the way I was thinking, a player with a 5 handicap is a better player than one with an 18 handicap.

either way, home office is impressed with Mike’s creativity.

by lowering goyim handicaps you have made it harder for them to win.

for example if your handicap is 18 strokes normally you are shooting around a 90 based on a course par of 72. So if Mike lowered goyim handicaps say from 18 to 10 to shoot the same game they would now have to have a game with 82 strokes vs. 90. No way the average goyim is going to shoot that well on a Saturday in the presence no less of their Jewish masters.

I think I have that right.

When the handicap is a smaller number that is good. when it is a higher number that is bad. but your intent was righteous.
I will pass this on to operatives in other states.

thats really cold, us goyim cant golf worth sh** anyway. Your team already has all the money and power would you please change them the other way so us goyim can feel, at least on the golf course, that we are sticking it to the man.

GWLSM,
I hacked into my local country clubs computer system and significantly lowered the handicaps of all goyim, while raising those of the Jewish golfers by three strokes. There’s gonna be a lot of money won on the golf course this week.

I was just making fun of BTK and was not asking for advice. I was trying to tie my comments into the thread so no one would accuse me of diverging.

good line. I’ve never heard it and I thought I’ve heard everything…but I’ve also never met a guy who looks like Clark Kent.

of course you were making fun of BTK. see how easy it is? and better for the blood pressure? uh-oh there I go with advice again…. my bad

no one would believe me, I tried that line once in my 20’s a woman told me I looked like Clark Kent and I told here that I turned into Superman when I took my clothes off. She just laughed and started talking to the guy next to her.

I was just making fun of BTK and was not asking for advice. I was trying to tie my comments into the thread so no one would accuse me of diverging.

me: well, since you put it that way, and since this is fun for you, I suppose you can continue to engage TBK. how many goyim did you cheat today ?
Uncle Izzy is checking quotas later this week…. I’v e fallen off my personal best since its too hot to golf and the waves are pretty flat and this makes me cranky. maybe I can get back to persecuting gentiles once it cools off a bit. everyone needs a vacation right?
but no kidding, if things are getting rough down there is florida, call the central office… they’ll be happy to send help. all those college students on summer break can combine a little mischief making with a visit to see the grandparents.

GWLSM,
Can’t a guy have a little fun? You must understand that it’s hard running my little share of the world for the WJ Conspiracy, especially with all our other power brokers down here in Florida. All these long days at toil hurting the goyim, put a lot of pressure on an old guy. The weight of the tremendous authority and wealth alone feel heavy on my shoulders. I was just taking a little fun break and now I’ll have to go back to work again, because after all it is the Christian Sabbath, so I must work twice as hard.

Mike, you make too much sense. seriously. how do you expect to get through to TBK with this strategy?

BTK thanks for opening this gentiles eyes.
How can I reverse my circimcision?

well,yeah. two jewish guys created Superman. really. I’d say that by the end of world war two jews pretty much did take over the entire world. we’d been at it for about 200 years before but planning the fake holocaust put us over the top.

you mean you are circumcised and want to get un-circumcised? since I am a woman and don’t know any men who want to undo theirs I’m kind of the last person to ask for this sort of advice but let me ask you this: now that you can pass for a jew while changing clothes at the gym or at the men’s room line up ( I know, you all say that no one looks) why wouldn’t you want to take advantage of the Man of Steel thing?

How about though showing how stupid you are? If Jews are as powerful as you claim we are, don’t you realize that you and your NAZI buddies are toast? Given the awful tortures you referred to that are committed by Jews, if I were you I would be very afraid. Problem is though, this is not the case and you’re just an idiot who’s filled with self loathing and projects it out onto others.

Jews created Superman? we are all going to die. Those wascally Jews, they are trying to take over the world, I can see it know.

BTK thanks for opening this gentiles eyes.
How can I reverse my circimcision?

I spent half the night doing research and guess what I found out-you were right the whole world is run by Jews, they are everywhere. I even read the back of a box of cereal and it had some reference to Judaism. I am really starting to freak out, bankers, doctors, the media, my penis (its circumcised how did that happen? It must be part of the larger Jewish conspiracy to turn us all into Jews.)

Oh my god BTK what am I going to do?

thanks, doll, but I didn’t write that for him. I wrote it for you and my other friends here. really, I’ll bet tbk is a pimply-faced 17 year old who can’t get a date and found sudden popularity on the racist bigot websites. he lives in his mother’s basement and drinks beer with his friends while they listen to nazi rock. if this were 20 years ago he’d have a benign little public service tv station like wayne’s world. my guess is that he’d love to have a friend like wayne or garth but they are too, uh, evolved.

otoh, superman, was created by two jewish guys, jerry siegel and joe shuster in 1934. their idea came from divine inspiration of a jewish superhero who could fight nazis. naturally tbk would find this offensive. as for me, the Man of Steel was and remains my favorite comic book super hero and I should have saved all my books. I took really good care of them and had I saved them I might not have had to go to Uncle Izzy, V.P. of the Worldwide Jewish Banking Conspiracy for law school tuition for my kid.
either way, we Jews do find a way to rule the world. happily we like all our non-jewish friends and do not mind cutting them a big slice of the pie. makes for better parties.

Off Topic re: mods to the site.

If Word Press doesn’t have a ‘lock-out’ function based on name or URL the Professor might want to find a template that does ie: TBK and that ilk. Just say’n.
———

DNFTT
———

GWLSM: Brother runs the media remark:
Whooooosh, the sound your posting makes as it flies above his head; WAY too sophisticated what with all that sarcasm and irony and stuff.

Seriously, get help.

me: shhhh. keep this quiet. don’t tell anyone, but btk is partly right…. my uncle is the vice president of the world wide jewish bannking conspiracy. how do you think I got this swell computer and how I pay my kid’s tuition? that’s right. from money I get from the banking conspiracy. and you know what they say about how jews run the media? tbk isn’t far from wrong there either. my brother in law is a reporter. well that’s what everyone things. in reality he runs the news media. all of it. well most of it. well, really he runs the zerox machine at his office and services the big copiers. shhhhh.

me: hahaha you have no idea what the Talmud says. admit it. you wouldn’t recognize a volume of the Talmud if one hit you in the head. and neither do the jew haters who wrote this. if given one of the many volumes of the Talmud you could not find this entry or any other like it. your bible is the stormfront website and the protocols of the elders of zion. which is all perfectly fine and legal but a scholar you never will be. what a rube. whzt a maroon. so you believe what your white supremacist cohort writes on their websites. so what. you have no authority over anyone but yourself and no power here. begone with you.

wake up to what, your stupidity?

Becuase I quote one of your masters

You jews are devoid of any content. You lack integrity. Your own fellows have said that the jew only knows two things: money grubbing and causing trouble through communist revolution.
You will never research this yourselves. You either know the truth or you are afraid to find out that I am correct.

Jews have subverted Americans through the jew story of superman. Did you know that it’s a jew story?
The jews are letting the cat out of the bag because they think they own us. There is a new movie out now where a jew is wearing a T-shirt with a superman symbol in a hexagram.

You blind gentiles on this board better wake up.

now you are just foolish. go back to watching Spring Time for Hitler and eating mushrooms.

“The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.

In this New World Order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.”

— Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, ‘La Revue de Paris’, p.574, June 1, 1928

——————————————————————————–

All you Talmud scholars in the electronic world, are you not familiar with these quotes in Shahak’s book?

I can’t wait to hear the name calling, “you’re sick, you’re disgusting, you’re a dead animal:.

Tisk!!!Tisk!!!
Poor jew!!!He can’t even accept what his own Talmud says.

——————————————————————————–

Top: Jewish Genocides Today and Yesterday: Jewish Religious Hatred of Gentiles Published by Israel Shahak

——————————————————————————–

Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years

By Israel Shahak, with a foreword by Gore Vidal. Published by Pluto Press (London, 1994).

When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews’ religious writings or from a study of the Jews’ behavior toward non-Jews.

Notable among these was the Great Reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote in Von den JØden und Ihren LØgen :

Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle….

Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For I see in their writings how they curse us goyim and wish us all evil in their schools and their prayers.

The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another “hater,” blinded by religious bigotry. And today that’s still the Jews’ standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.

When British newsman William Cash, Los Angeles correspondent for London’s Daily Telegraph , reported late last year in a magazine article the simple fact that the executives in Hollywood’s motion picture industry are nearly all Jews, they shrieked at him, “Hater!” and denied his fact. When spokesmen for the National Alliance, America’s premier patriotic organization, discuss on the group’s radio programs the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media or Jewish backing for gun confiscation or for racial mixing, the Jews also denounce them as “haters,” and a call goes out to prohibit “hate” on the airwaves.

Thus, Israel Shahak’s book is all the more important for being a document by a knowledgeable Jew–a Jewish “insider”–about the beliefs and behavior of his fellow Jews. Born in Warsaw in 1933, Shahak spent a portion of his childhood in the concentration camp in Belsen, from which he immigrated to Palestine in 1945. He grew up in Israel, served in the Israeli military, and became a chemistry professor. Like all Israelis, he became fluent in Hebrew. He also became acclimated to the peculiar moral atmosphere of Israeli society: a combination of overweening arrogance and deceit, a mixture of pugnacious self-righteousness and duplicity.

Unlike his fellow Israelis, however, Professor Shahak is deeply troubled by this peculiar atmosphere. Whereas the Jews around him take it for granted that the goyim on whom they depend for economic, military, and diplomatic support are too stupid ever to figure out what the Jews think about them and say about them behind their backs and plan to do to them when they can, and too sheeplike ever to take effective action if they do figure it out, he worries. He remembers that the Romans figured it out, and they consequently sacked Jerusalem and chased the Jews out of Palestine. He remembers that the Germans figured it out, and that’s why he became an involuntary tenant in a concentration camp. He’s worried that if his fellow Jews continue behaving as they always have, they will get themselves into some really serious trouble–again.

In particular, Professor Shahak is concerned about the behavior of those of his race who adhere to Judaism. He is not one of these himself, and so he is able to look with some degree of objectivity at the mixture of superstition, Jewish chauvinism, and hatred of non-Jews which makes up the Jewish religion and its sacred writings. He deplores traditional Jewish teachings, not only because of the danger that some new Martin Luther will come along and spill the beans to the Gentiles, but because of the spiritually debilitating effect these teachings have had on the Jews themselves. Of the world of medieval Jewry in Europe, the world of the ghetto and the shtetl which modern Jewish writers refer to in euphoric tones as a world of quaint tradition and piety, Shahak says: “It was a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance . . . .”

He cites a number of specific instances of the ways in which Jewish religious authorities have kept their flocks under control. In general, the rabbis have taught their fellow Jews that their Gentile neighbors are spiritually and morally unclean; that they are subhuman, on a level with the beasts of the field; and that they hate Jews and must be hated in return. Jews are taught that the Christian religion is a religion fit only for animals, and that its founder, Jesus, was the son of a prostitute and is presently immersed in a pit of boiling excrement in hell.

Among the Hassidim (Hebrew for “pious ones”) all of these teachings are kept current. Shahak points out that a central thesis of the Hassidic doctrine is that only Jews are human beings, and that the universe was created for them alone. Non-Jews were created only to be used by Jews. Although this teaching about the subhumanity of Gentiles is most open and explicit among the bearded, sidelocked, black-hatted Orthodox Jews that one sees in Jewish strongholds such as New York City, it comes from the core of Jewish tradition and is accepted to a greater or lesser degree by all pious Jews. It is, for example, a specific tenet of the Jewish Defense League and is cited in the membership handbook for that group.

Especially frustrating to Professor Shahak is the clever deception which his fellow Jews use to conceal the true nature of Judaism from their Gentile neighbors. Regarding the veil of false piety which conceals from Gentile eyes the malevolent doctrine of the Hassidim, he writes: “A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of deception, was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic movement (including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of Hassidism concerning non-Jews.” Buber (1878-1965) promoted Hassidism in Germany during the rise of the National Socialists–in fact, until 1938, when he left for Palestine–and Shahak considers Buber’s efforts, despite their deceptiveness, at least partly responsible for the National Socialist reaction to the Jews. There were, after all, plenty of National Socialists perceptive enough to see through the veil. One of these was Adolf Hitler’s early comrade, the editor and playwright Dietrich Eckart, whose booklet Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin is especially revealing in this regard (available in English translation from National Vanguard Books for $5.00, postpaid).

Another example of Jewish deception given by Professor Shahak concerns the etymology of the Yiddish word for a Gentile girl, shiksa . He cites the popular English-language book The Joys of Yiddish (New York, 1968), by Leo Rosten, which tells its readers that shiksa comes from the Hebrew word sheqetz , meaning “blemish.” Writes Shahak, “This is a barefaced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines sheqetz as follows: `unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination . . . .’”

Professor Shahak writes with passion. He evidently feels that liberating Jews everywhere from the shackles of their misanthropic superstitions and freeing Israeli state policy in particular from the stifling influence of Judaism is a matter of some urgency. He focuses our attention especially on the inherent hatefulness of Judaism with citations from a number of Jewish religious writings.

This has been a favorite activity of anti-Jewish writers for centuries, who have belabored us with the Talmud’s insulting and hostile comments about Gentiles. The inaccessibility to Gentiles of many of the Hebrew texts, however, together with the deception veiling them, has made Talmudic exegesis a problematic task for all Gentiles with less scholarship or determination than that of Martin Luther. For this reason one must exercise considerable discretion in quoting from many anti-Jewish writings: translations are often questionable, and references are often garbled.

Professor Shahak does not have these limitations: he knows where to look; he understands the secret meanings of all of the deceptive euphemisms; and he gives us clear and reliable translations. In a chapter titled “The Laws against Non-Jews,” he writes:

. . . [T]he Halakhah, that is the legal system of classical Judaism–as practiced by practically all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the 18th and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox Judaism–is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However, because of the unwieldy complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud, more manageable codifications of talmudic law became necessary . . . . The most authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is the Shulhan ‘Arukh . . . .

He then cites the teaching of this code regarding homicide:

According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. . . . When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan ‘Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, “one must not lift one’s hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice . . . there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly.” . . .

A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.

Then Shahak gives us a rabbi’s answer to an Israeli soldier who has asked whether or not it is proper to kill Arab women and children. In his answer the rabbi quotes from the Talmud: “The best of the Gentiles–kill him; the best of snakes–dash out its brains.”

Perhaps even more offensive are the Jewish beliefs on sexual matters. Shahak writes:

Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse “whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses” is applied to them. . . . Therefore, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality. . . .

According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia : “He who has carnal knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty, for it is written: `thy fellow’s wife’ rather than the alien’s wife . . . and although a married Gentile woman is forbidden to the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is exempted.”

This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted–quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew: “If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day–because he had willful coitus with her she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble.”

The Talmud’s overriding concern with matters of money and property mirror that of the Jews, and Professor Shahak offers a number of hair-splitting examples of Jewish beliefs on the subject and the way in which distinctions are made between the property of Jews and Gentiles, and between Jewish dealings with another Jew and with a Gentile. Two of these examples will suffice here:

If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it. . . .

It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, “Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: `Do not defraud each man his brother’ . . . .”

Shahak points out that “the Halakhah interprets all such idioms [as `each man his brother' or `neighbor'] as referring exclusively to one’s fellow Jew.”

How have the Jews managed to keep teachings of this sort concealed from the Gentiles among whom they live? The truth of the matter is that they have not always been able to do so. Luther was not the only Christian scholar who learned Hebrew, peered into the Talmud, and was horrified by what he saw. Sometimes the Jews were able to bribe the Christian authorities to overlook such things, but throughout the later Middle Ages there were prohibitions and burnings of talmudic literature by outraged popes and bishops.

The Jews developed a clever system of double bookkeeping to circumvent such “persecution.” They modified or deleted the offending passages from new editions of the Talmud, and they made up a separate compendium–Talmudic Omissions , or in Hebrew Hesronot Shas –which circulated surreptitiously among the rabbis. In Israel today, feeling cocky enough to dispense with most such deceptions, the Jews are putting the passages which formerly had been omitted or modified back into the latest editions of the Talmud or the Shulhan ‘Arukh in their original form. They are still careful with translations into Gentile tongues, however. Professor Shahak gives an example:

In 1962 a part of the Maimonidean Code . . . the so-called Book of Knowledge , which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: “It is a duty to exterminate them with one’s own hands.” In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: “It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them.” But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of “infidels” who must be exterminated: “Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoq and Baitos [the founders of the Sadducean sect] and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot.” Not one word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this glaring deception.

Professor Shahak is too naive. If he ventured out of Israel more and came to know Christian scholars better, he would understand what a pathetic and Politically Correct rabble they have become. There is not the slightest spark of Martin Luther left in the lot of them. Traitors to their own people as well as to their religion, they smile and genuflect at every insult from the Jews and are capable of feeling indignation only when the Jews receive some slight. The Jews are able to enlist them by the regiment to denounce in unison as “hate” any criticism of Jewish policies or doctrines, but they turn a blind eye to the virulent hatred which permeates Judaism and motivates the great majority of Jews, religious as well as secular.

Israel Shahak is a rare Jew indeed, and his book is essential reading for anyone interested in the problem of the Jews.

——————————————————————————–

Top: Jewish Genocides Today and Yesterday: Jewish Religious Hatred of Gentiles Published by Israel Shahak

——————————————————————————–

Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years

By Israel Shahak, with a foreword by Gore Vidal. Published by Pluto Press (London, 1994).

When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews’ religious writings or from a study of the Jews’ behavior toward non-Jews.

Notable among these was the Great Reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote in Von den JØden und Ihren LØgen :

Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle….

Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For I see in their writings how they curse us goyim and wish us all evil in their schools and their prayers.

The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another “hater,” blinded by religious bigotry. And today that’s still the Jews’ standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.

When British newsman William Cash, Los Angeles correspondent for London’s Daily Telegraph , reported late last year in a magazine article the simple fact that the executives in Hollywood’s motion picture industry are nearly all Jews, they shrieked at him, “Hater!” and denied his fact. When spokesmen for the National Alliance, America’s premier patriotic organization, discuss on the group’s radio programs the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media or Jewish backing for gun confiscation or for racial mixing, the Jews also denounce them as “haters,” and a call goes out to prohibit “hate” on the airwaves.

Thus, Israel Shahak’s book is all the more important for being a document by a knowledgeable Jew–a Jewish “insider”–about the beliefs and behavior of his fellow Jews. Born in Warsaw in 1933, Shahak spent a portion of his childhood in the concentration camp in Belsen, from which he immigrated to Palestine in 1945. He grew up in Israel, served in the Israeli military, and became a chemistry professor. Like all Israelis, he became fluent in Hebrew. He also became acclimated to the peculiar moral atmosphere of Israeli society: a combination of overweening arrogance and deceit, a mixture of pugnacious self-righteousness and duplicity.

Unlike his fellow Israelis, however, Professor Shahak is deeply troubled by this peculiar atmosphere. Whereas the Jews around him take it for granted that the goyim on whom they depend for economic, military, and diplomatic support are too stupid ever to figure out what the Jews think about them and say about them behind their backs and plan to do to them when they can, and too sheeplike ever to take effective action if they do figure it out, he worries. He remembers that the Romans figured it out, and they consequently sacked Jerusalem and chased the Jews out of Palestine. He remembers that the Germans figured it out, and that’s why he became an involuntary tenant in a concentration camp. He’s worried that if his fellow Jews continue behaving as they always have, they will get themselves into some really serious trouble–again.

In particular, Professor Shahak is concerned about the behavior of those of his race who adhere to Judaism. He is not one of these himself, and so he is able to look with some degree of objectivity at the mixture of superstition, Jewish chauvinism, and hatred of non-Jews which makes up the Jewish religion and its sacred writings. He deplores traditional Jewish teachings, not only because of the danger that some new Martin Luther will come along and spill the beans to the Gentiles, but because of the spiritually debilitating effect these teachings have had on the Jews themselves. Of the world of medieval Jewry in Europe, the world of the ghetto and the shtetl which modern Jewish writers refer to in euphoric tones as a world of quaint tradition and piety, Shahak says: “It was a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance . . . .”

He cites a number of specific instances of the ways in which Jewish religious authorities have kept their flocks under control. In general, the rabbis have taught their fellow Jews that their Gentile neighbors are spiritually and morally unclean; that they are subhuman, on a level with the beasts of the field; and that they hate Jews and must be hated in return. Jews are taught that the Christian religion is a religion fit only for animals, and that its founder, Jesus, was the son of a prostitute and is presently immersed in a pit of boiling excrement in hell.

Among the Hassidim (Hebrew for “pious ones”) all of these teachings are kept current. Shahak points out that a central thesis of the Hassidic doctrine is that only Jews are human beings, and that the universe was created for them alone. Non-Jews were created only to be used by Jews. Although this teaching about the subhumanity of Gentiles is most open and explicit among the bearded, sidelocked, black-hatted Orthodox Jews that one sees in Jewish strongholds such as New York City, it comes from the core of Jewish tradition and is accepted to a greater or lesser degree by all pious Jews. It is, for example, a specific tenet of the Jewish Defense League and is cited in the membership handbook for that group.

Especially frustrating to Professor Shahak is the clever deception which his fellow Jews use to conceal the true nature of Judaism from their Gentile neighbors. Regarding the veil of false piety which conceals from Gentile eyes the malevolent doctrine of the Hassidim, he writes: “A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of deception, was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic movement (including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of Hassidism concerning non-Jews.” Buber (1878-1965) promoted Hassidism in Germany during the rise of the National Socialists–in fact, until 1938, when he left for Palestine–and Shahak considers Buber’s efforts, despite their deceptiveness, at least partly responsible for the National Socialist reaction to the Jews. There were, after all, plenty of National Socialists perceptive enough to see through the veil. One of these was Adolf Hitler’s early comrade, the editor and playwright Dietrich Eckart, whose booklet Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin is especially revealing in this regard (available in English translation from National Vanguard Books for $5.00, postpaid).

Another example of Jewish deception given by Professor Shahak concerns the etymology of the Yiddish word for a Gentile girl, shiksa . He cites the popular English-language book The Joys of Yiddish (New York, 1968), by Leo Rosten, which tells its readers that shiksa comes from the Hebrew word sheqetz , meaning “blemish.” Writes Shahak, “This is a barefaced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines sheqetz as follows: `unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination . . . .’”

Professor Shahak writes with passion. He evidently feels that liberating Jews everywhere from the shackles of their misanthropic superstitions and freeing Israeli state policy in particular from the stifling influence of Judaism is a matter of some urgency. He focuses our attention especially on the inherent hatefulness of Judaism with citations from a number of Jewish religious writings.

This has been a favorite activity of anti-Jewish writers for centuries, who have belabored us with the Talmud’s insulting and hostile comments about Gentiles. The inaccessibility to Gentiles of many of the Hebrew texts, however, together with the deception veiling them, has made Talmudic exegesis a problematic task for all Gentiles with less scholarship or determination than that of Martin Luther. For this reason one must exercise considerable discretion in quoting from many anti-Jewish writings: translations are often questionable, and references are often garbled.

Professor Shahak does not have these limitations: he knows where to look; he understands the secret meanings of all of the deceptive euphemisms; and he gives us clear and reliable translations. In a chapter titled “The Laws against Non-Jews,” he writes:

. . . [T]he Halakhah, that is the legal system of classical Judaism–as practiced by practically all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the 18th and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox Judaism–is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However, because of the unwieldy complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud, more manageable codifications of talmudic law became necessary . . . . The most authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is the Shulhan ‘Arukh . . . .

He then cites the teaching of this code regarding homicide:

According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. . . . When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan ‘Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, “one must not lift one’s hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice . . . there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly.” . . .

A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.

Then Shahak gives us a rabbi’s answer to an Israeli soldier who has asked whether or not it is proper to kill Arab women and children. In his answer the rabbi quotes from the Talmud: “The best of the Gentiles–kill him; the best of snakes–dash out its brains.”

Perhaps even more offensive are the Jewish beliefs on sexual matters. Shahak writes:

Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse “whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses” is applied to them. . . . Therefore, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality. . . .

According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia : “He who has carnal knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty, for it is written: `thy fellow’s wife’ rather than the alien’s wife . . . and although a married Gentile woman is forbidden to the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is exempted.”

This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted–quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew: “If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day–because he had willful coitus with her she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble.”

The Talmud’s overriding concern with matters of money and property mirror that of the Jews, and Professor Shahak offers a number of hair-splitting examples of Jewish beliefs on the subject and the way in which distinctions are made between the property of Jews and Gentiles, and between Jewish dealings with another Jew and with a Gentile. Two of these examples will suffice here:

If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it. . . .

It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, “Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: `Do not defraud each man his brother’ . . . .”

Shahak points out that “the Halakhah interprets all such idioms [as `each man his brother' or `neighbor'] as referring exclusively to one’s fellow Jew.”

How have the Jews managed to keep teachings of this sort concealed from the Gentiles among whom they live? The truth of the matter is that they have not always been able to do so. Luther was not the only Christian scholar who learned Hebrew, peered into the Talmud, and was horrified by what he saw. Sometimes the Jews were able to bribe the Christian authorities to overlook such things, but throughout the later Middle Ages there were prohibitions and burnings of talmudic literature by outraged popes and bishops.

The Jews developed a clever system of double bookkeeping to circumvent such “persecution.” They modified or deleted the offending passages from new editions of the Talmud, and they made up a separate compendium–Talmudic Omissions , or in Hebrew Hesronot Shas –which circulated surreptitiously among the rabbis. In Israel today, feeling cocky enough to dispense with most such deceptions, the Jews are putting the passages which formerly had been omitted or modified back into the latest editions of the Talmud or the Shulhan ‘Arukh in their original form. They are still careful with translations into Gentile tongues, however. Professor Shahak gives an example:

In 1962 a part of the Maimonidean Code . . . the so-called Book of Knowledge , which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: “It is a duty to exterminate them with one’s own hands.” In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: “It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them.” But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of “infidels” who must be exterminated: “Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoq and Baitos [the founders of the Sadducean sect] and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot.” Not one word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this glaring deception.

Professor Shahak is too naive. If he ventured out of Israel more and came to know Christian scholars better, he would understand what a pathetic and Politically Correct rabble they have become. There is not the slightest spark of Martin Luther left in the lot of them. Traitors to their own people as well as to their religion, they smile and genuflect at every insult from the Jews and are capable of feeling indignation only when the Jews receive some slight. The Jews are able to enlist them by the regiment to denounce in unison as “hate” any criticism of Jewish policies or doctrines, but they turn a blind eye to the virulent hatred which permeates Judaism and motivates the great majority of Jews, religious as well as secular.

Israel Shahak is a rare Jew indeed, and his book is essential reading for anyone interested in the problem of the Jews.

this person is a threat to individual freedom and liberty and humor in my mind just dosent cut it.

You are a better person than I am to approach it the way you do.

me: I am a Jew and a victim of what would now be called a violent hate crime but then it was just a game that two kids played on me that went terribly wrong.
My freedom is not affected at all by racists and bigots. they simply do not have the power to limit where I go, what I say, what I do, who I associate with. they don’t. I think they are wasting their lives with hate and stupidity, but that is their right and far be it for me to try to change that. the more time they spend hating the less time they have for other things, like enjoyment of life. the more time they spend in basements goose-stepping to nazi rock the less time they have to hike in parks, body surf by favorite spots, so what I do and go where I go. I’d say that they are already limited in their pursuit of freedom by the shackles on their closed up constipated world view.

I know I am not a better person — I just have a way of looking at things that works for me

I am sorry but one must confront evil with more than humor.

this person is a threat to individual freedom and liberty and humor in my mind just dosent cut it.

You are a better person than I am to approach it the way you do.

take your Heinrich Himmler and Hitler dolls and play bury the swastika somewhere else.

me: actually, IS, I like seeing people like TBK out in the open. Do does Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center and so does Abe Foxman of the ADL. While this kind of thinking is anathema to me and to others here, while I find it repulsive, I kind of like the Mel Brooks approach… make jokes at their expense…laugh at them…show that they are ridiculous and you take away their power. where do you think “springtime for hitler” comes from?

anyway, as much as I am sickened by their beliefs I don’t deny them the right to believe as they will. so let them have their websites and their collections of nazi memorabilia and their swastikas.
the more they do this in the open the less we have to worry about.

they are not civilized, but since when is being a jew hater against the law?

I have not said anything about killing but a good American ass whooping would be deserved for that BS.

I also would feel the same way if you were sending me to an anti-Islamic site or whatever. There is no place for this type of thinking in civilized society.

take your Heinrich Himmler and Hitler dolls and play bury the swastika somewhere else.

You are the one who is hysterical. I have done nothing here remotely resembling irrationality. I have simply stated the facts which anyone can verify if he wanted the truth. Typical of jewish behaviour is to accuse others of bad behaviour. Not a single one of my statements has been refuted on this site.This IndenturedServant now is advocating killing me. Tisk! Tisk! You people are such hypocrites. You can’t stand truth so the trheats and name-calling begin.
Don’t worry I will not continue to cast my pears.

IndenturedServant!!!!More like slave of the jews….

I am sure that you would not have any problems with me if I were promoting killing Muslims for IsRaHell.

And you pretend to be open minded and tolerant.

you are one sick individual if you like the stuff on that web site. My contempt for you is beyond words if you adhere to this, this, even shit is to good a word for it.

I cant even believe that there are people who believe it and that I may interact with them on a daily basis. I don’t necessarily believe in violence but I think I would make an exception for people that believe what that site is saying.

The total disregard this site has for humanity and the human intellect is appalling, there is nothing even remotely redeeming about it. I am not one for censorship but I would ask Prof. Turley to remove TruthBeKnown’s July 18, 2009 at 11:45 am post in the name of the human intellect and decency.

All you white european gentiles out there, enjoy!!!!!

Cats, and a best friend was named Katz so it just had to be Lottakatz. When I took that name the better half and I lived with more cats but time has reduced the cat contingent of the life pod down to two kitties. Four just seems to us to be the proper number but circumstance has brought us more on occasion. We have been cat-lite for about a year.

That changes next week because my deceased friend (who was converted to the cat side through her association with me) also had seen her house-cat population decline to two cats and now they need a home. When the house is vacated next week I’ll bring them home with me. One of her cats is actually a brother to one of mine and they have similar temperaments so I’m hoping the transition works out well for them (us) all.

All of our kitties have been strays or adopted. I just can’t understand how people consider their pets disposable but they do (drop-off rates at shelters go up in a poor economy and that I do understand) so we have never had a dearth of kitties in our lives for very long.

Now you are forewarned, obviously that the mere mention of cats could warrant a lengthy posting ( when stopping with “Cats” would have done as well) tips you to the fact that your dealing with a hardcore cat person and means that the word should be used sparingly in my vicinity. I’ll resist the reflexive urge to tell you, in detail, the last cute thing one of our cats did, which was yesterday … no … NO … MUST … RESIST …

Again, thank you all for your kind words and thoughts. As someone else (AY maybe) mentioned above, I too hope BIL is OK and will return.

You have made it very clear that you despise physicians so I will ignore your editorial as more of the same order of crap you’ve been serving up since you arrived in April under your current handle.

Get some help. You need sorely it.

ALthough I don’t know you, I am also sorry for your double losses, LK…

I will attribute your ‘ramble’ to an apparent lack of sleep, as you say, likely attributable on both levels- parent and close (girl?)friend, I presume…

As doctors, we lose people out of our patient families of thousands on any given day. It’s never without some sensations of loss even if we did not know them well, personally.

Pardon me for being slightly detached when it comes to the natural course of life and events than most folks.

I couldn’t do my job, otherwise.
****************************************

Your utter lack of consideration must make you the most exemplary example of what not to do in your alleged medical practice and therefore an example to be understood.

Your lack of compassion amazes me, how can you be so inconsiderate and rude to people in times like these? Are you trying to make a lastly impression?

Go out and walk in wet concrete, stand there for a while, let it set. When no one comes to your aide reread what the hell it is that you wrote here. You would certainly understand why.

Unfortunately here in Texas they have passed laws that make it obligatory to assist in roadside emergency’s. I am sure that the court would look at the failure to assist you as justifiable.

My condolences.

I will attribute your ‘ramble’ to an apparent lack of sleep, as you say, likely attributable on both levels- parent and close (girl?)friend, I presume…

As doctors, we lose people out of our patient families of thousands on any given day. It’s never without some sensations of loss even if we did not know them well, personally.

Pardon me for being slightly detached when it comes to the natural course of life and events than most folks.

I couldn’t do my job, otherwise.

I was thinking that you’d been scarce for the same reason as me…. that you were away, enjoying the summer. I am so sorry to hear of your recent losses. The things we say at times like this seem so trite and I usually feel pretty helpless when trying to offer comfort. I hope that as the days as weeks pass your burden grows lighter and that your grief is replaced by loving memories.

“I made my posting because I saw Bob E’s posting and yours to be the leading edge of a personal affront and is indicative of a subconscious impulse to sex/gender bias or insult. Notice I said subconscious.”

Actually, it was meant entirely as comic relief; i.e. relief from the psycho-sexual nightmare of a tangent the discussion had turned into.

And I am sorry about your loss.

Bob