Tag Archive | racism

The Lynching of Hamza Yusuf*

The Lynching of Hamza Yusuf*

White American Muslim Leader Excoriated for Defending the United States, Law Enforcement, Criticizing Radical Political Islam, and Refusing to Blindly Back Black Lives Matter

By Hanan al-Harbi

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is a scholar of Islam and a popular preacher who has helped disseminate traditional, mainstream, spiritual Islam, and actively opposed fundamentalism, literalism, and extremism. He is also an accomplished college administrator.

And although, like myself, he has many human shortcomings and is not above criticism, he deserves recognition for his service to Islam and Muslims. So, despite our differences, I speak truth and stand for justice so much so that I would not hesitate to defend Shaykh Hamza if he were subject to injustice. And that moment has come.

If the New Year is synonymous with resolutions, many Muslims evidently did not commit to avoid slander, libel, and defamation of character when responding to some of the comments that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf made at the Reviving the Islamic Spirit Conference in December of 2016.

The year ended, and the year began, with a storm of controversy that was supposedly spurred on by the observations made by the white American Sunni Muslim scholar on the Black Lives Matter movement and Radical Political Islam. It was a storm in a teacup that spoke more of the stereotypes and racism of the critics than the views of Hamza Yusuf. What exactly did the Shaykh say on December 23, 2016? I let him speak for himself:

“The United States is, in term of its laws, one of the least racist societies in the world. We have some of the best anti-discriminatory laws on the planet… We have between 15-18,000 homicides a year, 50 per cent are black on black crime… There are twice as many whites that have been shot by police but nobody ever shows those videos. It’s the assumption that the police are racist and it’s not always the case… I think it’s very dangerous to just broad stroke any police that shoots a black as immediately being considered a racist, sometimes these are African American police officers. The police aren’t all racist.”

Hamza Yusuf also added that:

“We should all be against any ideologies of supremacy of one people over another people, it’s completely antithetical to our religion but we have some of the worst racism in our own communities… the anti-Jewish rhetoric that you hear in the Islamic community is horrific… do you know what it’s like to be a Pakistani in a lot of the Gulf States or from India or from Kerala even worse? People talk about white privilege, what about Arab privilege over non-Arabs in the Middle East?”

He criticized Muslims who “have turned Islam into a political ideology.” He said that most of Islam has nothing to do with politics. He explained that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb al-Tahrir and al-Qaedah were a reaction to political expression rooted in the corruption of Islamic doctrine. He also claimed that Yasir Qadhi was a source of division among Muslims.

In his unwarranted and unnecessary response to unmerited criticism, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf apologized for criticizing Qadhi, explained that he had no desire to belittle the struggle of African American people against racism, and asserted that he did not believe that the Muslim Brotherhood spawned al-Qaedah. What is more, he stressed that he did not want to see supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood persecuted for their political beliefs.

Shaykh Abdullah Hakim Quick responded by stating that:

“Muslim leaders in the Americas who do not recognize the systematic subjugation and continued suppression of black people in the West and do not speak clearly against the organized racism that is raising its head today should step down and keep their mouths shut!!! They do not represent Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in their cowardice and should stop blaming black People and Native People for their weak family structure or drug addiction. Stop victimizing the victims. Is their [sic] no blood in our veins or is it cold water? Are Muslims attending conferences to be entertained or to seek guidance? May Allah raise up courageous leadership from our people and protect us from hypocrisy!!!”

Dr. Jonathan AC Brown said that:

“Muslims in America should stand with Black Lives Matter, as should anyone who has a problem with an absurd number of unarmed men being shot with impunity. Not only is this a clear justice issue, but Muslims suffer from similar problems, and many Muslims are black! Muslims who don’t have the bandwidth to be supportive on this issue should remain silent on it… In short, white men should let African Americans speak for themselves and support them. They probably shouldn’t offer their opinions on issues regarding the African American community. We can sit and insult the ‘Muslim Brotherhood,’ whatever that means, till we’re good and happy. But to use ‘the Muslim Brotherhood’ in the same sentence with ISIS, terrorism or extremism cannot be tolerated. It lends credence to the absurd policies advanced by the UAE/Sisi regime, which have led to the oppression, imprisoning, rape and torture of thousands in Egypt and elsewhere. In the U.S, and Europe, it advances the UAE/Islamophobe agenda of criminalizing mainstream Muslim organizations.”

Ustadh Ubaydullah Evans, ALIM’s first Scholar-in-Residence and Executive Director, asserted that:

“Shaykh Hamza’s commenting on black on black violence and the breakdown of the black family in connection with the value of black life and police brutality is unacceptable. Someone must explain to my Shaykh that the fact of white privilege precludes the possibility of his being able to make such comments with any integrity.”

Imam Suhaib Webb alleged that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf dismissed

“the Black Lives Matter movement, police brutality against blacks in America, the racial bias in the criminal justice system in the U.S., sentencing guidelines, prison terms and a few other issues that, as a white man, he should address with extreme care.”

Dr. Su’ad Abdul Khabeer, Sakina Hasib, and Hakeem Muhammad accused Shaykh Hamza of pathologizing black people. Many critics discredited Hamza Yusuf on the basis that he was “white” and even called into question his title of “Shaykh.” What is more, he was openly accused of being a racist and a bigot. Did he deserve to be dragged in the dust? Let me consider the comments that he made.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf claimed that “The United States is, in term of its laws, one of the least racist societies in the world.” According to the World Value survey, the most racially intolerant countries in the world, in order, include India, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Vietnam, Indonesia, South Korea, France, Turkey, Bulgaria, Algeria, Morocco, Mali, Zambia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Hong Kong whereas the most tolerant countries include, in order, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, Australia, and New Zealand. In a combined study of two surveys published by the Washington Post, the ten most racist countries in the world included, in order, India, Lebanon, Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, the Philippines, Kuwait, Palestine, South Africa, and South Korea. The Shaykh is also correct when he states that the US has “some of the best anti-discriminatory laws on the planet.”

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf never alleged that there was no racism in the United States. The country has a long and shameful history of racism, segregation, discrimination, and injustice towards all those who were not White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. First Nations, Africans, French Canadians, Hispanics, Asians, the Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics, and Muslims have all historically suffered injustice in America. The same, however, can also be said for poor White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who have been exploited, marginalized, and treated like trash. The Shaykh is also perfectly cognizant that the judicial system is not always just and that the correctional system fails to correct anything.

The Shaykh, who is well-travelled and well-educated about social issues throughout the world, is not naïve, narrow-minded, and fixated on the United States. His comments were the product of a global outlook. For hyper-sensitive self-centred individuals to claim that Hamza Yusuf was trivializing or minimizing the reality of racism in the United States, and the Western world, is utterly unfair. He was focusing on the big picture and exposing double standards.

Although Mehdi Hasan was aggressively trying to corner him, in the impolite, uncouth, insolent and disrespectful fashion that was popularized by Fox News, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf attempted to redirect the conversation toward reality:

“We have between 15-18,000 homicides a year, 50 per cent are black on black crime… There are twice as many whites that have been shot by police but nobody ever shows those videos. It’s the assumption that the police are racist and it’s not always the case… I think it’s very dangerous to just broad stroke any police that shoots a black as immediately being considered a racist, sometimes these are African American police officers. The police aren’t all racist.”

African Americans represent 13.3% of the population of the United States. Nonetheless, they have been responsible for more than half of homicides for nearly 30 years. As Department of Justice statistics show, blacks committed 52% of murders between 1980 and 2008. Caucasian Americans, however, committed 45 % of homicides while composing 77% of the population.

Black Americans commit crimes at a rate that is 7 to 10 times higher than white Americans. What is more, data shows that 93% of blacks are murdered by other blacks. (Conversely, 83 % of white victims are murdered by other whites). So, if Shaykh Hamza can be criticized for one thing, it is for underestimating the magnitude of black-on-black crime.

In the 1940s and 1950s, the rate of black crime was lower even though racism was deeply entrenched and institutionalized. There is not always a direct correlation between poverty, racism, and crime. The rate of Caucasian crime did not increase significantly during the Great Depression. Although the Irish were impoverished and forced into starvation by British imperialists, there was no notable spike in criminality.

Most rural, and many urban, French Canadians were poor during English-domination in Canada; however, their rate of crime was never disproportionately high. Many people of the world are far poorer than African Americans, have fewer opportunities, and suffer from far greater levels of persecution in the Americas, Asia, and Africa, yet do not turn to crime.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is correct when he makes a correlation between black crime and the breakdown of the family structure. If most African American children in the 1960s were born to two-parent households, in 2013, over 72% of them were born out-of-wedlock. Consequently, “structural racism” cannot be exclusively blamed for the disintegration of the African American family.

Capitalism does not compel African American men to fornicate, produce, and abandon illegitimate off-spring. It is a question of choice. Lack of morals, lack of ethics, lack of proper parenting, and lack of paternal engagement are largely responsible for producing a materialistic, hedonistic, and self-destructive underclass of African American men. Black illegitimacy is not driven by white racism.

A major theme in the message of Malcolm X, perhaps the greatest Muslim leader this country has produced, to the black community was: “Clean up your own back yard.” Black Americans need to stop using colour as a crutch, perpetuating the blame game, and hold themselves accountable. White supremacy has been deeply damaging to people of colour. The scars of slavery remain. And racism continues to rear its ugly head. However, African Americans are ultimately responsible for their own destiny. While it is a sin to oppress, it is a greater also a sin to remain oppressed when real steps toward self-liberation can be taken.

There is no doubt that African Americans have been oppressed. However, there is no doubt that certain African Americans consciously continue to oppress themselves. In short, some have failed to break the psychological chains of slavery. They need to show some pride and rise-up in righteous reform. Many have done so, and many have succeeded. Islam has specifically been a source of salvation for millions of African Americans.

Although it is almost entirely ignored by both the mass media and activists, Native Americans are the most likely to be killed by cops. African Americans come in second. Hispanics come in third. And Caucasians come in fourth. And while Americans of indigenous and African ancestry are shot at a rate that is 2.5 to 3% higher than Caucasian Americans, whites are also murdered at an alarming rate. In fact, American police officers kill more people in days than most other countries kill in years.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf was not minimizing the murder of black men by police officers of all races, he was placing it in the broader context of police violence and brutality. And while racism certainly plays a critical factor in some cases, poor hiring practices and poor training also play a major role in how the police handle certain situations. Many police officers are not properly trained in conflict resolution, de-escalation, crisis management, mental health issues, psychological intervention, and non-lethal modes of subduing subjects.

As a man with a sense of justice and balance, Shaykh Hamza refused to stereotype all law enforcement officers. As he said straight out: “The police aren’t all racist.” While it cannot be denied that African American men are murdered by police officers at a disproportionate rate, it cannot be denied that African American men commit violent crimes at a disproportionate rate and murder police officers at a disproportionate rate.

When 43% of cop killers are African Americans, per FBI statistics, it should come as no surprise that some police officers fear for their lives when confronting black suspects. The idiotic constitutional right to bear arms, the sheer stupidity of conceal and carry laws, the massive supply of illegal weapons, and the culture of violence that dominates the media, cause police officers to be overly anxious and too quick to click the trigger. For some of them, it is better to shoot first than to get shot. Unfortunately, the fear of police on the part of African American men, the natural result of poor practices in law enforcement, produces the same effect. The situation is dangerous and volatile and can only be resolved by means of a concerted and comprehensive strategy.

Despite the allegations of Shaykh Abdullah Hakim Quick, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is well-aware of the subjugation and suppression of African Americans in the West and the reality of racism. Hence, calling Shaykh Hamza a coward and a hypocrite who does not represent the Messenger of Allah is truly unbecoming of a scholar.

As for accusing Shaykh Hamza of pathologizing black people, as done by Dr. Su’ad Abdul Khabeer, Sakina Hasib, and Hakeem Muhammad, this is simply slanderous, libellous, and scandalous.

Ubaydullah Evans describes black pathology as “the idea that black people are inherently incapable of thinking and behaving correctly and it is often used to explain away systemic racism.” While I may not agree with all his views and the manner he formulates them, I am quite confident that Shaykh Hamza does not believe that blacks are intellectually and morally inferior by nature.

The Shaykh was not generalizing. The Shaykh was not victim-blaming with the objective of trivializing the reality of racism and its ravages. He was simply promoting good, prohibiting evil, and reminding people that God does not change the condition of a people unless they change what is in themselves (Qur’an: 13:11).

As far as Evans is concerned, the accomplishments of Hamza Yusuf are inconsequential for, as he states, “he-is-still-white.” If white people cannot be objective due to their whiteness than black people cannot be objective due to their blackness. It is ironic that the people who accuse Shaykh Hamza of stereotyping blacks are themselves guilty of stereotyping whites.

While it is true that some white Americans blame disadvantaged blacks for the condition in which they find themselves, the same cannot be said of Hamza Yusuf. If anything, the Shaykh is concerned with the plight of African Americans and sincerely concerned about their condition.

The language used by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is no different than the language used by W.D. Fard, Elijah Muhammad, and Malcolm X. Identifying symptoms does not imply that one ignores the underlying disease. Some African Americans are culturally sick (in the same way that some Caucasian Americans are culturally sick). Although history, upbringing, and environment can predispose people to certain diseases, their life-choices are also a significant contributing factor.

Slavery, racism, segregation, and discrimination have spread socio-political, economic, moral, and ethical illness among some African Americans. The system has much to blame. However, people affected by epidemics are also responsible for perpetuating them. If one opts to live a life of filth, it is pointless to blame germs for one’s poor health. America has oppressed many; however, many people have overcome oppression, Jewish Americans being the foremost example.

The mere fact that one is an Amerindian, for example, does not mean that one is condemned to repeat the cycle of poverty, abuse, and addiction. Opportunities may not be entirely equal; however, one would be hard pressed to find a country that offers more opportunities than the United States of America. Immigrants and refugees of all origins have arrived by millions over the centuries with nothing more than the clothes on their backs; however, with hard work, study, diligence, and determination, they achieved the American dream. In some cases, they succeeded in one generation. In others, it took several generations; however, they made the necessary sacrifices to ensure the long-term success of their descendants.

Dr. Jonathan AC Brown is correct that Muslims are required to stand for social justice. However, his claim that Shaykh Hamza is not supportive of the struggle of African Americans is not sound. To claim that whites cannot express their opinions on issues pertaining to blacks is as preposterous as claiming that blacks cannot express their opinions on issues pertaining to whites. And while Muslims are expected to support the struggles of the oppressed, they are under no obligation to support any specific movement especially when the so-called cure is worse than the disease. In short, they should be guided by their conscience.

BLM is unapologetically black. It affirms diversity, restorative justice, loving engagement, intergenerationality, globalism, black families, black villages, black women, collective value, and empathy. It also happens to be transgender affirming and queer affirming and is “committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family.”

The founders of Black Lives Matter include Alicia Garza, a queer woman whose spouse is transgendered; Patrisse Cullors, another queer; and Opal Tometi, a Nigerian-American woman who explained in an interview with The Nation that “we are diligently uplifting black trans women and so the work on the ground in many places does reflect that.”

If Dr. Jonathan AC Brown, a white American Muslim academic and outspoken supporter of gay marriage and the Muslim Brotherhood sees no contradiction between LGBTQ activism and Radical Islamism, he is also ironically an apologist for slavery and sexual assault.

In fact, on February 7th, 2017, Professor Brown delivered a lecture at Georgetown University titled “Islam and the Problem of Slavery” in which he affirmed that “I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody” and “[f]or most of human history, human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity.” If this man is a moderate, what can we expect of the extremists?

When asked about “wrongs done by Arabs to other people,” Dr. Brown aggressively asserted that “the Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Was he — are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No, you’re not.” In reality, rather than enslave, the Prophet Muhammad freed slaves. Anyone seeking clarity on this subject should read “An Islamic Response to ISIS Revival of Slavery” by Imam Abdul-Malik Mujahid (https://www.soundvision.com/article/an-islamic-response-to-isis-revival-of-slavery).

The version of Islam presented by Professor Brown is not that of the Prophet Muhammad: it is that of the Umayyads and the ‘Abbasids; it is the Islam of Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaedah, al-Shabab, Boko Haram, al-Nusrah, and ISIS. It is not Muhammadan Islam but the “Islam” of the enemies of Muhammad who usurped power after his passing.

The fact that Brown is the Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Centre for Muslim-Christian Understanding, a Saudi Arabian funded program, should not be lost on anyone. It suffices to say that Liberal degenerates and Islamist extremists make strange bedfellows.

According to Black Lives Matter, “Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state”… and “Black lives are deprived of … basic human rights and dignity.” If this is how BLM supporters feel, I suggest they study the history of Africa, the Middle East, or Asia to get a better appreciation of civil and human rights in the United States of America.

It was white men who proposed that all men were created equal. It was white men who eventually abolished slavery while African, Arab, and Asian Muslim leaders objected, insisting, in many cases, on continuing the practice well into the 20th century. It was white men who created a country, a constitution, and laws that provide blacks, and all other citizens, with unparalleled rights and freedoms. Muslims stand with the oppressed but they must also stand for truth.

Black Lives Matter claims that “Black poverty and genocide is state violence.” BLM supporters should study the English language to understand that “genocide” is the attempt to physically exterminate members of a given group. Poverty is not genocide.

Black Lives Matter claims that the fact that 2.8 million black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence. In reality, there are approximately 2.3 million incarcerated criminals in the United States; 1 million of whom are African American. If whites are 64% of the American population, they represent 39% of prisoners. If blacks are 13% of the American population, they represent 40% of prisoners.

Imprisoning black criminals is no more state violence than imprisoning white criminals. The fact that blacks are given longer sentences for the same crimes as whites — entirely apart from the fact that they commit more crimes per capita – is indeed a form of “state violence.” Although African Americans tend to serve disproportionately longer sentences when compared to Caucasian Americans, it is delusional to describe them as “political prisoners.” Drug dealers, robbers, rapists, and murderers are not prisoners of conscience.

[ Editor’s Note: This is a long time held bogus contention, the racial disparity. It is done in the usual way that any psyops construct would use. You just only use the parts of the story that support where you want to go, and ignore everything else. Here the deal in on phrase, “enhanced sentencing guidelines”, that have been around for a long time.

This allows judges, usually on the federal level, to a sentence for a crime that has a range of imprisonment, say “25 years to life” for drug dealing. How much time a convicted felon gets is heavily influenced on the past criminal record, where unfortunately many black criminals excel, especially gang-members and those in the drug business when they have a string of prior convictions.

Another example I remember from when California passed a statue where a third violent felony conviction would get you a life sentence. This was something designed to address the continued crimes done by “habitual offenders” when let out went back to their old ways. And yes, when they were not let go the violent felony crimes rates improved.

And lastly, most of the minority crimes numbers are pushed by the stats from black and hispanic young gang members. There are no white gangs of any consequence anymore other than some bikers. All of this I have just covered is completely airbrushed out of the history, and there is more Jim W. Dean ]

Many of the problems attributed to race by Black Lives Matter are really issues of class. The rate of criminality among poor whites is comparable to that among poor blacks. Address the issue of poverty, improve education, and increase opportunities among African Americans, and the level of crime will go down accordingly. Middle and upper-middle class African Americans do not commit any more crimes than middle and-upper middle class Caucasians.

The problems in question are not limited to blacks or whites. They impact society as a whole. Incarceration trends are alarming. Racial disparities in sentencing are disquieting. And while contributing factors need to be considered, there is a serious need for radical criminal justice reform in the United States. All Americans suffer as a result of systemic shortcomings. All Americans suffers from the injustices perpetuated by Capitalism.

 

Black Lives Matter claims that black women, children, and families are the victims of relentless state violence; that Black queer and trans folks bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of them like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes them and profits from them; that “500,000 Black people in the U.S. are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows;” that “Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war;” and that blacks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze them into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy.

The allegations made by Black Lives Matters are as deluded as they are demented. The philosophy of BLM is best described as political insanity and moral depravity. Most rational, fact-based, intellectually-minded readers would disagree with both the problems described and the solutions proposed. Black women, children, and families are not perpetually persecuted in the United States. Although 80% of LBBTQ murder victims are minorities, an argument can be made that Queer and trans folks of all colours are more oppressed by violent macho homophobic black male society than by white “hetero-patriarchal society.”

While it is confirmed that there are more than 400,000 illegal black immigrants in the United States, it is preposterous to blame the State for a plight they chose to impose on themselves when they could have applied to immigrate legally or seek refugee status. It is like the Moroccan saying, “He hit me and then he cried.” These illegal aliens break U.S. immigration law and then blame the U.S. Moreover, illegal workers depress wages and hurts job prospects for African American men. According to Peter Kirsanow, a US Civil Rights Commissioner, “Black males are more likely to experience competition from illegal immigrants.”

As for “Black girls … used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war,” what on earth does that have to do with the United States? Those are crimes committed by black Africans against black Africans. What is more, women of all colours are victimized during war. Unfortunately, Black Lives Matter cannot see beyond the surface. They care only about colour and blame all evils on whites without given them credit of any kind for their accomplishments. Rather than speak of white supremacy, we should speak of black envy of white excellence.

As for the claim that the State subjects disabled African Americans to “Darwinian experiments,” these are the words of paranoid people who suffer from serious delusions. There is no doubt that scientific experiments were conducted on a small number of African Americans without their consent in the 20th century; however, similar experiments were also conducted on American Indians, Caucasian Americans, and other communities.

Moreover, anyone who claims that black lives are “systematically and intentionally targeted for demise” in the United States requires a psychological assessment. America is not committing genocide against African Americans. At the very most, a segment of African American men are destroying themselves and their communities through self-destructive behaviour.

Simply because some of its overarching goals are sound does not mean that Black Lives Matter should be blindly and uncritically supported by Muslims. In fact, the movement has been accused of racism and violence by people of all colours. BLM activists openly incite violence against law enforcement officers. BLM activists openly express racist anti-white sentiments.

Yusra Khogali, a co-founder of Black Lives, Toronto, Canada, wrote that “white skin is sub-human,” that “white people are recessive genetic defects.” She even tweeted a prayer in which she asked Allah to keep her from killing white people.

Liberals, however, have responded to such hate speech by stating that it was perfectly justifiable when placed in the context of “oppression.” What oppression? Canada did not play a part in the slave-trade. Canada has never been an imperial power. Canada was a refuge for African Americans who escaped from slavery. It is evident that racist bigots like Yusra Khogali live in alternate universes, spewing venom in echo chambers of hatred, prejudice, and stereotypes.

A simple search of social media reveals a long litany of violently racist rants made by BLM leaders and followers who encourage robbery, rape, and white genocide. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that many political players, both domestic and international, have described Black Lives Matter as an anti-white, racist, terrorist organization.

Muslims should indeed be opposed to anti-black racism; however, they should also be opposed to anti-white racism unless, of course, they are idiotic enough to believe the Zuckerberg-sponsored Google claim that black people cannot be racist because racism requires power and privilege. This same argument is used by BLM supporters who argue that the sexual assault of white women by black men cannot be described as rape since rape requires power and privilege.

The supporters of Black Lives Matter include Muslims who now find themselves without domestic patronage. They are those who sided with Hillary and the Democrats out of fear of Trump. They are the same ones who earlier made an unholy connection with Obama, which had as its subtext a tacit tolerance for ISIS, or at least a lack of any motivation to vigorously denounce the Takfiris, since it must have been known that Obama and/or the CIA were to a certain degree supporting them. The forces who covertly brought us ISIS presented a Liberal face in this country.

The notion that Black Lives Matter is a true grassroots liberation movement like the Civil Rights Movement was, not a case of social engineering by Liberal ideologues and funding-sources, is something the Liberals believe in religiously. So, it comes as no surprise that those Muslims who seek Black Lives Matter as a true expression of Black liberation also see the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way. In the same way that Black Lives Matter presents itself as liberation movement, the Muslim Brotherhood presented themselves as democratic freedom fighters while, at the same time, they were engaged in burning Coptic Churches, sexually assaulting women on the streets, and murdering Shiite scholars. Liberals have swallowed this duplicity hook, line, and sinker.

The Black Lives Matter movement is not a popular uprising. It is the beneficiary of over 100 million dollars in funding from liberal foundations, including, $33 million dollars in grants from George Soros through his Open Society Foundation. Despite the “good intentions” of some of its supporters — blacks, whites, Hispanics, Muslims, immigrants, and women — Black Lives Matter overtly espouses racist and violent views and employs subversive street thugs and professional provocateurs for the benefit of billionaire globalists.

Black Lives Matter has reduced an ideological, socio-political, philosophical, and economic conflict of world proportion to a racial conflict that pits blacks against whites. The real conflict, however, is between the 99% and the 1 percenters, between Humanity and Inhumanity, between God and the Devil, between the overwhelming population of the world of all races and religions and the secular globalist Satanists who hoard virtually all the wealth in the world. It is a battle of belief: a war of morals and values.

The leaders of BLM embody all the evils of the New World Order. If some morally-damaged and ethically-challenged “Muslims” wish to march behind Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Yusra Khogali, they can follow them all the ways to the depths of Hell. As for myself, I will follow in the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad for the lawful and the prohibited apply until the ends of times.

Crescent International, however, had the audacity to claim that “For someone in Hamza Yusuf’s position to belittle the Black Lives Matter movement is not only demeaning and racist, it is completely antithetical to the values of Islam and the Sunnah of the noble Messenger.” Other Muslims activists have asserted that “Black Lives Matters is our movement.” Such people are pawns of the global elites.

Although many Muslims are willing to leap like lemmings, many Christians, both African American and otherwise, have not been deceived by the dark side of Black Lives Matter. And while they oppose prejudice and police brutality, they refuse to cast their lot with gangs of criminals, rapists, racists, globalists, secularists, communists, anarchists, Islamists, abortionists, man-hating feminazis, and LGBTQ activists.

As for criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement with Freemasonic foundations that received funding from the British, many sober-minded scholars consider it more palatable than blindly defending them and thereby sharing in their shortcomings and sins. Scholars can view the world scene from above, analyzing all parties, without necessarily taking sides. Being critical of the Muslim Brotherhood does not imply that one is supportive of Sisi.

As uncomfortable as it made some Muslims feel, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf also made another poignant point:

“We should all be against any ideologies of supremacy of one people over another people, it’s completely antithetical to our religion but we have some of the worst racism in our own communities… the anti-Jewish rhetoric that you hear in the Islamic community is horrific… do you know what it’s like to be a Pakistani in a lot of the Gulf States or from India or from Kerala even worse? People talk about white privilege, what about Arab privilege over non-Arabs in the Middle East?

Many Muslims are fond of blaming others. Blame the West! Blame the Jews! Although the West is to blame for certain wrongs and Israel is to blame for certain wrongs, Muslims should stop simply pointing the finger and start blaming themselves. Am I victim shaming? Absolutely not. I am holding people accountable for their own action or inaction.

Racism, discrimination, prejudice, sexism, classism, bias, stereotypes, and misogyny are present, to varying degrees, in many Muslim communities. It comes across as acutely hypocritical for Muslim immigrants to criticize the shortcomings of the West without also criticizing the shortcomings of their countries of origin. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Many Muslims can dish it out criticism but they clearly cannot take criticism.

As for hurling around accusations of “white privilege,” it is quite often a manifestation of reverse racism employed by envious and indolent individuals who wish to blame their failures on others. Are white people privileged? Some of them are: economically, socially, and educationally. Are all Caucasians the beneficiaries of “white privilege?” Certainly not. Economically-disadvantaged whites and working class whites may have some advantages over African-Americans who suffer from the same challenges, however, they do not get a free pass. In most cases, white success is not privilege: it is earned.

Apart from the globalist elite, all human beings are victims of the savage capitalistic system. In fact, it thrives by turning blacks against whites, whites against blacks, Muslims against Muslims, and non-Muslims against Muslims. The very concept of “white privilege” has been called into question by academics as a racist construct that confounds colour with social class. Although I would certainly not encourage Muslims to side with the extreme right-wing, they should seriously reconsider siding with radical leftist liberals and secularists and their degenerate social agenda.

As for his assertion that Islamists have turned Islam into a political ideology, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is absolutely in the right. He has enough knowledge and sense of history to recognize that “Islamism” is not Islam; it is a gross overemphasis on the political components of Islam.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf knows full well that politics play an important role in Islam and that the quest for social justice is at the centre of the faith; however, he also recognizes that the heart of Islam is spiritual. He knows, as any scholar does, that most of Islam revolves around moral and ethical development as opposed to the struggle for political power. He understands that Islam is to be built bottom up and that Allah does not change he condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.

Islam did not start with a State: it started with personal development and the quest for social justice. It was only after he built bona fide believers that the Prophet set out to establish a physical government. And despite Evans claims to the contrary, the Messenger of Allah did admonish the oppressed for their sins by promoting the good and forbidding the wrong.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is perfectly justified to criticize groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb al-Tahrir, and al-Qaedah. At the same time, he is certainly cognizant that there is a huge difference between the Ikhwan al-Muslimin and Daesh. If Mehdi Hasan had sufficiently good manners and etiquette, I am convinced that Shaykh Hamza could have articulated his case more clearly. Unfortunately, and thankfully, the Shaykh does not speak in sound-bytes.

The Muslim Brotherhood may be “moderate” when compared to the likes of ISIS, but so are al-Qaedah and al-Nusra; however, there is no denying that many Ikhwanis have filled the ranks of ISIS in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. There is no denying that the Ikhwan al-Muslimin legitimized the excommunication of Muslims in modern times. And there is no denying that Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama ben Laden, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are all the excrement of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood can be compared to marijuana, al-Qaedah to crack cocaine, and ISIS to meth. However, there is no denying that Salafism, in even its moderate forms, is the gateway drug to the most brutal, barbaric, and Satanic forms of Takfirism.

Should association with the Muslim Brotherhood be criminalized? Not any more than association with the Democratic and Republican Parties should be. (By the same token, criminal actions by members of any of these groups should not be ignored). Islamist movements form a spectrum ranging from relatively mild and benign social activists to straight-out psychopaths. Persecuting more moderate Islamists will only push people into the camp of the most extreme of extremists.

And rather than prosecuting partisans of Islamist groups based on guilt by association, how about going after those who created them in the first place? Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, the Afghan Mujahidin, the Taliban, al-Qaedah, Hamas, the GIA, al-Nusrah or ISIS, all so-called “Radical Islamists” and “Muslim” terrorists have received support from the enemies of Islam and their allies.

As for Yasir Qadhi, since when did he become infallible and unassailable? He is a man of no academic or scholarly importance with a long history of supporting Salafism and making inflammatory statements about Shiites. A cause of conflict and division among Muslims? You are damn right that he is.

Like all human beings, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has no shortage of flaws. For some, he comes across as arrogant. For others, he has the warmth of a cactus. Be that as it may, the man is certainly not a racist, a bigot, or an unconscious and unavowed white supremacist. If he can be blamed for anything it is with surrounding himself with snakes for decades, false friends and hypocritical colleagues who turned on him treacherously like a pack of hyenas instead of engaging in dignified damage control and duly-deserved defense. And Allah knows best.

Source*

Related Topics:

ISIS Targets Sheikh Hamza Yusuf*

#Arabs4BlackPower Releases Movement for Black Lives Solidarity Statement*

Nixon Advisor Admitted War on Drugs Invented to Crush Anti-War and Black Movements*

Assata Shakur: FBI’s Most Wanted After Thirty-Four Years!

Appeals Court Supports FBI Policy of Entrapping Individuals to Plot Acts of Terrorism*

The Black Stereotype: Socially Engineered in theFBI War on Tupac Shakur and Real Black Leaders*

Black Wall Street*

Yellow Journalism, and the Truth Behind the Jonestown Massacre*

Crispus Attucks: A Black and Native Shared Narrative*

Black History Month and Muslims

Harriet Tubman Home Becomes National Historical Park*

Atlanta Mayor rejects Demand to end Israel Police Training*

Mass Incarceration: Behind the Ferguson Uprising*

Soros Turned Ferguson from a Local Protest to a National Flashpoint*

Deputy Police Chief Identified as KKK by the FBI*

Deputy Police Chief Identified as KKK by the FBI*

By Scott Kaufman

Police morale in Fruitland Park, Florida has been shaken after a deputy chief and officer resigned when the Federal Bureau of Investigations identified them as members of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement presented Chief Terry Isaacs with copies of a confidential FBI report last week that allegedly identified Deputy Chief David Borst and Officer George Hunnewell as members of the KKK.

Earlier this year, a Florida Klan leader boasted to WFTV 9 that the organization has “police officers, paramedics, judges…everywhere.”

However, Chief Isaacs would only tell reporters for the Orlando Sentinel that the pair belonged to a “subversive organization,” because he did not believe he was authorized to release the results of the report.

“It’s a tough situation. He was my assistant,” he said, adding that he never witnessed any behavior that would lead him to believe former Deputy Chief Borst was in the KKK. “But I’ve read the report, and it’s convincing.”

Chief Deputy State Attorney Ric Ridgway – from whom Isaacs sought counsel concerning the FBI’s report – told the Orlando Sentinel that “it’s not a crime to be a member of the KKK, even if you are the deputy chief. It’s not a crime to be stupid. It’s not a crime to hate people. It may be despicable, it may be immoral, but it’s not a crime.”

The loss of two officers is significant for a town that only employs 13 full-time cops.

“They’re a good group of people,” Isaacs said.

“The last thing I was expecting to hear in the year 2014 was for a professional law-enforcement officer to be a member of a subversive organization.”

In 2009, however, another Fruitland Park officer, James Elkins, resigned after pictures emerged online of him wearing a Klan hood and robe. Elkins initially claimed that he was not involved with the organization, but eventually admitted that he was the “district Kleage,” or local recruiter, for the National Aryan Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Source*

Related Topics:

KKK Set Alight a 20 Year Old Woman!*

White Supremacist Finds Out He Is Part Black*

Killer Cop on the Rise

Call the Cops at Your Peril*

Obama’s Policed State

Malcolm X’s Grandson Baited and Killed

Written By A Cop: Facing Crime

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings*

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings*

By Jessica Goldstein

When I was an undergrad, Maya Angelou came to my school to give the keynote address for Women’s Week. I remember everyone waiting for her, futzing around on our phones and talking about what we were doing that weekend and then, cutting clean through the clamor, Angelou walked onstage and started to sing: “Oh when the saints, go marching in…”

Everyone stopped and listened. You couldn’t not listen. That voice.

It’s maybe one of the most well-traveled voices in American history. After a nearly five-year period of silence during her childhood—in the aftermath of the murder of the man who raped her, Angelou feared she had a voice that could kill—Angelou spent a lifetime speaking out. Her voice bounced around empty hotel rooms where she escaped to write in solitude; she’d lie across the bed, art dismantled from the walls to eliminate even the slightest distraction, and refuse to let maids change the sheets on the grounds that she never slept there. Her voice carried through San Francisco, from the streetcars to the Purple Onion nightclub. She gave commencement addresses, recited poetry at a presidential inauguration. You could hear her voice on Oprah. You could hear her voice singing on Sesame Street.

Her voice has an almost mythical quality. In her death, it seems to be even louder than it was in her lifetime. Dwan Reece, curator of music and performing arts for the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, talked to me by phone today about the enduring power and reach of Angelou’s voice.

For people who don’t remember what American literature was like before Angelou came on the scene, can you put her contributions in context? What was missing from that space that her voice brought?
I think she really brought something to the nature of autobiography, and really putting the stories of African Americans, and African American women front and center, and really announcing who she was and what her experiences were, the kind of the social and cultural descriptions: what her life was like, the environment she grew up in.

Was that a risky move at the time? Were the stories she was telling taboo in any way?
The risk may have been in finding the amount of readers. I think, because in the landscape, it hadn’t been done before and reached the wide acceptance that it did before, she was the right time, the right person, to make this breakthrough for autobiography.

How did people respond to I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings initially? Was it well-received right away, or did it take time to gain national acceptance?
I think the initial reception [to the book] was very positive. I think, arguably, most people really felt that particular piece was her best work. There’s also this phrase thrown out, this idea of autobiographical fiction, and some people like to describe her work in that way, in a somewhat derivative sense… that she brought some of the stylistic techniques of fiction in telling her own story. I know, reading the book for the first time, there was a certain beauty in the prose, not just the historic retelling but a narrative that presented a three-dimensional experience of a young girl and a young adult, and an older woman. So representing black women’s lives as they really are, I wouldn’t say it was taboo, but it was perfectly honest. [There was] an honesty in what she was willing to tell that may not have been accepted at the time.

What do you think the reaction would be like if that book were published tomorrow? Modern readers seem to be pretty unforgiving of non-fiction writers who are found to have fictionalized parts of their work.
On one level, I don’t think it would be scandalous because people are more honest and forthright in their writing, because people are willing to take chances. But that question of what is fiction, what is truth, we do run into that in works of literature. There’s always a literature scandal, so to speak. But I think we’re more allowed to take liberties in the retelling of our stories. People are more accepting.

For a writer who is so a part of the highly respected literary world, Angelou was so game to participate in mainstream culture—the kinds of things other “highbrow” writers might consider beneath them: appearing on popular television shows, partnering with Hallmark. Why do you think she was so drawn to that?
It’s interesting that you say that. I never thought of her as highbrow or beyond reach of the average reader, and I’m trying to think why. I think a lot of that has to do with her voice. The accessibility of a one-person narrative, I can’t say that enough… The directness of her language, the beauty of her prose, the reflection of human emotions and responses, and all of that framed within the arc of American history. Her books were not just the narrative of one person, but the narrative of American social and cultural history as it evolved over time. So I think those kinds of things are more accessible to the general reader. They can see themselves in her story, either as a witness or as a participant.

I ask in part because there are certainly high-profile writers who appear to want nothing to do with mainstream pop culture. I’m thinking of the whole Jonathan Franzen/Oprah tiff, when she tried to pick The Corrections as a book club selection and he didn’t want anything to do with it. Even though he ended up relenting and being on the show, that was revealing to me. I remember thinking, “Well, if it’s good enough for Maya Angelou, why is it beneath you?”
I wouldn’t think she felt that [Oprah’s audience] was beneath her. I think she was about communicating with humanity. You look at the many quotes, today, how everyone is responding to her passing. It’s walking a fine line, and she definitely did that. She was able to pursue her art in the way that she chose, and also talk to people. To me, if you write and have high mindedness and goals, and you’re not read by anyone, I wouldn’t say your work is less valuable, but are people really engaging with what you have to say? And I think people were engaged from the day she was first published to the day she died, and they were moved by her. And in that sense, she kind of set an example, for many writers today, particularly African American women writers…While it’s hard to walk that middle line, it can be done. And I think most authors want to be read, and want people to engage with what they have to say, whether positive or negative, because that’s how you know it hit a chord. She hit a chord with America—with the world over—and if she’s a child of the African diaspora, she’s a child of everything. She truly was a Renaissance woman.

What about her partnership with Hallmark? That’s kind of the ultimate high art/low art mash-up.
To me it’s a writer making a deal and getting her work out there. I’m not denigrating Hallmark, but she elevated it. She brought a certain gravitas. To put a Maya Angelou quote in a card, to express something to someone, it gave something more to it, as far as I’m concerned.

Getting your work out there, that’s part of the challenge… This is the way that we engage. Not all of us read books; not all of us listen to poetry. Not all of us read newspapers. But if you get enough places out there, someone’s going to connect with it.

She even joined Twitter! I’ve seen so many people retweeting her old messages all day today.
The reaction, this outpouring of respect that she’s getting from all walks of life, is kind of an anthropological experiment—to see how people respond when someone passes away, it’s just [so] telling.

I think there’s a big sense of loss, not only in the person but what she represented. And [people are] hoping she can carry on. A lot of people circulate her quotes, they talk about humanity, how their heart is breaking over her loss. She really reached a generation, or two.

When it comes to just pure name recognition—the ubiquity of who Angelou was, her work, and what she stood for—how many other writers have ever reached that level?
I’m going to venture to guess that very few, and it touches upon what I mentioned earlier, about her ability to reach people. I also think that there’s a resonance for women that can’t be overstated, of women speaking up. The voice, to me, that was what caught my imagination. And it wasn’t just her literal voice, it was a figurative and spiritual voice as well. The sense of agency that she brought to her work, and everything that she did. Illuminating injustices, sharing of herself, celebrating culture, and asserting her right to be a woman, and to be a strong woman in a masculine world is, I think, very influential.

Angelou delivered a poem at Bill Clinton’s first inauguration, making her only the second poet to do so, after Robert Frost recited a poem for Kennedy. What did that honor mean for her, as a cultural icon?
It cemented her—it didn’t even just cement her as part of the American story, it cemented everyone she has represented and spoken for, in her life and in her writing. She finally arrived, and we, too, are part of the story. It’s probably the same sentiment people felt when Barack Obama was inaugurated for the first time, to see her participating in something like this. Given the history of this country, the racism and oppression, and she being a child of some of its worst, lowest points. For her to be writing this poem to the President of the United States, representing the people of the United States, it felt wonderful, and life-affirming in some ways. And everything she did represented this sense of possibility, because she was always trying something new.

How will she be represented in the National Museum of African American History and Culture, when in opens? (The museum is slated to open by 2015).
Her story touches upon several places in the History Gallery, particularly in the ‘60s and beyond, and in the Cultural Gallery, our Cultural Expressions Gallery, our Musicians Gallery, our Taking the Stage Gallery. The breadth of her work covers so much. She’s one of these unique figures in African American culture and history. There’s no question that she will be represented. She represents a certain layer of wisdom that people have called upon over time and will call upon in the future.

Did you ever get the chance to meet her?
No, I did not… I will say that I was so affected by her when I read her books, over a series of time in my late twenties, that after I did, I named my first child after her. I know the seed was planted with me. You look at the reaction overall, people are affected. I hope that we continue to be moved by her work.

Your daughter’s name is Maya?
My daughter’s name is Maya. I wanted her to have something to grow into and live up to.

Source*

Related Topics:

Stepping Back to Afrika!

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing: 12 Years a Slave, Racism & Black Cowardice

The Black Stereotype: Socially Engineered in the FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Real Black Leaders*

“THAT Would be Reverse Racism”

The Paths of Return

Court Order: The Re-Education of Lauryn Hill for Speaking the Truth!

The Truth Behind the Emancipation Proclamation!*

Malcolm X: The Truth Seeker*

White Supremacist Finds Out He Is Part Black*

 

Labelled as One of the Most Racist Countries, Egyptian – Nubian Clashes Break Out*

Labelled as One of the Most Racist Countries, Egyptian – Nubian Clashes Break Out*

 

At least 25 people have been killed in a tourist city in southern Egypt following four days of clashes between local ethnic groups, according to government officials.

Fighting began on Friday in Aswan between Arab and Nubian families and continued over the weekend despite Egypt’s prime minister and chief of police travelling to the area to co-ordinate the state’s response.

Violence had subsided by Sunday evening – but not before dozens had been shot or stabbed, leaving 25 dead and 56 injured. Photographs from the city – known for its rich pharaonic history – showed homes and cars torched and looted.

An army spokesman claimed on social media that the violence was sparked by the Muslim Brotherhood – a common government claim after outbreaks of violence. But two Aswan residents said by phone that the tensions were localised, and stemmed from an argument between students from a local Arab family and one from Aswan’s long-marginalised Nubian community.

Reports differed as to who struck first. But one Nubian resident claimed that members of an Arab clan – the Haleyla – had daubed anti-Nubian graffiti on a wall on Thursday, after a group of Nubian students walked through their neighbourhood to get to school.

“They wrote some provocative phrases on the walls, saying that they are the masters of the place,” said tourism worker Abdallah Ghareeb Madany, who claimed members of the Haleyla later returned and started firing at local Nubians, killing at least one.

The next day, said Madany, the Nubian community retaliated – entering a Haleyla area and killing “whoever they could find”. Twenty-four hours later, members of the Haleyla responded in kind in a Nubian area – with accounts suggesting that the police had done too little to quell the violence.

Nubian people lived historically in southern Egypt and northern Sudan, and have their own dialect and traditions. In Egypt, the community has long felt ostracised after being forcibly displaced from their homeland by a series of evictions throughout the 20th century – most notably by the construction of the Aswan dam in the 1960s, a move that upended their lives and culture.

Attempting to contextualise the recent Aswan violence, prominent Nubian writer Hagag Odul wrote on social media:

“The four displacements shocked our existence especially the displacement of 1964 that removed us from our roots around the banks of the Nile and threw us in the desert among armed groups… We were insulted, and called black and barbaric.

“We had to be like them, to carry guns and threaten to use them in order to defend [ourselves], in order to be citizens like other citizens.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Egypt Consolidates Israeli Relations*

Egypt Sentences 529 to Death*

Jailed Egyptian Children Moved to ‘torture camp’*

Race: Making a Difference in the World*

Race: Making a Difference in the World*

Related Topics:

Big Banks Guilty of Charging Higher Rates to African Americans and Hispanics*

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing: 12 Years a Slave, Racism & Black Cowardice

Black Gold

Sentenced: Bribed to Send Black Kids to Jail*

White Supremacist Finds Out He Is Part Black*

Fourteen Caribbean Nations Demand Reparation from Colonial Britain*

Fourteen Caribbean Nations Demand Reparation from Colonial Britain*

By Matt Blake

More than 150 years after Europe abolished slavery, the Caribbean is preparing to sue Britain for its part in the wholesale trade of human beings.

A coalition of Caribbean leaders will meet today in St. Vincent to discuss a landmark legal claim for reparations – that could run into the hundreds of billions of pounds – for a legacy that many say still lingers across the palm-fringed archipelago.

A map shows the main transatlantic slave trade out of Africa during the slave trade from 1500-1900

A map shows the main transatlantic slave trade out of Africa during the slave trade from 1500-1900

Caricom, a group of 12 former British colonies together with the former French colony Haiti and the Dutch-held Suriname, believes Europe should pay for a range of issues spawned by slavery, from poverty and illiteracy to ill health.

But is says the UK in particular should pay the most even though it was the first to abolish slavery in 1833.

The case has been prepared by a British law firm that recently won almost £20million compensation for hundreds of Kenyans tortured by the British colonial government during the Mau Mau rebellion of the 1950s.

Today’s claim, which also targets Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, comes at a pertinent time for the issue of slavery – just a week after Steve McQueen’s epic 12 Years A Slave won the Oscar for Best Picture in Los Angeles.

‘Over ten million Africans were stolen from their homes and forcefully transported to the Caribbean as the enslaved chattels and property of Europeans,’ the claim says. ‘The transatlantic slave trade is the largest forced migration in human history and has no parallel in terms of man’s inhumanity to man.’

It continues: ‘This trade in enchained bodies was a highly successful commercial business for the nations of Europe.

‘The lives of millions of men, women and children were destroyed in the search of profit. Over ten million Africans were imported into the Caribbean during the 400 years of slavery.

‘At the end of slavery in the late 19th century, less than two million remained. The chronic health condition of Caribbean blacks constitutes the greatest financial risk to sustainability in the region.’

Caricom has not specified how much money they are seeking but senior officials have pointed out that Britain paid slave owners £20 million when it abolished slavery in 1834. That sum would be the equivalent of £200 billion today.

Britain currently contributes about £15million a year in aid to the Caribbean through Department for International Development in a drive to further develop ‘wealth creation’.

The subject of reparations has simmered in the Caribbean for many years and opinions are divided. Some see reparations as delayed justice, while others see it as an empty claim and a distraction from modern social problems in Caribbean societies.

Slavery ended throughout the Caribbean in the 1800s in the wake of slave revolts, and left many of the region’s plantation economies in tatters.

If the leaders decide to go ahead, a legal complaint will be filed against European states, possibly opening the way for formal negotiations.

‘Undoubtedly, Britain faces more claims than anyone else because it was the primary slave power and colonial power in the Caribbean,’ Martyn Day, the British lawyer advising the Caribbean nations, said in an interview. ‘Britain will be very much at the forefront.’

Britain’s government is aware of the proposed legal action, the Foreign Office said.

‘Slavery was and is abhorrent. The United Kingdom unreservedly condemns slavery and is committed to eliminating it,’ a spokesperson said, adding that reparations are not the answer. ‘Instead, we should concentrate on identifying ways forward with a focus on the shared global challenges that face our countries in the 21st century.’

Legal experts, however, say the lawsuit would be a long shot at best.

‘There is no legal basis for a claim for reparations,’ Robert A. Sedler, a professor at Wayne State University Law School, said.

‘Slavery was legal at the time, and international law was not a part of the law of the European states. Moreover, a long period of time has passed, and all the victims of slavery are long dead,’ he added.

Some reparations cases have popped up in the United States over the last decade, but no one has been awarded compensation.

However, if negotiations open ‘the European nations might decide to apologize for slavery and to provide some financial assistance to the Caribbean nations,’ Sedler said.

The legal strategy rests on the fact that the European states targeted by Caricom have all signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Racial Discrimination, which makes it ‘a duty to do all in their power to eradicate racial discrimination,’ said Day.

The Caribbean effort is being led by Ralph Gonsalves, prime minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, who has doggedly pursued the issue for the last four years.

When Gonsalves found out last year that London’s High Court ordered the British government to pay compensation to survivors of Kenya’s Mau Mau uprising, he contacted Day, whose law firm Leigh Day, represented the Mau Mau.

The British government paid £19.9 million ($33 million) to 5,228 survivors of torture during Kenya’s 1950s Mau Mau uprising, and formally acknowledged that ‘Kenyans were subject to torture and other forms of ill treatment and that these abuses took place and that they marred Kenya’s progress towards independence.’

Gonsalves said slavery so traumatised society in Caribbean countries that they have still not fully recovered.

The reparations claim takes into account what its authors say are slavery-related chronic diseases such as hypertension and Type 2 diabetes, widespread illiteracy, the lack of museums and research centers for Caribbean history, the lack of respect for African culture and identity, continuing psychological effects of centuries of slavery, and the lack of scientific and technical know-how to compete in the global economy.

In December 2013, the Caricom Reparations Commission decided on six factors for the claim: public health, education, cultural institutions, cultural deprivation, psychological trauma, and scientific and technological backwardness.

Estimates vary as to how many were enslaved. According to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, the British Caribbean had 2.3 million slaves, the French Caribbean had 1.1 million, the Spanish Americas had 1.3 million and the Dutch Americas had about 445,000.

Slaves laboured mainly in sugar and coffee plantations and were forced to work around the clock in the fields during harvest, according to Kathleen Monteith, head of the History and Archeology Department at the University of the West Indies.

The international convention against discrimination says significant attempts should be made to solve matters amicably but if no resolution is reached the Caribbean nations can take their case to the International Court of Justice.

Day hopes to present formal complaints to the European states at the end of June. If a European state were to refuse a Caribbean nation’s request for talks on its particular claims, then a formal legal complaint would be made.

‘The Western powers will at least give a sympathetic ear,’ he said. ‘The knee-jerk reaction will be to say no (but) Western powers will want to be seen as dealing sensitively with this.’

Source*

Related Topics:

Jamaica’s PM Calls for  Reparation

The Doctrine of Discovery

Joint Statement on UN Declaration and the Doctrine Of Discovery

UK to Pay £20m compensation to Mau Mau Victims*

France is Broke, but Still Reaping from the Colonial Tax!*

Haiti: The Divine Right to Enslave Others*

Brazil: The Colour of Eugenics*

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing: 12 Years a Slave, Racism & Black Cowardice

Black Women Targeted with Eugenics Drug*

Rabbi Admits Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade*

Bertrand Russell on the Manipulation of Society*

Big Banks Guilty of Charging Higher Rates to African Americans and Hispanics*

The Imperial Vultures to Gather for the U.S.-Africa Summit*

A Reminder Why South African Mineworkers have a Right to Strike*

Malcolm X: The Truth Seeker*

Senegal Farmers Tell Transnational Corporations to get off their Land*

Sworn Testimony from Ex-CIA Pilot No Planes Hit the Twin Towers

Sworn Testimony from Ex-CIA Pilot No Planes Hit the Twin Towers*

 

By Ron Baitley-Simens

A former CIA and civilian pilot has sworn an affidavit, stating that no planes flew into the Twin Towers as it would have been physically impossible.

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:

‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

‘Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons: in the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun ‘telescoping’ when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.

‘The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

‘The engines when impacting the steel columns would havemaintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.

The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph.  It would have crumpled.

No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

‘The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.

The affidavit, dated 28th January 2014 is part of a law suit being pursued byMorgan Reynolds in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York.

In March 2007, Reynolds, a former chief economist under the George W Bush administration filed a Request For Correction with the US National Institute of Science and Technology citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers.

Although the 9/11 Truth movement initially rejected the ‘no-planes’ theory as too outlandish, after scientific and rational analysis, it has become a widely accepted explanation of the evidence collected.


Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted.  It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point.  If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will be obliged to admit that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong.

The 65 year old retired airline captain and former CIA pilot – who has over 19,000 hours of flight time — also drew attention to the inexperience of the pilots who allegedly flew the planes:

‘The alleged ‘controlled’ descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of ‘controlled’ flight.

‘It takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the “EFIS” (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent.

Lear has, according to his sworn statement, flown over 100 different types of planes during his 40 years of flying and holds more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. He flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983 then spent 17 years working for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor.

He is a member of Pilotfor911truth.org, which has consistently shown that it was impossible for jet airliners to have hit the Twin Towers in the way the 9/11 Commission has suggested.

Source*

Related Topics:

9/11 Truth Movement Goes to Court in the UK*

A Court Win against BBC 9/11 Cover-up*

9/11: $1.7 Billion in Bullion Missing from WTC

Egypt’s Junta’s 9/11 Mantra has Won the Battle but not the War!

The Talmudic Roots of Jewish Supremacism*

The Talmudic Roots of Jewish Supremacism*

By Dr. David Duke

“When I first read extensive sections of the Talmud, even with the Jewish published translations in front of me, I did not want to believe they were authentic.

I approached another Jewish acquaintance, Mark Cohen, and gave him a page of these quotations. He seemed equally upset by them. By the look on his face, I knew instantly that he was completely unfamiliar (and unsympathetic) with this Talmudic writ. He offered to ask his rabbi about their authenticity. The rabbi confirmed that the quotations were genuine but claimed that those views were not currently held by most Jews of today.

I willingly believed this, and I still believe it is true of the average Jew. At the same time, however, knowing that such passages existed helped me to understand why there has been so much anti-Jewish sentiment over the centuries.”

Powerful and enigmatic, intelligent and creative, idealistic on the one hand and materialistic on the other, the Jewish people have always fascinated me. Few teenagers growing up in the middle 1960s, as I did, could have avoided acquiring a positive image of Israel and the Jewish people. Because of my years of Sunday school, my perception of the Jews was even more idealized than most. I was 11 years old when I saw the classic movie, Exodus.80 It made such an enduring impression on me that for a few months its beautiful theme song became my favorite, one that I would often hum or sing.

I remember an episode of embarrassment when my sister and her teenage friends stumbled upon me loudly singing the stirring words, “This land is mine, God gave this land to me.” Heroic Israel inspired me. It was as if the Israelites of the Bible had transported themselves to modern times to live out their Old Testament adventures again. The televised image of Israel strongly reinforced my acceptance of the idea that Gentile intolerance had caused every historical conflict with Jews.

After I had discovered the extensive Jewish leadership of early Communism, which I had hoped was an uncharacteristic blight on Jewish history, I began to ask questions one dared not ask in polite society about this interesting people and religion. I had read about the many persecutions of the Jews throughout history, including their great suffering now called the Holocaust (in the mid-60s that term had not yet been appropriated by the Jews to apply exclusively to their sufferings during the Second World War — holocaust merely means, as it always has, large scale destruction, especially by fire).

Mark Twain wrote, “Every nation hates each other, but they all hate the Jew.” Somehow I found the impertinence to ask why. In a historical context, almost every major nation of Europe had expelled them in the past, some repeatedly, after renewed waves of Jewish immigration. What was it, I wondered, about the Jewish people, that inspired such hatred?

Normally, when we study historical conflicts between nations or peoples, we do it dispassionately. For instance, in examining any war from long ago, we list as objectively as possible, the grievances and rationales of the opposing sides. When studying the War for Southern Independence, every American school child learns the Southern arguments for secession and the Northern arguments for forced union. In contrast, when studying the many historical disputes between the Jewish people and others, only the Jewish point of view is acceptable.

In early 1995, Congressman Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, fired his newly appointed congressional librarian, Christina Jeffrey.

He fired her for having once suggested that history students, when studying the Holocaust, should also study the German point of view on the subject. She was fired in spite of her high standing in her profession and notwithstanding her long and cozy relations with the powerful Jewish ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith). The very suggestion that there could be another side to any issue affecting Jews is decried as “anti-Semitic.” In both the entertainment and news media, the only permissible opinion is that Jews are always innocent victims persecuted by intolerant Christians and other “anti-Semites.” Maybe they were always innocent, and all the other peoples of the world were always unjust, I thought. But they weren’t so innocent in the Russian Revolution. I realized I could not evaluate the issue fairly until I had read about both sides.

Are Jews a Race?…They Certainly Think So!

One of the first things I discovered that is that while Gentiles who call the Jews a “race” are condemned, Jewish leaders have for centuries routinely called themselves a race. The leader of American Jewry in the 1930s, Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, said it succinctly in this dramatic statement,

“Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.”

Right up to the present day, there are many statements illustrating how Jewish leaders matter-of-factly view themselves not just as a religion, but as an identifiable race, genetically distinguishable from other peoples.

The former Israeli Prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to Jewish group in southern California said:

“If Israel had not come into existence after World War II then I am certain the Jewish race wouldn’t have survived…I stand before you and say you must strengthen your commitment to Israel.”

An editorial entitled “Some Other Race” in the New York weekly Forward (A very prestigious Jewish publication) urges Jews to list themselves on the U.S. Government census form as a race. It goes on to suggest: “… On question eight [of the form, which asks about race], you might consider doing what more than one member of our redaktzia [editorial staff] has done: checking the box ‘some other race’ and writing in the word ‘Jew’.”

Charles Bronfman, a main sponsor of the $210 million “Birthright Israel,” an organization specifically committed to preventing inter-marriage between Jews and Gentiles, expressed the need to preserve the Jewish genetic character as expressed in the Jewish DNA. Bronfman is brother of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress. He said,

“…you’re losing a lot — losing the kind of feeling you have when you know [that] throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.”

Imagine for a moment if President George Bush would speak to a group of White college students and tell them how great it is for them know that others in the world share their White DNA, and that they should not lose it by intermarrying with other races. Bush could live to 100 years old and still never live down a remark like that!

During his campaign for President in 2000, Bush spoke before dozens of Jewish organizations and Synagogues that oppose inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews. The media only had praise for those appearances. In contrast, Bush faced universal criticism by the Jewish media by simply speaking at a conservative Christian university (Bob Jones University) that quietly opposes racial intermarriage. After the media unleashed a storm of criticism, Bush had to quickly apologize and then passionately condemn Bob Jones University for its position. Of course, within a few days, Bush was again speaking before many Jewish groups that stridently oppose intermarriage, yet no one in the media dared object to these appearances, or to even point out this blatant double standard.

Judaism Views the Bible as Racial Supremacism

Looking for answers to the Jewish view on race, I returned to where I had first learned my respect for the Jews: in the Holy Bible. I went back and reread the Old Testament, paying close attention to the relationships between Jews and non-Jews. In contrast to the universalism of the New Testament, the Old Testament is extremely ethnocentric. It repeatedly identifies the Israelites as a “special people,” or a “Chosen People,” and it painstakingly traces the genealogical descent of the Children of Israel. Many thought-provoking passages forbid the intermarriage of Jews and other tribes. In the book of Exodus, Moses responds to Israelites who had sexual relations with Moabite women by ordering that the Moabites be executed. In Ezra, God commanded those who married non-Israelites to cast off their wives and even the children of such unions.86 Some of the bloodiest writings I have ever read detailed the Jewish people’s annihilation of their tribal enemies.

The massacres of Canaanites, Jacobites, Philistines, Egyptians, and dozens of other peoples are gruesomely recorded in the Bible. In today’s terminology, we describe the slaughter of entire peoples as genocide. Old Testament Jews spared neither men, women, children or even the animals and pets of their enemies. The following are just a few among dozens of similar passages found in the Old Testament:

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword . . . (Joshua 6:21)

Then Horam, king of Gezer, came to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and all his people, until he had left him none remaining.

And they took Eglon, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein. (Joshua 10:32-34)

And they took Hebron, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and the souls that were therein; he left none remaining. (Joshua 10:37)

For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter.

Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcasses, and the mountains shall be melted in their blood. (Isaiah 34:2-3)

But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, (Deuteronomy 20:16)

As a Christian, I could not explain what appeared to be celebrations of genocide. I acknowledged that God is unfathomable and unknowable. However, I could not help but have sympathy for those who were massacred, including thousands of innocent men, women and children. It is easy to imagine how the few who survived those bloody, merciless massacres felt about the “Jews.” Of course, the Jews were not unique in their pursuit of ethnic cleansing; many other early peoples had committed genocide on their enemies.

With the coming of Jesus Christ and his advocacy of love and kindness as recorded in the New Testament, the Old Testament advocacy and record of genocide is little recollected by modern churches. When a modern Christian stumbles across passages of the Old Testament condoning genocide, he usually dismisses them as the sad happenings of a remote biblical era, one now mitigated with the New Covenant of love that Christ brings to those who accept his message.

The Israelite record on racial integrity and supremacy is quite clear:

Neither shall thou make marriages with them; their daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (Deuteronomy 7:2-3)

. . . For thou art a holy people unto the Lord Thy God: the Lord Thy God has chosen thee to a special people unto himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)

Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever, that ye may be strong and eat of the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:12)

Members of racial groups might argue about their comparative history, or abilities, or spirituality. But to suggest that God favors one people over all others — even to the point of advocating and condoning genocide to make way for the “Chosen”? Certainly, that must be the apex of racial supremacy.

Modern Christianity deals with the ethnocentric and genocidal parts of the Old Testament by focusing on the loving aspects of the New Testament. One example is the way that Jesus Christ reversed Old Testament law such as “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” to “turn the other cheek.” The Jewish religion, however, had no comparable figure in its history to moderate the extreme ethnocentrism of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Jewish teacher who offered the greatest moderation toward Gentiles was Maimonides, considered by most Jews as the foremost figure of European Judaism. Even Maimonides decreed that Jewish physicians should not save the life of a Christian unless not saving him would “cause the spread of hostility against the Jews.”

The early spread of Christianity by the Apostle Paul encouraged Christians to become more tolerant of different ethnic groups. Paul himself was a Jewish Pharisee who converted to Christianity and preached much of his life to Gentiles of diverse nationalities. The Christian faith had intolerance for other beliefs and other Gods, but no bias against other tribes. Evangelists of the ancient world themselves came from assorted peoples and preached across the known world. Of course, Christians could and often did harbor xenophobic tendencies, but their nationalistic or ethnocentric attitudes found their origins in their own cultures, not in the teachings of the New Testament. The book of Galatians makes the point quite well that the chosen people, “neither Jew or Greek,” are now those who accept the salvation of Jesus Christ.97 Salvation in the ancient world became based upon acceptance of faith, not simply on blood.

The Jewish religion had an evolution quite different from that of early Christianity. The Jewish people and their religion were entwined. Belief in God was necessary to preserve the tribe as much as preserving the tribe was important to safeguarding the religion. However, according to the Zionist State of Israel, race is far more important than religious belief. A prospective immigrant does not have to practice or believe in Judaism to immigrate to Israel; in fact he can be an outspoken atheist and Communist. He must only prove Jewish descent. Protection of the ethnic identity of the Jewish people became the main reason for Judaism’s existence.

In the Middle East (and later throughout the world) the Jews mingled with many peoples, and yet they preserved their heritage and their essential customs. They are the only ethnic minority in Western nations that has not assimilated after thousands of years. In Babylon, they lived under slavery and then under domination for hundreds of years and developed a code that enabled them not only to survive, but to prosper while living as a minority in an alien society. When they emerged from their Babylonian sojourn, they were stronger, more organized, and more ethnocentric than ever before.

The Talmud: A Jewish-Supremacist Doctrine

In rejecting Jesus Christ and the love and tolerance he preached, Judaism proceeded on its path of chauvinism. It culminated in the pages of the Talmud, an encyclopedic exposition of Jewish law and custom, compiled by hundreds of rabbis over the centuries. The American Heritage Dictionary describes it as “constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism.” The Talmud was first transcribed in Babylonian times, and the oral tradition is many centuries older. By the Sixth Century AD it was written down, becoming the most important religious work of the Jewish people and the chief canon of their religion. In it they finally codified their most chauvinistic tendencies.

Herman Wouk, the very popular Jewish writer, describes the influence of the Talmud as follows:

The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we observe — whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists — we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.

As a 16-year-old, during one of my visits to the Citizens Council offices, I had found a book called The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling. It interested me because the large format of the book contained complete photocopied pages from parts of the Talmud officially compiled by Jewish scholars. I remember skipping Dilling’s commentary and going right to the translations. One of the first passages I read really surprised me. It said,

A heathen [Gentile] who pries into the Torah [and other Jewish Scriptures] is condemned to death, for it is written, it is our inheritance, not theirs. (Sanhedrin 59a)

If a 16-year-old boy reads something forbidden like that, he is certain to read on. The passage was completely alien to everything I had always understood about religion. Why would they not want all men to read their holy words the same way Christians want to “spread the good news?” Just what is in these scriptures that would oblige the Jews to kill a Gentile that read them? Why would public knowledge of Jewish scriptures be dangerous to Jews? I went to the library and found some old translations of parts of the Talmud. It was not long before I came across other, even more amazing passages such as:

Balaam [Jesus] is raised from the dead and being punished in boiling hot semen. Those who mock the words of the Jewish sages and sin against Israel are boiled in hot excrement. (57a Gittin)

When I asked my Jewish friend’s rabbi about the passage, he told me that Balaam was not Jesus. He sounded very convincing, but that very evening, I looked up Balaam in the Jewish Encyclopedia and was shocked to read that Balaam was a pseudonym for Jesus. Because Christian scholars periodically obtained copies of the Talmud, Talmudic scribes hoped to deceive them by using the name Balaam to denote Jesus.

In The Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading “Balaam,” it says,

“…the pseudonym ‘Balaam’ given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia under the heading “Balaam,” it says,

“…the pseudonym ‘Balaam’ given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.”

The Talmud repeatedly uses obscure words to denote Gentiles with an assortment of names such as Egyptian, heathen, Cuthean, and idolater. In the most popular English-language translation of the Talmud, called the Soncino edition, the practice is illustrated by the fifth footnote of the book of Sanhedrin. It reads,

“Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy…”

Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word “Min” or “Minim.” The footnotes of the Soncino edition of the Talmud as well as passages in the Jewish Encyclopedia blatantly mention this intentional artifice.

The Encyclopedia Judaica also notes that,

In rabbinical literature the distinction between gentile (goy, akkum) and Christian (Nazeri) has frequently been obscured by textual alterations necessitated by the vigilance of censors. Thus ‘Egyptian, ‘Amalekite,’ ‘Zadokite (Sadducee),’ and ‘Kuti’ (Samaritan) often stands in place of the original Nazeri, as well as goy, akkum, etc. Probably when Resh Lakish stated that a gentile (akkum, etc. in existing texts) who observed the Sabbath [Saturday rites] is punishable by death (Sanhedrin, 58b), he had in mind Christians … Numerous anti-Christian polemic passages only make real sense after Nazeri has been restored in place of the spurious Kuti or Zadokite.”

In other passages in the Talmud I discovered a possible reason why some of the Talmud’s writers had forbidden Gentiles to read it. The Talmud’s words are vitriolic:

• Only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals. (Baba Mezia 114a-114b.)

• For murder, whether of a Cuthean [Gentile] by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty. (Sanhedrin 57a)

• Even the best of the [Gentiles] should be killed. ( Babylonian Talmud)

• If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. (Moed Kattan 17a.)

• Gentiles’ flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

• If a heathen [Gentile] hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hit-ting a Jew is hitting God. (Sanhedrin 58b.)

• If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no li-ability; but if an ox of a Canaanite [Gentile] gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full. (Baba Kamma 37b.)

• If a Jew finds an object lost by a heathen [Gentile] it does not have to be returned. (Baba Mezia 24a; Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b.)

• God will not spare a Jew who ‘marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean [Gentile]… (Sanhedrin 76a.)

• What a Jew obtains by theft from a Cuthean [Gentile] he may keep. (Sanhedrin 57a.)

• [Gentiles] are outside the protection of the law and God has ‘exposed their money to Israel.’ (Baba Kamma 37b.)

Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a [Gentile]. (Baba Kamma 113a.)

• All [Gentile] children are animals. (Yebamoth 98a.)

• [Gentiles] prefer sex with cows. (Abodah Zarah 22a-22b.)

• The vessels of [Gentiles], do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them? (Abodah Zarah 67b.)

It astonished me to read such unmitigated hatred from the chief writings of the Jewish religion. It was obvious that these quotations were all authentic, because the copies I read were published by Jewish organizations. I could not find any rational explanation for such writings being in the Jewish sacred books. In fact, it became clear to me that most Americans do not even know that such writings even exist.

These quotes were hard for me to believe, as they will be for many readers. However, if anyone doubts their authenticity, an easy way to verify the Talmud’s extreme hatred against Gentiles is by reading the Jewish Encyclopedia. In the article “Gentiles,” it makes very clear the Talmud’s hatred toward non-Jews. Under the subtitle “Discrimination against Gentiles,” on pages 617-621, it clearly shows the Talmud’s attitude toward non-Jews. Here are some excerpts:

. . .they held that only Israelites are men, . . . Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians. (B.M. 108b). . . Another reason for discrimination was the vile and vicious character of the Gentiles. . . . “whose flesh is like the flesh of asses and issue is like the issue of horses . . .” The Gentiles were so strongly suspected of unnatural crimes that it was necessary to prohibit the stabling of a cow in their stalls (Ab. Zarah ii.

1). . .”The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast.. . . ” The almighty offered the Torah to the Gentiles nations also, but since they refused to accept it, He withdrew his shining legal protection from them, and transferred their property rights to Israel. . . the presumption is that the Gentile obtained possession by seizure. . . The property is considered public property, like the unclaimed land of the Desert.

The 1907 edition of the Funk & Wagnall’s Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a quotation of Rabbi Simon Ben Yohai (a giant of Talmudic literature) that is “often quoted by anti-Semites.” The quotation reads:

“Tob shebe-goyim harog” — “The best of the Goyim is to be killed.”

It says that the rabbi’s utterance results from persecution, describing this anti-Gentile statement as a reaction of a rabbi “whose life experiences may furnish an explanation for his animosity.” Yet the passage continues revealingly, “In the connection in which it stands, the import of this observation is similar to that of the two others:

‘The most pious woman is addicted to sorcery’; ‘The best of snakes ought to have its head crushed.’ ”

The Talmudic quotations I reproduce here are by no means taken out of context. It is true that the Talmud is comprised of many writings and has many “commentaries” throughout. It also sometimes actually has disputes on certain issues. However, there is no mistaking the decidedly anti-Gentile tone that dominates it throughout. The exhortation that “the best of Gentiles should be killed,” for instance, is located in at least three different sections.

Imagine the reaction if a prominent Christian pronounced that “the best of the Jews should be killed.” Would not such a statement be forcefully condemned? Imagine the media opprobrium that would be heaped on the offending words and its author. Perversely, if one exposes the intolerance in the Talmud, he is the only one likely to face accusations of religious prejudice and intolerance.

When I first sought to read the Talmud, I noticed a strange thing. I had a hard time finding a copy. It is not sold in bookstores, and most libraries don’t have copies. Admittedly, the Talmud is a few times the size of the Bible, but certainly, in mass quantities, the Talmud could be printed for a nominal cost, much like the Bible is, on thin paper and in inexpensively bound volumes. As the most holy writ of one of the world’s major religions, there must be significant human interest in it. Why then must one usually go to a synagogue or pay hundreds of dollars for an original Soncino edition? One must ask why it is not readily available for the public to read. The answer is probably found in the fact that the Jewish organizations that oversee the distribution rights to such writings don’t want them widely read. When one reads the Talmudic books, one can understand their reasoning.

As an idealistic teenager, I was totally unprepared for this dark side of a faith that I had always respected. My impression had been that the Jewish faith had no animosity toward Jesus Christ. I was always told that they had much respect for Him as a prophet or at least as a great teacher but simply did not accept Him as the Messiah. It disturbed me to have come across violently obscene descriptions of the Savior and of Christians in the Talmud. Among other things, Christ is described as a charlatan, a seducer and an evil-doer. It accuses Christ of having sexual intercourse with his donkey124 and it describes the Virgin Mary as a whore.

When I first read extensive sections of the Talmud, even with the Jewish published translations in front of me, I did not want to believe they were authentic. I approached another Jewish acquaintance, Mark Cohen, and gave him a page of these quotations. He seemed equally upset by them. By the look on his face, I knew instantly that he was completely unfamiliar (and unsympathetic) with this Talmudic writ. He offered to ask his rabbi about their authenticity. The rabbi confirmed that the quotations were genuine but claimed that those views were not currently held by most Jews of today.

I willingly believed this, and I still believe it is true of the average Jew. At the same time, however, knowing that such passages existed helped me to understand why there has been so much anti-Jewish sentiment over the centuries. It also offered insight into the anti-Gentile animus that dominated Judaism. It should be noted that all rabbis study the Talmud. How would Jews react if Christian preachers studied Mein Kampf as part of their holy writ, but excused it by saying that the book has no effect on their current attitudes?

It may sound shocking to the uninformed, but any open-minded reader who reads both Mein Kampf and the Talmud would find the Talmud to be the more wrathful of the two, for despite Hitler’s vitriolic language against the Jews, few of his statements approach the hatred reflected by Talmudic quotes such as “The best of the Gentiles should be killed. In Mein Kampf Hitler asks the question of whether or not Jews are “Germans,” whereas the Talmud states that Gentiles are not even human beings but animals.

I looked up Anti-Semitism in the major encyclopedias. All of them attempted to explain historical Anti-Semitism purely as Christian intolerance toward Jews. Sometimes, they even suggested that Christians persecuted Jews simply because the Gospels blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. They never even suggested that one of the sources of Anti-Semitism could have been the hateful and ethnocentric attitudes of the Jews themselves as expressed toward Gentiles in their own religious laws.

Even during the life of Jesus Christ, the forces of organized Jewry opposed the kindhearted teacher who spoke of the power of love and reconciliation, rather than of the militant anti-Roman measures hoped for by the Pharisees. The New Testament records faithfully the intense Jewish terror used to suppress the early Christian faith. In one of the Gospels’ most chilling verses it is written:

Howbeit that no man spake openly of him [Christ] for fear of the Jews.” (John 8:13)

From the early centuries of Christianity, some Gentile scholars became fluent in Hebrew. They developed bitterness toward Jews based on the contents of the Talmudic writings. Down through the intervening centuries, dozens of popes issued edicts and encyclicals condemning Judaism. They expressed outrage, not because the Jews crucified Christ, but because of the Talmud’s vicious anti-Gentile and anti-Christian passages. Here is short selection of some Popes’ views about the Jews:

Gregory IX. Condemned the Talmud as containing “every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian doctrine.”

Benedict XIII. His Bull on the Jews (1450) declared, “The heresies, vanities and errors of the Talmud prevent the Jews from knowing the truth.”

Innocent IV. Burned the Talmud in 1233 as a book of evil.

John XXII. Banned the Talmud in 1322

Julius III. Papal Bull Contra Hebreos retinentes Libros (1554) ordered the Talmud burnt “everywhere.”

Paul IV. Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum (1555) powerfully condemned Jewish usury and anti-Christian activities.

Pius IV. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.

Pius V. Expelled all Jews from papal states. (1569)

Gregory XIII. Said in a Papal Bull of 1581, “Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, they continue to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity.”

Clement VIII. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.

Not only did the founders of the Catholic Church take this dim view of the Jews, I was amazed to find that the great reformer and founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, shared the same passionate opposition toward them.

As a teenager, I had a great admiration for Martin Luther, and I was keen to find out what the founder of Protestant Christianity had to say about Jews. A mail-order catalogue of books on the Jewish question at the Citizens Council office listed a translation of a book by Martin Luther with the abrasive title The Jews and Their Lies.

The great Martin Luther was a biblical scholar who read Hebrew. He had thoroughly researched the books of the Talmud in their original language, and he had reacted to them with revulsion. Going on to read compilations of Luther’s sermons and writings, I was astonished at his passionate anti-Jewish tone:

They have been taught so much deadly hatred against the Gentiles by their parents and Rabbis since their earliest youth and continue to feed their hate during all the years of their lives, and this hatred has saturated their very blood and flesh, fills the very marrow of their bones and has become inseparable from their whole being. (Weimar 53, pgs. 482-483)

Their Talmud and their Rabbis teach them that a murder shall not be regarded as a sin whenever a Jew kills a Gentile, but only if a Jew murders a brother in Israel. Neither is it a sin to break an oath sworn to a Gentile. . .The Jews of our days still keep to these doctrines and follow the example of their fathers, taking every opportunity to practice their deliberately false interpretation of the Lord’s Word, their avariciousness, their usury, their thefts, their murders, and teaching their children to do likewise. (W. 53, 489-490-91)

Maybe mild-hearted and gentle Christians will believe I am too rigorous and drastic against the poor, afflicted Jews, believing that I ridicule them and treat them with such sarcasm. By my word, I am far too weak to be able to ridicule such a Satanic breed. (W. 32, pg. 286)

You should know that the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our Savior day for day…they are our public enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they give the epithet of Changelings and abortions. If they could kill us all they would gladly do so, in fact, many murder Christians. . . (Luther’s last sermon, a few days before his death in February 1546) (Erlanger 62, pg. 189)

There were many tribes, nationalities and conflicting religious sects that migrated to the great cities of the Roman Empire. Yet, of all these groups, only the Jewish tribe has elicited such relentless hostility throughout the centuries. Only the Jewish tribe never assimilated into the Roman population. Could their own Talmudic practices and their disdain for non-Jews have had something to do with the enmity they generated? It seemed logical to me that these things contributed to anti-Jewish sentiments in the West.

The Contrast of Christian and Jewish Holy Days

The contrasting holidays of Christianity and Judaism illustrate the dichotomy between the two religions. Christmas and Easter celebrate universal themes offering hope and salvation for all mankind. Christmas officially commemorates the birth of the Savior and celebrates the desire for “peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.” Easter, a more somber occasion, represents the promise of universal salvation through the Resurrection of Christ. While Christians celebrate universal goodwill on their holy days, Jews celebrate historic military victories against their despised Gentile enemies.

Near the time of Christmas, the Jews celebrate Hanukkah, a celebration of their military victory in 165 BC over their hated enemy, the Greek-descended King Antiochus IV of Syria. The victory finds its remembrance by the miracle of the long-burning oil lamps in their recaptured temple. As Christians enter the Lenten Season and prepare for the celebrations of Christ’s offer of salvation, the Jews celebrate Passover, a holiday that is, again, based on an ancient conflict between Jew and Gentile. Passover is an unambiguous reference to the night when the spirit of death harmlessly “passed over” Jewish homes and descended into the homes of their hated Egyptian enemies, killing every firstborn male from newborn to elderly in all of Egypt. It may shock one to realize it, but this is a joyous celebration of mass infanticide and murder of the strong among the non-Jews.

Another important Jewish holiday is the Feast of Lots, called Purim. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language describes it as follows:

Purim A Jewish festival marked chiefly by the reading of the book of Esther and eating of hamantaschen, that is celebrated on the 14th day of Adar in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews in Persia from destruction by Haman.

The festival celebrates the Jewish massacre of thousands of Persians along with their Prime Minister Haman and his 10 sons. It even includes the symbolic eating of the supposed anti-Semite’s ears (Haman’s ears — hamantaschen) in the form of three-sided cookies. Another of the favored Purim foods is Kreplach, which are dough pockets again shaped in a triangle to denote Haman’s ears, but these snacks are filled with chopped meat, symbolizing the beaten flesh of Haman. Another Purim celebration has Jews beating willow branches in the synagogues as they imagine themselves flogging Haman. The following description of these practices comes from a Jewish culture organization called Jewish Art in Context, but is found in numerous books about Jewish culture and religious holy days. The second description is from a Jewish cooking guide called “Bon Appetit.”

c. Special Delicacies

1. “Haman Taschen” (Oznei Haman = Haman’s Ears).

2. “Kreplach”: chopped meat covered with dough, also triangular in shape. The name has received a popular etymology: “Kreplach are eaten only on days on which there is both hitting and eating: Yom Kippur eve — the custom of Kaparot, Hoshanna Rabba — the beating the willow branches, Purim — the (symbolical) beating of Haman.”129

The reason Kreplach are eaten on Purim is interesting (if a bit of a stretch). Kreplach is also traditional for Yom Kippur … and for Hoshannah Rabah (the seventh day of Sukkot).

On these days it was traditional for there to be some sort of beating. On Yom Kippur in ancient times, men would be flogged before Yom Kippur and we beat the willow branches on Hoshannah Rabah.

On Purim, we beat out the name of Haman. So Kreplach became traditional for Purim. (Phillip Goldwasser from “Bon Appetit”)

Upon learning these things, I realized that if any group other than Jews had similar ceremonies; Jews would label them hateful and barbaric. Imagine if White Christians were to yearly observe a ritual in which they made and ate cookies shaped to represent the ears of Martin Luther King and held a holy ceremony in which they symbolically whipped him! Purim has been celebrated annually since long before the time of Christ and has certainly been important in the fomenting of hatred and suspicion of Gentiles in the hearts and minds of Jewish children. This repulsive ceremony is analogous to Christian churches teaching our children to symbolically beat the Jewish Pharisees who condemned Jesus and then eating foods symbolizing the pulverized body parts of the Jewish priests. Of course, such activities would be completely antithetical to the spirit of Christianity, yet such revengeful attitudes form the very core of Jewish tradition.

Zionism as Racism

After 2,000 years of conflict, the Jewish prayer “Next Year in Jerusalem” finally became expressed in an open political movement called Zionism. In 1862, Moses Hess, teacher of Karl Marx and the spiritual father of both Zionism and Communism, wrote Rome and Jerusalem. In it, he expressed the familiar Talmudic values.

We Jews shall always remain strangers among the Goyim [Gentiles]. . . . It is a fact the Jewish religion is above all Jewish nationalism. . . . Each and every Jew, whether or not he wishes it, is automatically, by virtue of his birth, bound in solidarity with his entire nation. . . . One must be a Jew first and human being second.

If Adolf Hitler had ever said the words “One must be a German first and a human being second,” would not those words be repeated often as proof of his depravity? For some compelling reason, no one dares to condemn such words when they come from the important Jewish leader who laid the foundations of both Zionism and Communism.

I began to survey Zionist literature, from the writings of Moses Hess to the present day, and repeatedly I encountered the same supremacism expressed in the Talmud.

A prominent Zionist historian, Simon Dubnow, wrote the Foundation of National Judaism in 1906. In it, he expressed sentiments that would certainly be described as anti-Semitic had they come from a Gentile.

Assimilation is common treason against the banner and ideals of the Jewish people. . . . But one can never ‘become’ a member of a natural group, such as a family, a tribe, or a nation…A Jew, on the other hand, even if he happened to be born in France and still lives there, in spite of all this, he remains a member of the Jewish nation, and whether he likes it or not, whether he is aware or unaware of it, he bears the seal of the historic evolution of the Jewish nation.

In 1965, Moshe Menuhin, an Israeli who was born into an extremely prominent Hasidic family, dared to write an exposé of the Jewish hypocrisy. He wrote a fascinating book called The Decadence of Judaism. He was a graduate of a yeshiva in Jerusalem and was the father of the prominent Israeli musical performer Yehudi Menuhin.

Menuhin documents the influential modern Zionist writer Jakob Klatzkin addressing the world at large in his 1921 German-language book Krisis und Entscheidung (Crisis and Decision). Klatzkin writes:

We are not hyphenated Jews; we are Jews with no qualifications or reservations. We are simply aliens; we are a foreign people in your midst, and, we emphasize, we wish to stay that way. There is a wide gap between you and us, so wide that no bridge can be laid across. Your spirit is alien to us; your myths, legends, habits, customs, traditions and national heritage, your religious and national shrines [Christianity], your Sundays and holidays. . . they are all alien to us. The history of your triumphs and defeats, your war songs and battle hymns, your heroes and their mighty deeds, your national ambitions and aspirations, they are all alien to us. The boundaries of your lands cannot restrict our movements, and your border clashes are not of our concern. Far over and above the frontiers and boundaries of your land stand our Jewish unity. . . . Whosoever calls the foreign [Gentile] land a fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people. . . . A loyal Jew can never be other than a Jewish patriot…. We recognize a national unity of Diaspora Jews, no matter in which country they may reside. Therefore, no boundaries can restrain us in pursuing our own Jewish Policy.

Before the Second World War Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, urged German Jews to immigrate to Palestine, using the following blunt words:

Judaism can have nothing in common with Germanism. If we go by the standards of race, history, and culture, and the Germans do have the right to prevent the Jews from intruding on the affairs of their volk. . . The same demand I raise for the Jewish volk as against the German. . . . The Jews are divided into two categories, those who admit they belong to a race distinguished by a history thousands of years old, and those who don’t. The latter are open to the charge of dishonesty.

Even Judge Louis Brandeis, the Zionist who sat on the American Supreme Court, said it succinctly: “Jews are a distinct nationality, whatever his country, his station, or his shade of belief, he is necessarily a member.”

Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, expresses the true causes of what he calls the Jewish Question:

The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews are to be found in large numbers. Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic. . . Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed it is bound to increase because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed. . . . Its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards — that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.

The Jews’ exclusivity, their resistance to assimilation, their alien traditions and customs, their often questionable economic practices, and their carefully nurtured hateful attitude toward other peoples and religions, – all these factors have contributed to a reaction from the Christian world that at times became extreme. With each persecution the Jews suffered, their own distrust and antipathy toward Gentiles became intensified in their own writings and in patterns of behavior that engendered still more persecution. A cycle of recrimination began that still continues as we embark on the early years of the 21st Century.

A whole generation of Jews is now growing up inundated with stories of Gentile perfidy. Not only are the Germans and Eastern Europeans blamed for the Holocaust, but now there are many Jewish-authored books arguing that all the Western nations share in the guilt, as well as President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Catholic Church, and, indeed, the entire Christian world.

I discovered that to draw attention to the writings of the Talmud and to quote the very words used by modern Jewish leaders and writers, invites the charge of Anti-Semitism. It seemed to me that if repeating the words of Jewish leaders is Anti-Semitism, then there must be distasteful elements in the words themselves. Maybe one should consider the historical Jewish attitude toward Gentiles pertinent to assessing the causes of Anti-Semitism.

Bernard, a popular Jewish intellectual in France in the 19th Century, investigated his people’s role in age-old conflict with other peoples. In the widely circulated book L’Antisemitisme, he wrote:

If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to diverse races . . . it must be that the general causes of Anti-Semitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it.

Some might argue that the anti-Gentile tone of the Talmud and the founding Zionists has little relevance to the Jews of today. The evidence, however, is that the core of Judaism, orthodoxy, is steadily becoming more, rather than less extreme against Gentiles than in previous generations. The Encyclopedia Judaica140 says as much in its articles on the subject.

Perhaps this development could have been predicted with the advent of modern film. Cinema and television wield an enormous influence on human emotions. Jewish producers create endless accounts of the persecutions of Jews, all the way from the Torah to the Holocaust. Thousands of well-crafted films, from The Ten Commandments141 to Schindler’s List,142 graphically remind Jews of Gentile perfidy, while softening Gentiles to Jewish causes. The incessantly repeated horrific stories of the Holocaust can only serve to heighten the suspicions of the average Jew toward Gentiles while underscoring the need for Jewish solidarity.

Modern Jewish Supremacism

As I read more and more of the historical accounts of Jewish ethnocentrism, I wondered how much of this applied to modern day Jews. I began to devour modern Jewish books and publications. I chose their most popular and respected newspapers, books, and magazines. Because I was now beginning to see a double standard, I began to look for corroborating evidence, and what I found fascinated me. In fact, finding it was easy, and it still is. Prominent Jews still proudly write and publish articles about their suspicion and condemnation of Gentiles. They boast of Jewish moral, spiritual and genetic superiority. Even admissions of control over key positions in media and government in Gentile nations are in their contemporary literature. Any reader of publications meant for Jewish consumption will find material no less anti-Gentile than the 1500-year-old Talmudic writ I quoted. It is seldom as brazen as the old material, but the underlying themes are inevitably present and sometimes even unvarnished hatred just spills out.

Many examples of what I am talking about can be found in the largest Jewish newspaper outside of Israel, The Jewish Press,143 which sets the tone of Jewish religious and cultural attitudes more than any other newspaper. One of its primary religious authorities is Rabbi Simcha Cohen, who has an instructional Dear Abby-type of column called “Halachic Questions.” Not long ago, Rabbi Cohen instructed his readers that the Talmud denotes Gentiles as “animals” (as outlined by Talmudic writings from Gemara Kiddushin 68a and Metzia 114b).144 In another section he discusses how a Jewish woman is not designated as a prostitute if she has premarital sex with a Jew, but she is a whore if she has any sexual relations with a Gentile, even if she is married.

Marriage to a Gentile can never be sanctified or condoned, such a liaison classifies the woman as a zona…common parlance interprets the term zona to refer to a prostitute….

Indeed, premarital sex of a Jewish woman to a Jewish man does not automatically brand the woman a zona…. A Jewish woman becomes a prostitute or zona in the eyes of the Talmud only when she marries or otherwise has sexual relations with a non-Jew.

Another major Jewish publication, the Jewish Chronicle, in an article called “Some Carefully and Carelessly Chosen Words,“ revealed that the Jewish term for Gentile woman is the offensive Yiddish word shiksa — meaning “whore,” from the Hebrew root, sheigetz(“abomination”). It also pointed out that a little Gentile girl is called shikselke, meaning “little female abomination.”146 How would Jews react if Gentiles casually referred to Jewish women and little girls as “whores” and “little whores”?

Moreover, not only Christians but also non-Christians of all races are regarded as “supernal refuse” (garbage) by Talmud teachers such as the founder of Habad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Shneur Zalman. The Habad is a powerful movement within Hassidim. The New Republic magazine, which has a mostly Jewish staff, had some revealing admissions in a May, 1992 edition.

…there are some powerful ironies in Habad’s new messianic universalism, in its mission to the gentiles; and surely the most unpleasant of them concerns Habad’s otherwise undisguised and even racial contempt for the goyim.

As for the goyim…Zalman’s attitude (was): ‘Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.’

…Consequently, references to gentiles in Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s teachings are invariably invidious. Their (non-Jews) material abundance derives from supernal refuse. Indeed, they themselves derive from refuse, which is why they are more numerous than the Jews, as the pieces of chaff outnumber the kernels…All Jews were innately good, all gentiles innately evil.

…Moreover, this characterization of gentiles as being inherently evil, as being spiritually as well as biologically inferior to Jews, has not in any way been revised in later Habad writing. (The New Republic)

It is true that all Jews do not have the extreme views of the Habad, who are an integral part of the Jewish Orthodox Religion. However, imagine if a movement existed within the Catholic or Methodist church claiming that Jews or Blacks are pieces of garbage who are “totally evil” and have “no redeeming qualities.” Would there not be a great outcry? The Jews have demanded that the Catholic Church take out of their liturgy anything the Jews deem as offensive, and the Catholics as well as other Christian denominations have done so. Yet, no one dares to insist that the Jewish faith should expunge references to Gentiles as “innately evil with inferior souls.”

As I began to look at these issues from a new perspective, I saw that Judaism is centered in the preservation of Jewish heritage and the advancement of Jewish interests.

In examining some of the encyclopedias and biographical reference works compiled by rabbinical authorities, I found prominent Jews listed who were self-proclaimed atheists and Communists — as mentioned in the last chapter. Leon Trotsky, one of the main atheist perpetrators of the Russian Revolution, and Herbert Aptheker, the “atheist” chief theoretician of the Communist Party USA, are proudly listed in Jewish directories such as Who’s Who in World Jewry148 and Who’s Who in American Jewry.149 These books are compiled by the leading rabbinical organizations of America.

The Jewish religion, as codified by the Talmud, is less concerned with an afterlife than with the survival and power of the Jewish people. Driven by the belief that Jews are the “Chosen People,” Judaism is held together by chronic recitals of past persecutions. In a world that renounces racism, Judaism is the only creed on Earth being praised for fostering genetic exclusion, elitism, ethnocentrism, and supremacism. Modern Israel is the only Western state that is openly theocratic, unashamedly proclaiming itself to be a nation whose purpose is to advance one religion and one unique people. Israel defines Judaism as the state religion, with little separation of church and state in its civil and religious laws. In spite of their religious state, most Jews in Israel identify themselves as “secular.” But, even the nonreligious Jews of Israel and America support the Orthodox-run state of Israel, and they support numerous organizations run by Orthodox

Jews around the world, as a mechanism for preserving their cultural and racial heritage.

Most of us never see the reality of Jewish chauvinism and power because we have not organized the scattered facts into a coherent whole. Like a child’s connect-the-dot puzzle, most of us have not yet connected the dots and completed the picture. The media erase as many dots as they can from our awareness, and anyone who succeeds in connecting all the dots is bludgeoned back with the ultimate moral weapon: accusations of Anti-Semitism.

Given the Jewish influences that have so much power in this nation’s media and finance, it is amazing that any Gentiles would dare oppose them. One accused of being an anti-Semite faces an intractable enemy organized around the world — one that will do whatever it takes to discredit, intimidate, jail and destroy him.

After I completed a survey of readings in the Talmud and of the modern Zionist writers, I realized that the Europeans were not the only historical practitioners of racial and religious intolerance. Actually, the Jews have been quite proficient at it themselves. Once I accepted that Jewish ethnocentrism existed, again I asked the question that had arisen after my enlightenment on the “Russian Revolution:” Why were we forbidden to know this?

A Jew can rightly object to slanderous criticism from Christians. Why should I, as a Christian, not be upset by slanderous criticism of my heritage by Jews? If Christians are wrong to voice hateful sentiments against Jews, why are Jews not just as reprehensible for voicing hateful sentiments against Christians? Are the media right in suggesting that Christians have a monopoly on hate, while Jews have a monopoly on charity? Which religion, as judged by the evidence of its own writings, is more motivated by hatred?

Even as I write these provocative words, I harbor no hatred toward the Jewish people. There are intolerant Jews just as there are intolerant Gentiles. It is also true that there are many Jews who respect our Christian heritage. But unless the nonchauvinist Jews are willing to work hard to bring to their own faith and community the same kind of love and reconciliation that Christ taught, the cycle of hatred between Jew and Gentile could fester. Unless they temper their supremacism with acceptance and love, they could suffer a replay of the terrible excesses of the past.

The government, church, and media establishment work zealously to diminish Gentile intolerance of Jews. That objective can be realized only through an equal effort to lessen Jewish chauvinism, suspicion, and anger against Gentiles. As the Israeli human-rights activist Israel Shahak wrote, “Anti-Semitism and Jewish chauvinism can only be fought simultaneously.”

After reading the words of Zionism’s modern founder, Theodore Herzl, I fully realized that there are, as he expressed it, “alien” power brokers in our civilization. These are people who do not share our culture, our traditions, our faith, our interests, or our values. I realized that if I desired to preserve the heritage and values of my people, I would have to defend my people from the intolerant sector within the Jewish community that seeks domination rather than conciliation.

When I was 16, I never suspected that just by pointing out the powerful Jewish elements of anti-Gentilism I would be labeled anti-Semitic. I do not accept that label today, and I still believe that it is no more anti-Semitic to oppose Jewish Supremacism than it is anti-Italian to oppose the mafia.

Source*

Related Topics:

Jews against Zionism: The Case of the Haredim

Ashkenazi Jews are Genetically European

Israeli Barbarism: 6 Things You Can Stop Buying*

Verdict Affirms Israel Committed Genocide*

Rabbi Admits Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade*

Daring to Boycott Israel*

Israel floods Gaza villages, displacing a hundred families

Rabbi Exposes Zionists after Being Tortured By Them*

Unholy Trinity United States-Israel- Saudi Arabia Sowing Discord amongst Muslims*

Harvesting Palestinian Organs*

Open Detention without Charge for African Migrants in Israel*

Elite Zionist with Rothschild Connection is Dead*

Zionists Swindling all the Way into Sub-Saharan Africa*

We Are All One (Tawhid)