptitude and total failure of the UN on a wide range of international issues is reflected and sourced from its affiliated agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank both established under the highly dubious 1944 Bretton Woods agreement which came into operation in 1947.
The World Bank earns almost as much from interest and loan repayments as it hands out in new loans each year. Over 60 per cent of the bank’s loans goes to suppliers outside the borrower countries for such things as consultancy services, machinery and of course, oil. Control of the bank is vested in a board of executives representing national governments, whose votes are apportioned according to the amount they have funded to the bank. Thus the USA has nearly 20 per cent of the vote and always appoints the board’s president. Consequently, resolutions, conventions, declarations, protocols, amendments and condemnations have little effect in a world held fast in the cement of opportunistic lies.
US and Israeli hostility towards the world is not a recent dynamic as we can see from the following resolution which both blocked with their habitual “NO” vote. it stated: “The right of every state to choose its economic social system in accord with the will of the people without outside interference in whatever form it takes.” How typical that both powers should block resolutions opposed to the intervention in the internal or external affairs of states or financing the training of journalists and strengthening communication services in the undeveloped world. How typical it is that both should oppose further resolutions regarding nuclear weapons including: a need for a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty; the call for Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons; cessation of all nuclear test explosions; declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states; World-wide action for collecting signatures in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament; Prohibition of the development of new types of weapons of mass destruction and an Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues.
Following on from Israel’s refusal to place its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards which was condemned by the UN in a resolution back in 1987, it makes the present day actions of Israel and its call for Arab states to disarm nothing more than the most blatant hypocrisy. It is nauseating to behold successive US governments sanctimoniously calling for weapons mass destruction while Israel sits on its own nuclear illegal facilities and expanding bio-chemical weaponry. The constant and regular dynamic of the US was to oppose all the above. The only exception was an abstention regarding a call for a “convention for the rights of the Child”. Nevertheless, they seem to have had their way by exacting the same petulant demands by covert means. Far from being the epitome of democracy, America reveals its true colours opposing virtually all social, economic, political, ecological and humanitarian resolutions unless it benefits Israel’s and its own interests. It seems Kofi Annan lost any shred of credibility with his support for the World Jewish Congress and its call for a UN general assembly resolution condemning anti-Semitism. It’s that old tired programming whereby criticism of Israel’s policies creates the hysterical reaction of anti-Semitism and any sensible opportunities for discourse on a range of issues gets lost in the froth.
An editorial from sott.net alternative news website put succinctly:
“… Simply stated, if a “goyim” does not at least unconditionally accept and ideally praise the actions of Israel and therefore agree with the opinions of pro-Israeli Jews, then by default, he or she “hates Jews because they are Jews”. The result of this deliberately manufactured “world wide rise in anti-Semitism” can only be bad for ordinary Jews around the world, who bear the brunt of Arab anger at the policies of Sharon and the “Zionists” in Washington. At the same time, this manipulated rise in “anti-Semitism” can only be good for Sharon and his cohorts, giving them, as it does, further carte blanche to viciously attack Palestine and its people in the name of protecting the interests and lives of ordinary Jews. Our conclusion in all of this is that ordinary Jews are being “set up” in some way by their own “leaders”, and there is much evidence that it would not be the first time that this has happened. Clearly, this is the reality of the situation at present, and we find it difficult to believe that Kofi Annan does not understand that this is the case. As such, we must conclude that Annan is a closet supporter of the genocidal policies of Sharon and the Washington “Zionists”, regardless of the moderate humanitarian face that Annan, as head of the UN, is compelled to present to the world.” 
And it is the ignorance of some world leaders and many Jewish peoples in general of the psychopathic nature of Zionism at Establishment levels that is driving world Jewry to a catastrophe of biblical proportions if it doesn’t wake up soon.
The various patriarchal oddities and inconsistencies in the Torah, Talmud and the complex mix of Kabbalistic teachings seem to have been appropriated by Chabad as a literal template for dominance by any means. We see the same caricatures and distortions in many religions from Islam, the Catholic Church and Christian evangelism rising up within attached cults. What is more problematic is the fact that standard Judaism offers a peculiar wealth of racist and separatist principles based on the idea of a chosen people which has sadly caused much of the historical persecution in the past. It is tragic because the Jewish people – whether Sephardic or Ashkenazi – have produced some of the greatest creative minds within the human family. Whether that is through the cultivation of a cognitive elite or through a more natural sociological adaptation is a moot point – Maybe it’s a bit of both. Regardless, this leads us to ask as a great many number of folks undoubtedly have albeit in hushed tones: just what is it within Jewish culture and religion that has made it the victim of so many rulers throughout the past? And why can extremism from Chabad to Revisionist Zionism seemingly draw on an endless well spring of essentially pathological concepts? Though Jewish peoples are diverse in belief, the fact remains that Judaism and Jewish identity encourages ethnocentrism and fundamentally supremacist values. This is so much a part of the theology of the Jewish tribal ethos it has become accepted as a convoluted norm. When mixed with transnational power politics it becomes actively antagonistic to the proper functioning of international societies.
Though you would never know it if you read much of the historical literature from the past two hundred years there is little mention of the fact that Matriarchy and the Great Mother Goddess religions flourished for thousands of years in the Neolithic cultures around 7000 B.C., in the Near and Middle East. This was before the arrival of the Grand Patriarch Abraham, the first prophet of the dominator male deity, Yahweh. Archaeologists trace Upper Palaeolithic culture’s Goddess Worship back to 25,000 B.C. with religious practice continuing well into ancient Rome. Abraham only arrived in Canaan between 1800 and 1550 B.C. Then everything changed.  (That is not to say that Matriarchy is something to embrace exclusively either, merely that a pivotal change to an authoritarian Patriarchy had detrimental consequences for women, the evolution of Western society and the emergence of Judaism). Jews believe their spiritual and ethnic origins are sourced from Abraham, a wandering tribesman from the land of Ur now known as Iraq.
The story goes that God collared 75-year old Abraham and offered him a tempting deal. If he followed the Ten Commandments to the letter then he and God Inc. would place Abraham’s progeny and descendants under His protection, thus becoming a Chosen People and … Special. “For you are people consecrated to the Lord your God: of all the peoples on earth the Lord your God chose you to be His treasured people.” (Deuteronomy 7:6). But there was a hefty condition in the small print: the removal of the foreskins of new-born males by the time they reach the eighth day of birth. This must of seemed a tad bizarre even two thousand years ago. [5 ]“God … said to Abraham … You shall circumcise the flesh of the foreskin and that shall be the Covenant between Me and you.” (Genesis 17:9-13). As compensation for this future foreskin hacking, Abraham was then given Canaan as some choice real-estate but with one snag: it was already taken. Since this future covenant of Israel was designed by God and his now Chosen people it was seen as a minor impediment to this God’s will which, as monotheistic Judaism attests, wasn’t a good idea to trifle with, foreskin removal of an infant being a reasonable indicator.
Apart from commanding a divinely ordained method to mark His people it also points to the foundation of Judaism as being an essentially racist doctrine marked out by genital mutilation to get things started. One might say that such an act inflicted on one so young and accepted for thousands of years, may have had negative psychological implications on those most vulnerable: namely the emerging authoritarians of the tribe.  In other words, it becomes clear that this “covenant” between God and the Jewish people is a private contract enforced through the private parts. If that doesn’t engender fear imprinting at so young an age I’m not certain what does. One doesn’t have to be a doctor to see that snipping off the delicate and sensitive end of an infant’s penis is going to mark out some children as lacking something more than just the foreskin. It seems to be nothing more than a form of abuse rationalized as something holy and scared but which in fact has harmful consequences on brain development and the future course of the male adult, one example of which is neuroses and a problem with the processing of emotions. 
Aside from the false assumptions, erroneous conclusions and incorrect medical information regarding the benefits of circumcision, what are the implications for children abused in this way as they try to process the relationship between spirituality, sexuality and authority?
“Freedom is Christ, for a man chooses Christ with his heart, not with his foreskin.”
– Israel Shamir
Circumcision has become the tribal stamp of male Jewish identity since its inception. Beliefs that this ritual protected the baby from danger to acting as a physical sign that you were half way through the mystical gates of heaven by having discarded this seemingly irrelevant piece of skin, were marketed to the Jewish faithful that this was a necessary for the infant male. The fact that God came to be so viscerally associated with the cutting – some might say mutilation – of the male member could be said to be pathological at the outset. Yet, it was also a reminder of the importance of seeding the new race so that it would one day establish a presumably Jewish interpretation of “God’s kingdom on Earth” drawn from the fear of a suitably wrathful Authority. More disturbing still, it was originally standard practice in circumcision ritual for the “mohel” (the expert who performed the circumcision) to take the baby’s “circumcised member into his mouth and with two or three draughts [and to suck] the blood out of the wounded part. He then takes a mouthful of wine from a goblet and spurts it, in two or three intervals, on the wound.” Such a practice still takes place but is confined to ultra-orthodox circles. 
However, there are reasons to be hopeful that the practice – also carried out by Islam and some elements of Christianity – is starting to decline. So, too the horrific practice of Female Circumcision. (Some members of the Jewish community who are opposed to circumcision include the following: www.jewishcircumcision.org/ | www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ | www.circumcision.org/) Then of course, there are the occult origins of this practice of child abuse:
The idea of racial superiority and a divine super-race became cemented in what could be viewed as a ritual abuse and land grab philosophy which later found its modern reflection in Revisionist Zionism and Chabad Lubavitch. More left-leaning and Marxist Jews still believe that the Jewish people as a whole are going to lead the human race to salvation, so deep is the original covenant in Jewish traditions. The Israelite God of the Old Testament is vengeful, violent jealous and prone to fits of rage and emotional blackmail and extortion. Or as Nietzsche stated: “A God who Demands.” But what does this covenant, allegedly between “G-d,” actually reflect in the world of the past and today? The dogma enforced was primarily concerned with control using ownership, fear-based allegiance as the tools to accomplish certain objectives that have defined the Middle East and the earth for hundreds of years. Obsession with Israelite genealogies and pedigrees that demand ethnocentric principles of self-aggrandizement along with endless rules and regulations for every possible aspect of daily life exist as a matter of course in both the Torah and the Talmud, the two pillars of ancient Jewish wisdom, the latter believed to be the more influential source for practising Jews and Rabbis today. Both are focused exclusively on the special nature of Jews. Thus, the Mosaic Law of the Ten Commandments such as “love thy neighbour” is really about loving your fellow Jew rather than anyone else outside the faith.
Rabbi Menachem Gerlitz explains the “neighbor” passage:
“ ‘And you shall love your neighbor like your own self ’ – this is an important rule of the Torah. Every Jew must love his fellow Jew with all his heart. The Baal Shem Tov [founder of the ultra-Orthodox Hassidim] used to explain this as follows: Our Torah teaches us to ‘love Hashem your G-d with all your heart.’ How can we prove to ourselves that we are really fulfilling this commandment? Only through the commandment of loving our fellow Jew like our own selves. Only by truly loving each and every Jew, every son of the Chosen People which Hashem selected from all other nations to love, just like a person loves the son of a dear friend.”  [Emphasis mine]
This benevolence is not universal in scope; it is an exclusive to a Jewish universe only. This stems from the belief that the gentile is a being of lesser, even animalistic origins, with a propensity for crime and sexual deviancy. Nor was this an angry reaction to perceived persecution but was a mainstay of original sacred texts. One Rabbi Ben-Haim states that “… that according to the prophets, and also according to our sages, the Gentiles are seen as beasts … It is possible that one may see these injunctions as racism; another may call it hatred of Gentiles, whoever he is; but as far as the Jew who adheres to the statement of the Torah of Israel is concerned, this is reality and a way of life which were set for the people of Israel by G-d.” (“G-d” is a Jewish spelling, the full word cannot be written) Racism against Gentiles is endemic in the Talmud, yet few non-Jewish academics touch it for fear of being labelled anti-Semitic, while Jewish academics leave it well alone for fear of being labelled a crypto-Jew and betrayer of Judaic law. This stale-mate understandably worries many liberal-minded Jews. The underlying principle in Chabad Lubavitch and extreme forms of both Zionism and ultra-right wing Jewish orthodoxy suggests that it is not simply a left-over legacy of a more brutal era that has no resonance as some Jewish academics would prefer to believe, but represents theory translated into practical action.
A 1987 autobiographical account by Evelyn Kaye, who was raised in an orthodox Jewish community in New York, describes the institutionalised racism which has been perpetuated up to the present day and which must cause great concern when such Rabbi leaders have a special place behind the political power brokers:
The mark of a truly devout Hasidic or Orthodox Jew, as well as many other Jews, is an unquestioned hatred of non-Jews. This is the foundation of ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic philosophy. It is as tenacious, unreasoned, and impossible as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism. And as intractable…There is a complete litany of all the terrible things about non-Jews which apply to every single one and which are believed implicitly by the Orthodox. These include:
— all Goyim drink alcohol and are always drunk; — all Goyim are on drugs; — all Goyim hate Jews even when they seem friendly; — all Goyim are anti-semites, no matter what they say and do; — all Goyim have a terrible family life and mistreat their wives and children’ — all Goyim eat pork all the time; — Goyim are never as clever, as kind, as wise or as honest as Jews; — you can never ever trust Goyim.
There’s much more. The essence of anti-Goyimism is passed to Jewish children with their mother’s milk, and then nurtured, fed and watered carefully into a subconscious or full-blown phobia throughout their lives. In order to avoid being contaminated by these terrible creatures, the Ultra-Orthodox go out of their way to avoid them … Children … manage to grow up without seeing one of these dangerous people close up. Their attitudes are then perfectly formed. They know whom to hate.” 
The Judeo-centric vision that demands special treatment and constant psychological deference to a perpetual victimhood becomes somewhat ironic from this perspective. The late Israeli scholar Israel Shahak dug deeper and found that there is even an admonishment that a gentile’s life must not be saved, citing a line from in a book from the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Avodah Zarah, 26b): “Gentiles are neither to be lifted (out of a well) nor hauled down (into it).” i.e., if a non-Jew falls into a well a Jew is religiously forbidden from saving his/or her life. The highly respected Jewish theologian Maimonides takes this example to comment that “it is forbidden to save [non-Jews] if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued.” 
If a source of spiritual wisdom and guidance has, at its root, a dictatorial invective that is set up to teach “special” people how to act, think and feel through a rigidly prescribed set of codified laws then it is surely not surprising that the intervening years were beset with bloodshed. As Evelyn Kaye explains: “The code of Jewish law dictates a range of regulations for sexual intercourse, including when and where it may be experienced, as well as what to think about during the act.” … “There are even rules, about what you may think about while you sit on the toilet.” 
As in the Babylonian Talmud, the existence in sacred Jewish texts of violence, xenophobia, child abuse and homophobia is common place, yet the denial of this fact has become an art form. Where are the benevolent, loving teachings which encourage free-will choice?
The Old Testament from which much of Judaic law is drawn is not about spiritual inclusiveness but based predominantly on authoritarian commands, the widening of separatist tendencies and the overriding conquest of land, all of which is grounded in the promise of rapacious gains and rewards on the earthly plane. It is a fear-based call to arms rather than altruism; a vast body of literature premised on what Shahak calls: “innate totalitarianism.” 
Pretty strong words from a Jewish author. Nor is he alone in his conclusions.
Traditional Judaism demands that its followers live apart from non-Jews and cultivate the knowledge that Jewishness is distinct from any other religious or secular teaching. This can be seen in almost every facet of Jewish life from the insistence of a nation state to the marriage laws that seek to keep the betrothed firmly within the Jewish community. Historically this separatism based on an assumed superiority has obviously fostered resentment both from other communities and races down throughout the ages culminating in the State of Israel that is indeed a nation apart in almost every possible way. Relationships outside business were strictly banned by the Rabbi hierarchy scared of the possibility of assimilation and the loss of Jewish identity. As already discussed, the “Gentile” meaning “non-Jew” (or the pejorative “Goyim”) was traditionally seen as a threat and like their genetically identical brothers the Arabs, an object of derision and ridicule. No more than twenty years ago in 1988, a survey discovered that “more than a third of Reform rabbis – traditionally the most ‘integrated’ and ‘outreaching’ of the major Jewish denominations – endorsed the proposition that ideally, one ought not to have any contact with non-Jews.’” 
During the Jewish diaspora * the resentment created stemmed not from the innocence of the Jewish tribes that romantically traversed the globe in search of spiritual succour but from the repeating patterns of elitism and dogma that meant others’ faith was non-existent. This kind of intolerance and inability to live harmoniously within other belief systems will inevitably lead to mirroring of the same. The tragedies which have befallen the Jewish people and the attachment to the culture of victimhood so often characterised in Jewish history and its relationship to non-Jews, stems not from an unsullied innocence but from a mind-set and religion that courts it.
Turning their sights on Egypt it appears that Abraham and the tribe of Israelites after a period of enslavement returned to Canaan to claim their perceived birth right, the exodus of which has been mythologized with the emergence of Mosaic Laws. The original Canaanites were tossed out amid a ferocious war which came to characterise early Israelite tribal excursions with violent struggles for power and control. Years of warring Israelite monarchies ensued with Israel in the north and Judah in the south. By the third century the diaspora was in effect and Jews were in exile after hundreds of years of fighting, corruption, human sacrifice, and massacres had taken their toll. This led to the end of the Israel of that period, the reflection of which can be found in the Bible. Destruction came on the back of Mosaic Law leading to the scattering of Jews all over the Roman Empire.The legacy of the Torah’s Mosaic Law and the Kabbalistic black magick of the Babylonian Talmud is one of terrible bloodshed enacted by Israelite tribes on behalf of their “G-d.” These are the genocidal roots from which Judaism and Judeo-Christianity has drawn its spiritual nourishment the repercussions of which we live with today. There are legions of examples of the most abject violence in order to secure the Holy Land. As we have seen, there were plenty of people living their lives on the “land of Israel” but ethnic cleansing was deemed the order of the day by none other than the sages of the Torah:
“Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities here. But in the cities of the people that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save nothing alive that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord has commanded.” [Deuteronomy 20:14-18]
Recall the siege of the city of Jericho as the superhero Joshua led yet another round of bloodletting:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both men and women, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword …” [Joshua, 6-21]
This reads like a manual for psychopaths not the guidance from sacred source of spiritual wisdom for a “Chosen People.” It does beg the question: Chosen for what? Were the Israelites channelling something other than God? Or could it be turned on its head and reinvented towards a more politically correct solution? The religio-historical origins of Jews gleefully enacting destruction on behalf of a bloodthirsty God has been systematically photo shopped out of any self-respecting anthology of Jewish rights to victimhood, in perpetuity. For instance, the Almalekites were a war-like tribe that looked as though they might give the Israelite invaders a run for their money and had the bad luck to inhabit Southern Canaan when the Israelites decided to lay claim to it. The channeled presence of the entity called Yahweh was unequivocal in commanding them to: “… go and smite Amalek, and exterminate everything that is his. Don’t pity him, but kill man, woman, infant and nursling, ox, sheep, camel and ass.” [Samuel 15:2-3]
In Exodus 17:16 it was claimed that it would be necessary to enact a distinctly Zio-Conservative program of conflict so that: “the Lord will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages.” It is not hard to see that Chief Amalek has since been transposed onto any ideology or person that takes a stance that is counter to Zionist and many Jewish beliefs. This may also go some way to explaining why Palestinians are treated so abysmally – they are the primary descendants of the Amaleks and thus worthy to be crushed underfoot. Moreover, the Zionist paranoia and aggressive geo-strategy is kept alive by the idea that much of humanity – the Goyim – are none other than the “children of Amalek” and thus to be dealt with in much the same way as they were thousands of years ago.
The only difference is that technological advanced weaponry is now in the hands of such people who have quite possibly inherited more than just monotheistic religion with its tradition of half-truths but perhaps even authoritarian followers who are genetically pre-disposed to primary narcissism and psychopathy, presently enjoying itself in American-Israeli positions of power. Many Rabbis continue to make the connection with the Amaleks and the Arabs in modern day Israel, representing another ponerological manifestation within the teachings of the Jewish community, or as Rabbi David Hartman described it: “…not just a lunatic fringe … but a “… diseased element that is capable of infiltrating into the Jewish self-understanding.” 
An equal number of Jewish academics and the public alike dismiss Jewish ethnocentrism and monotheistic roots of intense violence as having no relevance to today. It is true, the early Israelites and their genocidal antics are not exceptional – there are many similar tribes and leaders down through history that become vessels for pathocracies. Yet, we must take pause as our contemporary events show that the Jewish-Christian roots of extreme violence do indeed have special relevance not only in modern Israel but across the geopolitical spectrum presently monopolised by the Zionist elite and for whom such religio-occult principles are vital in an overarching philosophy of control.
The author Alfred Jospe decided to reframe Jewish suffering in a way that would perpetuate the accustomed hand-wringing of unworthiness and at the same time account for why G-d had forsaken them. It wasn’t because the Judaic Law was somehow wrong or not divinely kosher but due to past sins and the denial of their destiny that Jews were having such an appalling time. He stated: “The Jew was persecuted not because God had abandoned or rejected him; [The Jew] suffered because he was not equal to his moral task. In the words of the prayer book, ‘because of our sins, we were exiled from our land’ … Suffering was defined as punishment and punishment in turn was a call to duty. Exile was God’s call to return to the faithfulness inherent in Israel’s role as the ‘chosen people.’ The acceptance of punishment opened the gate to redemption and return to the land.” 
Ah, of course, then it all makes sense: punishment for following the dictates of G-d and perpetrating acts of debauchery and excess offers more than a few questions regarding the very idea of God and His Judgment. Yet, rather like the playthings on the chessboard of Greek Gods, the ancient Jewish tribes chose to accept their “duty” (at least according to whoever was creating the chronology of the time) and through incurring God’s wrath, punishment and authority became part of the Jewish identity. This is a co-dependent relationship with a God-like abuser which courted disaster by the very nature of the religion.
The legacy of that era right through the medieval period up to the present day shows that the supremacy of a chosen race still holds a tenacious grip on various strains of Zionism and the schools currently promoting the belief of hate – for that is precisely what it is. The old tired racism of the gentile / Goyim as genetically inferior is still doing the rounds giving striking similarities to Nazi ideology of Aryan purity.
Jewish authors Charles Liebman and Stephen Cohen have shown that students:
“… learn that the first two [Jewish] patriarchs, Abraham and Isaac, each had two sons so that the Jewish son might inherit pure genes whereas the corrupt, impure genes that Abraham inherited from his idolatrous ancestors could be passed on to the non-Jewish son. Only Jacob’s son — those of the third generation — inherited pure genes and were worthy of being Jewish … That there is no outcry against [this] being made part of the religious Zionist high school curriculum suggests the level that Jewish ethnocentrism has reached in some quarters.”
And it is this Jewish ethnocentrism which needs quite a bit of propaganda to draw from and which provides the platform by which political and religious Zionism forges ahead unimpeded by moral or ethical constraints. Something which we’ll look at further in the next post.