US lawmakers to meet Netanyahu in Israel over Iran agreement

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/07/29/422396/US-Israel-Congress-trip-Benjamin-Netanyahu-Iran-agreement

More than 40 US lawmakers are scheduled to travel to Israel next month to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before they vote in Congress on the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Congress has until September 17 to review and vote either to reject or approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached between Iran, the US and the five world powers on July 14 in the Austrian capital of Vienna.

According to the text of the agreement, Iran will be recognized by the United Nations as a nuclear power and will continue its uranium enrichment program.

The trip to Israel –one with Democrats, the other with Republicans– which occurs every two years, are organized and funded by the American Israel Education Foundation.

The foundation is an educational nonprofit affiliated with the Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The AIPAC-linked foundation has spent more than $9.4 million on congressional travels during the past 14 years.

House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer will take part in the Democratic trip, which kicks off on August 3. The Republicans’ visit will begin on August 8.

“We’ll meet with Mr. Netanyahu, [and] I’m sure he will repeat his very deep concerns and the dangers he believes that the deal presents to Israel,” Hoyer told the Hill. “We will speak to people in Israel who do not share his view.”

Netanyahu is expected to make his case directly to lawmakers.

The lawmakers will also meet with other high-ranking officials, as well as US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro.

Most Republicans oppose the nuclear agreement with Iran, but they need a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress to override a presidential veto and to reach that threshold, Republicans need Democrats’ support.

In remarks before the Council on Foreign Relations on Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that if Congress rejects the Iran agreement, the world would hold Israel responsible because of its extensive campaign against it.

US President Barack Obama has also vowed to veto any congressional resolution seeking to reject the agreement.

Advertisements

The Dire Consequences of Race-Mixing

http://www.dailystormer.com/the-dire-consequences-of-interracial-breeding/

Only you have the power to prevent this tragedy.
Only you have the power to prevent this tragedy.

You would think that educating people about the negative consequences of race-mixing would be gratefully received and seen as similar to giving warnings about the dangers of smoking or fast food. And yet, when the subject does get brought up and you do try to warn people, they don’t thank you for it, but accuse you of ‘hating’ bi-racial people instead. If people knew the facts about race and the differences between them, they would realize that it is actually the parents of bi-racial people that are hating them, by forcing this genetic status on them in the first place.

Herein, I hope to give people a better understanding of the real life consequences of race-mixing. There is very little around on the internet that is specifically devoted to the subject and most people I find have never even really thought about it before.  The fact is, one quick fumble between the sheets can have a lasting negative effect on all successive generations.

dumouchel1050a
Stay White, kids.

Genetic Similarity Theory

There are two genetically directed instincts within us regarding choosing a mate.

The most powerful one is explained by ‘Genetic Similarity Theory.’ This is the drive that makes you seek out a partner with a large amount of the same hereditary genes as you. This is to ensure that the features your combined genes contribute to in your children, physical and mental, are the same as the ones your ancestors had. This is the reason why there are people that look like you from far back in your family past, like grandparents or great grandparents. This is not just because you are related to them, it is because their parents choice of partner was similar to your own parents choice of partner. Your hereditary genes will have stayed the way that they were in your ancestors, being continually passed down from generation to generation, molding descendants in the likeness of their predecessors. This is why you get musical families, where each generation has musicians in it. The parent instinctively finds a partner with the same genes that their parents had and the talent for music can be passed on. It is also why people say that husbands pick wives who are similar to their mothers. If there were no drive to find partners with similar hereditary genes then there would be no distinct races. If you are mixed race, then there will be no-one in your family past that you resemble. They will all have been prevented from having an unobstructed influence on your form and character.

The second, lesser instinct is for variety, and this is there to ensure that you don’t mate with an extended family member, encouraging you to look for someone who is unlike you. This will add novel DNA to your offspring’s genome, leading to less chance of genetic disease. It is the source of the phrase ‘opposites attract,’ and works well when you are living among your own race, creating a healthy, disease-resistant population. Unfortunately, if other races are living among you, it can turn into a genetically destructive desire to mate with them and will result in a weakening of disease resistance. Different races are susceptible to different diseases and this susceptibility will then be passed on to the mixed race child, giving them both races’ weaknesses instead of just the one.

020005_82329PCN_KlumKids
Mustn’t they feel weird, these folks?

Mendelian Inheritance

In a mixed race relationship between two pure types, the children will not have a smooth blend of characteristics from each parent, but the characteristics will each separate out into their individual racial components forming a patchwork of features in the offspring. This is true for all hybrids, even ones produced from breeds of the same species, and is why plant breeders do not generally create seed from F1 hybrids; the finished plants will show individual features from each parental type, rather than a harmonious blend, with the majority of the plants showing more of the dominant type’s characteristics. If you crossed a recessive small leaf plant with a dominant big leaf plant, you would not get a medium leaf plant, but a mainly big leaf one, with a few small leaves here and there. If you bred the hybrid back in with the pure types, you would no longer be able to predict quite how the plants would turn out, as each formerly pure type would have been adulterated and every so often, it would produce a plant with wildly differing characteristics to the parent’s type. The same happens with animals; you cannot get back to a pedigree once you have been left with a mongrel.

Hybridization shatters the form entirely into separate units of characteristics, and these units get jumbled up again each time they get passed on. People see attractive half-castes and think that the children will inherit the same characteristics, but it is impossible for them to be passed on like that, as they separate out again into the individual races’ features ensuring there is no unity of form to be passed on. Since Black genes are dominant and White genes are recessive, Mulattoes will always look more Black than White. This is why the mixed race ‘Seal’ (Black/Mestizo) and the White Heidi Klum’s two children look nothing whatsoever like either parent: they do not have a harmonious brown blend of each parents features, but have predominantly Black features instead.

racial_ethnic_differences
Just one piece of hair is enough to identify which race it belongs too.

Species, Subspecies and Breeds

According to the evolutionary definition of race, races started out as the same species, but have diverged far enough apart from one another over time, to now almost be classified as separate species. In all defining categories man is composed of subspecies at least and by many standards, the variations are enough for the races to be classed as different species entirely. For example, if you saw two animals, one with feathers and one with fur, you would call them different species. The difference between Caucasian hair and Negro ‘hair’ is nearly as big a difference as between fur and feathers. The reality is that Negro ‘hair’ can be felted as it lacks the natural oil glands of real hair. It actually has far more in common with wool than it does hair and was defined as such up until the last century.

The differences between the races of man show more variance between them than even different breeds of dog do, which is why races are not called breeds. Human breeds are the separate strains within the race, Caucasian for example has Nordic, Alpine, Slavic, Mediterranean and others. Breeding between the human races is likebreeding bulls with mares or goats with sheep; both of these produce viable offspring, so being able to produce offspring together is no guarantee of being the same species.

iq5
Why would anyone desire less intelligent children?

Differences Between the White and Black Races

People like to say that Caucasian man has only 0.5% difference in his DNA from a Negro, implying that there is only a very small difference between them; yet, there is only 1.5% difference in DNA between a Caucasian and a chimpanzee. A very small amount of change in the DNA makes for huge differences between species, due to the many different ways that the genes themselves can be combined. Unlike the Cultural Marxist lie that race is only skin deep, just about every part of the body is uniquely different among the races. They have different genital size, position and placing, different shape and sized feet, legs and arms, different amounts of teeth, eggs and muscle, different skull shape and thickness, in fact the bones themselves are so entirely different from each other that forensic scientists can tell what race someone is just from a tiny scrap of bone from anywhere in the body, by sight alone.

Blood transfusions are not possible between the races (yet they are possiblebetween cats and dogs) and neither are bone marrow transplants. A mixed race person stands little chance of finding a donated organ that will not reject their mismatched body, since the organs are irreconcilably different as well. Obviously, the skin is different (the largest organ of the body), but so are the lungs, testicles, brain and kidneys.

Caucasoid brains are larger than Negroids and the frontal lobes have deep fissures associated with complex problem solving, whilst Negroid brains are smaller and have shallow fissures. Consequently the average Negro IQ is 15 points lower than the average Caucasian IQ. This result is found regardless of geography and social status. Negroes adopted into affluent White families and Negroes in Africa and in America all produce the same averaged IQ results. Obviously not all people have their average racial IQ and there are always exceptional individuals at either end of the scale, yet exceptions serve to prove the rule, rather than to negate it.

Racial differences seen in the fetus
Racial differences seen in the fetus

Different Rates of Hormones

From The Biology of The Race Problem using breeds of dog as an example:

‘It may be assumed that in two behavioural types the genetics of each system is different, and the interaction between the genetic factors and the glandular processes also differs. Within the pure behavioural types there is a harmonious relationship between behavioural systems and the other bodily organs. This holds both for the inactive and active types. Among the hybrids however, in which there is mixed physical form, there is also a disharmonious relationship between the bodily organs and the reaction systems. The factors which influence behaviour become mixed and varied, just as those which determine physical form. In the mixed types, the harmonious relationship found within each pure behavioural type is BROKEN UP, and the result is DISHARMONY among the systems.’

One of the most important differences between the races is the rate of hormones that each produce. Hormones control our emotions, our pain control, our sensitivity – all the different feelings that affect our behavior are correlative with various secretions from different glands. Mixed race individuals can have a different rate of secretions to that needed for the particular organs that they have ended up with, which can cause highly unstable temperaments. This is caused by the same conflicting racial characteristics that result in things like having a Negro skull but Caucasian skin, or a Caucasian skeleton with Negro skin. Rather than having each organ being partially Caucasian and partially Negro in a harmonious blend of the two, some of the organs will be Negro but some will be Caucasian. So you might get White testicles in a predominantly Black body for instance, or a Black brain in a White body. In a mixed race person who appears to be mainly Negro, there is no way to predict whether all his organs are too. Negroes have higher testosterone rates than Whites and are more aggressive and less emotionally-balanced because of this, but at least their organs are intended for that amount of testosterone. Hormone irregularities are also linked with depression and not surprisingly there is a very high rate of depression, as well as all other health problems, among mixed race individuals when compared to non-mixed individuals. There is also a much higher suicide rate among mixed race children – they are five times more likely to commit suicide than someone of a singular race.

In every historical culture on earth, fairness of skin was the most important measure of physical attractiveness.
In every historical culture on earth, fairness of skin was the most important measure of physical attractiveness.

Women, Children and Marriage

Children like to look like their parents.  Little girls especially like to look like their mother. It must be very upsetting for mixed race children to see someone who looks nothing like them, that they will not be growing up to look like. It must also be very upsetting to know that this was knowingly done to you, by your own parents. Beauty products to make Black people look White are a massive industry – from wigs to skin whitening creams, Blacks desperately want to make themselves look White. A mixed race child has to live with the knowledge that they could have been born happy with their skin color and content with their hair type, if only their parents hadn’t deliberately deprived them of this. Some people like to think that they ‘own’ their bodies, but you can only really own something that you have made yourself or that you have purchased.

The human body is formed according to it’s genes and you are just its trustee. The beneficiary is the race, and the genes are relying on you to replicate them in a way that they can continue to grow in the form nature chose for them. You are just the current captain of your gene-chariot, not the owner of it, and the consequent drivers are all counting on you to be a careful pilot.  Women who commit miscegenation are giving away something that is not theirs to give, since they owe their very existence to their ancestors, who laid down their lives to protect them and provided everything that they now benefit from.

As well as the permanent alteration to your posterity’s genes, mixed race relationships are also more likely to split up and even more alarmingly, White women are 12 times more likely to be killed by a Black husband than a White one, and White men are 21 times more likely to be murdered by a Black wife than a White one.

Conclusion

Race is more fundamental than gender, and yet gender confusion is acknowledged as a disorder that modern medicine thinks is so drastic that it requires physical mutilation to attempt to put right. How much more of a disorder is being mixed race? Does anyone seriously think a child would choose to have no ancestors, no people, no community? These unfortunates do the best they can with a bad lot, trying not to end up hating life and despising those who do have a family tree behind them. And there is nothing whatsoever that they can do about it.

Even three month old babies know more about race than most adult Europeans; they show a preference for the faces of their own race, even when they are of people they have never seen before. They instinctively know what race they are. Which race’s face is it that 3 month old mixed race babies find comforting? The natural state ofbabies and children is racist, and this lasts until they are old enough to understand and succumb to the liberal programming that all Whites are now subjected to.

Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.

Prior to the advent of Cultural Marxism, race-mixing was always seen as the ultimate sin against nature in our societies. We can see that this is, objectively, due to an in-born, biological drive to preserve the genetics of our ancestors, and prevent a decline in future generations.  Historically, there were rapes and unlawful marriages, as part of slavery, war and necessity, but genetic similarity theory shows that desiring people of a different ethnicity as a partner to produce children with is an unnatural aberration, and those who have engaged in this behavior in modern times prove that it simply does not work.

Currently, there is a massive brainwashing operation underway to encourage the races to mix with each other and blend each other out. I object to this because I cannot think of anything more selfish and destructive than breaking an unbroken line of an immortal type of man, for the sake of what is essentially a fetish – a fetish that will still be affecting all your offspring long after you are gone.

Since the basic purpose of all life, and in fact the gift given to all natural life, is to be able to recreate itself in the perfect form that God and nature chose for it, to willfully destroy that template and think you know better than nature is an active defiance of the basic order of the universe. To forcefully take away from your children the right that God and nature gave you, the right to pass on that divinely formed genetic torch, is a crime against life itself.

The highest duty of any living creature is to pass on its existence to the next generation.  There is nothing worse that a man can do in this life than to extinguish that flame of our ancestors.

Study: Mixed-race people have identity problems.

http://whitegenocideproject.com/study-mixed-race-people-have-identity-problems/

A British report has found that mixed-race people have the greatest risk of suffering from mental health problems, in many cases because they are unhappy being mixed, and instead preferring to associate with one of their parent’s races.

Many Black and White mixed-race people prefer to call themselves “Black”, for example Barrack Obama, and find it depressing to consider themselves mixed.

The research, backed by the National Children’s Bureau, also found that other races of people, and those such as teachers, could not understand their background.

The report called ‘Mixed Experiences – growing up mixed race: mental health and wellbeing‘ collected information from many different studies, along with interviews from mixed-race people talking about their experiences as children.

Co-author Dinah Morley was said there was a lack of understanding over what it meant to be mixed race.

I was surprised at how much racism, from black and white people, had come their way,” Morley said, “A lot of children were seen as black when they might be being raised by a white single parent and had no understanding of the black culture. The default position for a child of mixed race is that they are black.

Morley said the most occurring experience was that they were “too white to be black, too black to be white“.

In Britain, mixed-race people are the fastest-growing group among children. The 2011 census showed that the mixed-race population made 2.2% of the population of England and Wales.

Anti-Whites are not concerned with the mental health of White people, or even non-White people. All anti-Whites are care about is their idea of getting rid of race. Only in White countries this idea of theirs is forced, and amounts to a genocide against White people.

Genocide does not have to be violent. On the contrary, genocide is basically defined as purposely getting rid of a group.

So when only White countries are forced to have their borders opened to massive non-White third world immigration, despite public disapproval, it still happens. Millions of non-Whites are needed to pour into White countries because how can White people be mixed out of existence otherwise?

Non-Jews as seen in the Jewish Talmud:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/nonjews_in_talmud.htm

This article was sent to me by brother Muhammad; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

The Talmud is a sacred book of religious laws and regulations governing the life of Jews worldwide. The following excerpts shed some light on why the Jews, who are the product of such teachings, find it so hard to assimilate in their host societies:

“The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. THEY ARE BEASTS.”  TALMUD: Baba Mezia, 114b (page referrals).

“The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture says to honor the dog more than the non-Jew.”  TALMUD:Ereget Raschi Erod, 22 30.

“Even though God created the non-Jew they are still ANIMALS in human form. It is not becoming of a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form.” TALMUD: Midrasch Talpioth, p 225, Warsaw 1855.

“A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant ANIMAL.” TALMUD: Coschen Hamischpat 405.

“Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew as a monkey to a human.” TALMUD: Schene luchoth haberuth, p 250b.

“The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called PIGS.” TALMUD: Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b.

“If you eat with a non-Jew it is the same as eating with a dog.” TALMUD: Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b.

“If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: “God will replace ‘your loss’, just as if one of his animals had died.””  TALMUD: Jore Dea 377.

“Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals.” TALMUD: Sanhedrin 74b.

“IT IS PERMITTED TO TAKE THE BODY AND LIFE OF A GENTILE.” TALMUD: Sepher Ikkarim III c 25.

“It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah.” TALMUD: Coschen Hamischpat, Hagah 425.

“A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands.” TALMUD: Abodah Zara, 4b.

“Every Jew who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” TALMUD: Bammidber raba c 21 & jalkut 772.

This is all from: http://www.jews-for-allah.org

The Talmud Exposed

http://www.christusrex.org/www3/talmud-exposed/talmud.htm

Contents:

The Talmud is Judasim’s Holiest Book
Some Teachings of The Jewish Talmud
Insults Against The Blessed Virgin Mary
Talmud Attacks Christians
Christian Book Burning
Sick and Insane Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Tales of a Roman Holocaust
A Revealing Admission
Pharisaic Rituals
A Great Rabbi Deceives A Woman
Genocide Advocated by The Talmud
Jewish Talmudic Doctrine: Non-Jews are Not Humans
The Teachings of Maimonides
Deception and Dissimulation
Christian Response to The Talmud

The Talmud is Judaism’s Holiest Book

The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): “My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).”

The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the Black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians have more knowledge of the Old Testament than the Israelis. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes’ Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:

“The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way.”

Because they don’t traffic in Talmudic traditions, the Black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.

Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the “unchallenged leader” of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, “an entire generation” of Jewish leadership.

N.Y. Times religion reporter Ari Goldman described the basis of the rabbi’s authority:

“Soloveitchik came from a long line of distinguished Talmudic scholars … Until his early 20s, he devoted himself almost exclusively to the study of the Talmud … He came to Yeshiva University’s Elchanan Theological Seminary where he remained the pre-eminent teacher in the Talmud … He held the title of Leib Merkin professor of Talmud … sitting with his feet crossed in front of a table bearing an open volume of the Talmud.” (N.Y. Times, April 10, 1993, p. 38).

Nowhere does Goldman refer to Soloveitchik’s knowledge of the Bible as the basis for being one of the top world authorities on Jewish law. The rabbi’s credentials are all predicated upon his mastery of the Talmud. All other studies are clearly secondary. Britain’s Jewish Chronicle of March 26, 1993 states that in religious school (yeshiva), Jews are “devoted to the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else.” The Jewish Scribes claim the Talmud is partly a collection of traditions Moses gave them in oral form. These had not yet been written down in Jesus’ time. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Holy Bible. Shmuel Safrai in The Literature of the Sages Part One (p.164), points out that in chapters 4 and 5 of the Talmud’s Gittin Tractate, the Talmud nullifes the Biblical teaching concerning money-lending: “Hillel decreed the prozbul for the betterment of the world.’ The ‘prozbul’ is a legal fiction which allows debts to be collected after the Sabbatical year and it was Hillel’s intention thereby to overcome the fear that money-lenders had of losing their money.”

The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), which is used against Catholics by Protestants, is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ’s lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark. chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord’s pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

Unfortunately, due to the abysmal ignorance of our day, the widespread Judeo-Christian notion is that the Old Testament is the supreme book of Judaism. But this is not so. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the commandments of rabbis, not God.

The Talmudic commentary on the Bible is their supreme law, and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed, as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. As readers of Talmud, we know this to be true.

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in “Judaism on Trial,” quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:

“Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible … God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own … anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture.”

There is a small Jewish sect which makes considerable effort to eschew Talmud and adhere to the Old Testament alone. These are the Karaites, a most hated and severely persecuted group within Judaism.

To the Mishnah the rabbis later added the Gemara (rabbinical commentaries). Together these comprise the Talmud. There are two versions, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is regarded as the authoritative version: “The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is decisive.” (R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, From Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic Introduction to the Writings of Judaism, p. 40).

This study is based on the Jewish-authorized Babylonian Talmud. We have published herein the authenticated sayings of the Jewish Talmud. Look them up for yourself.

FORWORD:

We publish the following irrefutable documentation in the hope of liberating all people from the corrosive racism of this Talmudic hate literature, which is the manual of Jewish supremacists the world over. The implementation by Jewish supremacists of Talmudic hate literature has caused untold suffering throughout history and now, in occupied Palestine, it is used as a justification for the mass murder of Palestinian civilians.

Some Teachings of The Jewish Talmud

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals.

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

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

Jews are Divine:

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

It’s O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status:

Baba Kamma 37b. “If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite … the payment is to be in full.”

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews:

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

Sanhedrin 76a. 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 … ”

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile (“Cuthean”), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has “exposed their money to Israel.”

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews:

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies (“subterfuges”) to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human:

Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Insults Against The Blessed Virgin Mary

Sanhedrin 106a. Says Jesus’ mother was a whore: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.”

Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the “uncensored” text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, “Miriam the hairdresser,” had sex with many men.

Gloats over Christ Dying Young:

A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: “Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was? – He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old.”

Says Jesus was a Sorcerer:

Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus (“Yeshu” and in footnote #6, Yeshu “the Nazarene”) was executed because he practiced sorcery.

Horrible Blasphemy of Jesus Christ:

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus ( see footnote #4) is being boiled in “hot excrement.”

Sanhedrin 43a. Jesus deserved execution: “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged…Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer)?”

Talmud Attacks Christians

Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (“minim”) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations (see footnote #11 for the definition of minim).

Christian Book Burning

Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament (“uncanonical books,” see footnote #9) will have no portion in the world to come.

Shabbath 116a (p. 569). Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

Dr. Israel Shahak reports that the Zionists burned hundreds of New Testament books in Occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” Pluto Press, p. 21).

Sick and Insane Teachings of the Jewish Talmud

Gittin 69a. To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.

Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years “and a day” old).

Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b. “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing.”

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Gittin 70a. The Rabbis taught: “On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic.”

Toilet and excrement obsessions are laced throughout Talmud and were exhibited in Spielbergs “Schindler’s List” where the Hollywood director shows a Jewish child jumping through a toilet seat in an outhouse and falling into a pool of liquefied excrement. There the child meets two other Jewish children partially immersed who inform the interloper that this cesspool is their hiding spot exclusively and that he must find his own. These are the kind of disgusting and morbid, psychotic images which Jewish kids are exposed to constantly in the cinematic liturgy of Holocaustianity and for that matter, in the Talmud as well.

Gittin 69b (p. 329). To heal the disease of pleurisy (“catarrh”) a Jew should “take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog’s excrement as it loosens the limbs.”

Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

Shabbath 86a-86b. Because Jews are holy they do not have sex during the day unless the house can be made dark. A Jewish scholar can have sex during the day if he uses his garment like a tent to make it dark.

Tales of a Roman Holocaust

Here are two early “Holocaust” tales from the Talmud: Gittin 57b. Claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans.

(Ancient demography indicates that there were not 16 million Jews in the entire world at that time, much less 16 million Jewish children or four billion Jews).

A Revealing Admission

Abodah Zarah 70a. The question was asked of the rabbi whether some wine stolen in Pumbeditha might be used or if it was defiled, due to the fact that the thieves might have been Gentiles (a Gentile touching wine would make the wine unclean). The rabbi says not to worry, that the wine is permissible for Jewish use because the majority of the thieves in Pumbeditha, the place where the wine was stolen, are Jews

Pharisaic Rituals

Erubin 21b (p. 150). “Rabbi Akiba said to him, “Give me some water to wash my hands.”

“It will not suffice for drinking,” the other complained, “will it suffice for washing your hands?”

“What can I do?’ the former replied, “when for neglecting the words of the Rabbis one deserves death? It is better that I myself should die than that I transgress against the opinion of my colleagues.” [This is the ritual hand washing condemned by Jesus in Matthew 15: 1-9].

A Great Rabbi Deceives A Woman

Kallah 51a (Soncino Minor Tractates). Teaches that God approves of rabbis who lie: “The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman’s menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah.

“They said, ‘What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?’ He replied, “I will prove it concerning him.” He went to the lad’s mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans. “He said to her, ‘My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.’ (eternal life). She said to him, ‘Swear it to me.’

Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, ‘What is the status of your son?’ She replied, ‘When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.’ Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah.

It was declared, ‘..Blessed be the God of Israel Who Revealed His Secret to Rabbi Akiba…”

In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars, the preceding discussion is actually about Christ (the lad who ‘uncovered his head’). The reference to the lad’s mother is of course to the mother of Jesus, Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in Talmud).

Genocide Advocated by The Talmud

Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog (“Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed”).

This passage is not from the Soncino edition but is from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the entry, “Gentile,” (p. 617).

This original Talmud passage has been concealed in translation. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that, “…in the various versions the reading has been altered, ‘The best among the Egyptians’ being generally substituted.” In the Soncino version: “the best of the heathens” (Minor Tractates, Soferim 41a-b].

Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon ben Yohai, to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. (Jewish Press of June 9, 1989, p. 56B).

On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Khazar from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Rabbi Kahane who has stated that his view of Arabs as “dogs” is “from the Talmud.” (Cf. CBS 60 Minutes, “Kahane”).

Univ. of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein’s philosophy: “They believe it’s God’s will that they commit violence against ‘goyim,’ a Hebrew term for non-Jews.” (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, “We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing.” (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin says, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

Jewish Talmudic Doctrine: Non-Jews are Not Humans

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanizes Gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. We will now list some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a slave.

Kehuboth 6b. [Now] does it not mean that if he had yet no intercourse [with his wife] he may have intercourse [with her] even on Sabbath? Said Raba: No, except Sabbath. Said Abaye to him: But it says, `until the night following the Sabbath [one gives her] four nights’? Only, said Raba, when he already had intercourse [with her]. If [it were, as you say,] after he already had intercourse, what does he let us hear? He lets us hear that it is allowed to have intercourse on Sabbath, as that [statement] of Samuel [teaches], for Samuel said: One may enter into a narrow opening on Sabbath, although he causes pebbles to break loose.

Uses of Oil of Annointing. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over gentiles [Hebrew: goyim] or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: “Upon the flesh of man [Hebrew: adam] shall it not be poured [Exodus 30:32]”; and cattle and vessels are not man [adam]. Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not a man [adam]. But why is one exempt in the case of gentiles [goyim]; are they not in the category of man [adam]?–No, it is written: “And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man [adam] [Ezekiel 34:31]”: Ye are called man [adam] but gentiles [goyim] are not called man [adam]. (Ed. but by implication, Cain),

In the above passage, the Rabbis are discussing the Mosaic law which forbids applying holy oil to men. In the discussion, the Rabbis state that it is not a sin to apply the holy oil to gentiles, since gentiles are not human beings (literally, Adam, and are by implication, Cain).

Yebamoth 61a: It was taught: And so did R. Simeon ben Yohai state [61a] that the graves of gentiles [goyim] do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel [standing or bending over a grave], for it is said, “And ye my sheep the sheep of my pasture, are men [adam]” [Ezekiel 34:31]; you are called men [adam] but the idolaters are not called men [adam].

The Mosaic law states that touching a human corpse or grave imparts uncleanness to those who touch it. But the Talmud here teaches that if a Jew touches the grave of a gentile, it does not make him unclean, since gentiles are not human (literally, Adam).

Baba Mezia 114b: Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest: why then dost thou stand in a cemetery? – He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity? For it has been taught: R. Simeon ben Yohai said: The graves of gentiles [goyim] do not defile, for it is written, “And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men [adam]” [Ezekiel 34:31]; only ye are designated men [Adam].

A Jewish priest was standing in a graveyard. When asked why he was standing there in apparent violation of the Mosaic law, he replied that it was permissible, since the law only prohibits Jews from coming into contact with the graves of humans [adam], and he was standing in a gentile graveyard.

Since the so-called Scriptural proof text (Ezekiel 34:31) repeatedly cited in the above three Talmud passages in reality does not prove that only Jews are human, it is self-evident that the Talmudic sages who asserted the preceding absurdities about Gentiles were already anti-Gentile racists or ideologues who, in desperate search of some proof of their position, distorted an Old Testament passage in order to justify their bigotry. Their ideology came first, their “proof” second.

Berakoth 58a R. Shila administered lashes to a man who had intercourse with an Egyptian woman. The man went and informed against him to the Government, saying: There is a man among the Jews who passes judgment without the permission of the Government. An official was sent to [summon] him. When he came he was asked: Why did you flog that man? He replied: Because he had intercourse with a she-ass.

They said to him: Have you witnesses? He replied: I have. Elijah thereupon came in the form of a man and gave evidence. They said to him: If that is the case he ought to be put to death! He replied: Since we have been exiled from our land, we have no authority to put to death; do with him what you please.

While they were considering his case, R. Shila exclaimed, “Thine, Oh Lord, is the greatness and the power” [1 Chronicles 29:11] What are you saying? they asked him. He replied: What I am saying is this: Blessed is the All-Merciful who has made the earthly royalty on the model of the heavenly, and has invested you with dominion, and made you lovers of justice.

They said to him: Are you so solicitous for the honor of the Government? They handed him a staff and said to him: You may act as judge. When he went out that man said to him: Does the All-Merciful perform miracles for liars?

He replied: Wretch! Are they not called asses? For it is written: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses” [Ezekiel 23:20]. He noticed that the man was about to inform them that he had called them asses. He said: This man is a persecutor, and the Torah has said: If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first. So he struck him with the staff and killed him. He then said: Since a miracle has been wrought for me through this verse, I will expound it.”

Our apologies for subjecting our readers to the preceding lengthy Talmudic drivel, but it is best to include all of it to demonstrate its depravity.

In addition to having Elijah float down from heaven to deceive the Gentile court, the Talmud teaches that Gentiles are in reality animals, hence Rabbi Shila (and Elijah) did not really lie at all. It also teaches that anyone (even a Jewish man) who reveals this Talmud truth about non-Jews deserves execution, since revealing it makes Gentiles angry and causes persecution of the Jews.

We can only rejoice that the majority of Jews today do not follow such heinous teachings; only a few openly espouse the Talmud as divinely inspired, although unfortunately these few are sometimes to be found in influential leadership positions.

(Parenthetically, the above Scripture proof-text cited by the rabbis, does not prove that Gentiles are not human, being animals. The passage from Ezekiel in the Bible only says that some Egyptians had large sex organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were considered animals).

Having sufficiently proven our point from the Talmud, namely that the Talmud teaches that Gentiles are not human [Hebrew: Adam], and are really animals, we will list a few other passages which expound on the Ezekiel 23:20 “proof text”, allowing our readers to research them on their own: Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a, Yebamoth 98a.

The original text of Sanhedrin 37a applies God’s approval only to the saving of Jewish lives. This is demonstrable by referring to Jewish books such as the Hesronot Ha-shas.

The Teachings of Maimonides

We will now examine the post-Talmudic commentator Rambam:

“Moses Maimonides is considered the greatest codifier and philosopher in Jewish history. He is often affectionately referred to as the Rambam, after the initials of his name and title, Rabenu Moshe Ben Maimon (Our Rabbi, Moses son of Maimon).” (Maimonides’ Principles, edited by Aryeh Kaplan, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, New York, 1975, pg. 3)

Here is what Maimonides (Rambam) actually taught about saving people’s lives, especially about saving the lives of Gentiles and Christians, or even Jews who dared to deny the divine inspiration of the Talmud: Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation, pg. 184:

“Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him.

It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us. To whom does the above apply? To Gentiles”  [Hebrew: goyim, found on pg. 185]. (The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah has this also).

Immediately after Maimonides’ admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing Gentile, he informs us of the Talmudic duty for Jews towards Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud: Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Chapter 10 English Translation, pg.184:

“It is a mitzvah [religious duty;], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot.” The commentary accompanying the preceding statement of Maimonides mentions that Jesus was an example of a min (plural: minnim). The commentary also states that the followers of Tzadok were defined as those Jews who deny the truth of the Talmud and who uphold only the written law (i.e. the Old Testament).

According to Maimonides’ “Principles,” pg. 5, Maimonides “spent twelve years extracting every decision and law from the Talmud, and arranging them all into 14 systematic volumes. The work was finally completed in 1180, and was called Mishnah Torah, or ‘Code of the Torah’.”

Maimonides asserted that it is the duty of Jews to save only Jews. Ordinary Gentiles are to be allowed to perish, but not actively killed, except during war; while Christians and Jewish so-called heretics are to be executed.

And there is more: “As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. The Talmud itself [Abodah Zarah 26b] expresses this in the maxim ‘Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]’.

Maimonides explains [in Mishnah Torah 4:11]: ‘As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war … their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: ‘neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow [Leviticus 19:16]’ – but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow.” (Jewish History, Jewish Religion, by Israel Shahak, Pluto Press, London, Boulder, Colorado, pg. 80).

It is not too surprising that Maimonides would have taught this concerning saving the lives of Gentiles.

Maimonides taught in another section of the Mishnah Torah that Gentiles are not human: “Man alone, and not vessels, can contract uncleanness by carriage. … The corpse of a Gentile, however, does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing. … a Gentile does not contract corpse uncleanness; and if a Gentile touches, carries, or overshadows a corpse he is as one who did not touch it. To what is this like? It is like a beast which touches a corpse or overshadows it. And this applies not to corpse uncleanness only but to any other kind of uncleanness: neither Gentiles nor cattle are susceptible to any uncleanness.” (The Code of Maimonides, Book Ten, translated by Herbert Danby, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1954, pgs. 8-9).

The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives. The censorship book, written by Jews (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that the Talmud texts which use the universalist phrase, “Whoever destroys the life of a single human being … it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being … it is as if he had preserved an entire world,” have been censored (tampered with).

In other words, this universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his movie, “Schindler’s List” attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is not from the authentic Talmud, but rather constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that “whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world” (emphasis supplied). The Talmud sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives. This is upheld by the modern editions of the Talmud.

The most recent translation of even the Jerusalem Talmud restricts the blessing for saving life to saving only a Jewish life. Though the Talmud passage at issue (Sanhedrin Mishnah 4.5/Sanhedrin 37a) mentions Adam, this does not prove that the passage’s original intent was universal, since the Talmud elsewhere teaches that Gentiles are not Adam, but are in fact animals.

The greatest of all Talmud codifiers, Moses Maimonides, taught that Gentiles on the point of death should not be saved, and Christians should be killed.

Deception and Dissimulation

The respopnse of the orthodox rabbis to documentation regarding the racism and hatred in the Talmud is simply to brazenly lie, in keeping with the Talmud’s Baba Kamma 113a which states that Jews may use lies (“subterfuges”) to circumvent a Gentile. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a powerful, multi-million dollar rabbinical propaganda center dispatched Rabbi Daniel Landes in 1995 to deny that the Talmud dehumanizes non-Jews. “This is utter rot,” he said. His proof? Why, his word, of course.

We however, in this writing, have furnished the reader with documentation direct from the original Talmudic texts, as well as from the writings of the Jews’ own “greatest” Talmud authority, Moses Maimonides.

In 1994, Rabbi Tzvi Marx, director of Applied Education at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, made a remarkable admission concerning how Jews in the past have issued two sets of texts: the authentic Talmudic texts and commentaries with which they instruct their own youth in the Talmud schools (kollels) and “censured and amended” versions which they disseminate to the gullible goyim (non-Jews) for public consumption.

Rabbi Marx states that in the version of Maimonides’ teachings published for public consumption, Maimonides is made to say that whoever kills a human being transgresses the law.

But, Rabbi Marx points out “… that this only reflects the censured and amended printed text, whereas the original manuscripts have it only as “whoever kills an Israelite.” (“Tikkun: A Bi-Monthly Jewish Critique,” May-June, 1994).

The Jewish book, “Hesronot Ha-shas” (i.e. “that which is removed from the Talmud,” cf. William Popper, “The Censorship of Hebrew Books,” p. 59), is important in this regard.

“Hesronot Ha-shas” was reprinted in 1989 by Sinai Publishing of Tel-Aviv. Hesronot Ha-shas is valuable because it lists some of the original Talmud texts that were later changed or omitted, with the resulting falsified texts nowadays being cited for Gentile consumption as authentic.

Popper (pp. 58-59), states: “It was not always that long passages … were censored … but often single words alone were omitted; … Often, in these cases, another method of correction was used in place of omission – substitution.”

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, the translator of the most recent English version of the Babylonian Talmud, says, “Indeed, almost every passage dealing with non-Jews must be suspected of having undergone some change.” (Talmud Reference Guide, by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Random House, New York, 1989, p. 50).

For example, the translators of the English Soncino version of the Talmud sometimes translate the Hebrew word goyim (Gentiles) under any number of terms such as “heathen, Cuthean, Egyptian, idolater” etc. But these are actually references to Gentiles (all non-Jews). In footnote 5 of the Soncino edition Talmud it is stated: “Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy …” Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word Min or Minim.

It is the standard disinformation practice of the Pharisees to deny the existence of the racist Talmudic passages we have cited, in order to claim that such passages are the “fabrications of ‘anti-Semites’.”

In 1994, the 80 year old Dowager Lady Jane Birdwood was arrested and prosecuted in a criminal court in London, England for the “crime” of publishing in her pamphlet, “The Longest Hatred,” the truthful statement that the Talmud contains anti-Gentile and anti-Christian passages.

In the course of her trial, which was ignored by the U.S. media, a rabbi was called as a prosecution witness. The rabbi proceeded to flatly deny that the Talmud contained anti-Gentile and anti-Christ passages and on the basis of the rabbi’s “prestige,” the old woman was convicted and sentenced to three months in jail and fined the equivalent of $1,000.

We have here provided the reader with authentic documentary passages from the Talmud proving that the Talmud constitutes Jewish supremacist hate literature. Hebrew University Professor Israel Shahak, in his monumental 1994 work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (Pluto Press), has also confirmed the hate and racism contained in the Talmud. Those Jews who deny the actual contents of the Talmud are liars (John 8:44; Titus 1:14).

Christian Response to The Talmud

The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have denounced the Satanic nature of the Talmud, its racism and venomous hatred for non-Jews and have ordered its destruction and its public burning many times in the last millennium.

Published By Warrant of John 18:37; Matthew 23:13-15; I Thessalonians 2:14-16; Titus 1:14; Luke 3:8-9; Revelation 3:9.

Gay marriage puts the world’s Christians at risk of violent revenge attacks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597393/Gay-marriage-puts-worlds-Christians-risk-violent-revenge-attacks-Archbishops-warning-spread-liberal-views-CofE.html

Archbishop’s warning over spread of liberal views in CofE
Welby says Anglicans will be in danger if CofE recognises gay marriage
Archbishop recounts seeing Africans killed by vigilantes angry about the actions of the Church in other countries
‘I wrestle with the issue of gay rights all the time,’ he says on radio phone-in
Warning: Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has warned that gay marriage could put Anglicans around the world in danger

Warning: Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has warned that gay marriage could put Anglicans around the world in danger
A Church of England decision to accept gay marriage would be ‘absolutely catastrophic’ for Christians in troubled countries, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.
Anglicans in countries such as South Sudan, Nigeria and Pakistan are in danger as a result of liberal positions taken by the leaders of churches in the west, he said.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby said he had visited a grave containing 369 bodies in South Sudan, where some people believed ‘if we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians’.
He said on an LBC radio phone-in that while he was deeply concerned with the suffering of gay people in Britain, the issue of gay rights was not simple.
The Archbishop and other CofE leaders have given regular hints of a softened line on homosexuality, and a high-level Synod report has said clergy should be able to conduct blessings for gay couples.
He told a caller who said vicars should be allowed to make up their own minds on gay weddings: ‘What we say here is heard around the world. Why can’t we just do it now?
‘Because the impact of that on Christians in countries far from here, like South Sudan, like Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic and we have to love them as much as the people who are here.
‘I’ve stood by a graveside in Africa of a group of Christians who’d been attacked because of something that had happened far, far away in America. And they were attacked by other people because of that.
‘The mass grave had 369 bodies in it and I was standing with the relatives. That burns itself into your soul, as does the suffering of gay people in this country.’
Dilemma: The Archbishop said he had agonised over his support for gay rights issues

Dilemma: The Archbishop said he had agonised over his support for gay rights issues
The Archbishop said gay rights was ‘really not a simple issue’ and added: ‘It’s something that I wrestle with every day and often in the middle of the night.’
‘We have to listen incredibly carefully to the LGBT communities here . . . and we have to look at the tradition of the Church, and the teaching of the Church, and the teaching of scripture, which is definitive in the end, before we come to a conclusion.

‘But we’re not in a position just to suddenly say, okay our position in this country has changed.’
The Archbishop is the head of the worldwide Anglican communion, which has nearly 80million worshippers and is highly influential in countries in Africa and Asia where the confrontation between Islam and Christianity is often violent.
Celebration: But gay marriage poses a danger to Anglicans in countries such as South Sudan and Pakistan, Mr Welby said

Celebration: But gay marriage poses a danger to Anglicans in countries such as South Sudan and Pakistan, Mr Welby said
One caller on the phone-in show was former Tory MP Ann Widdecombe, who left the Church of England for the Roman Catholic church in 1993 after the CofE chose to ordain women as priests.
Miss Widdecombe suggested to the Archbishop that his ‘heart has just sunk’ after hearing her voice. She said she left the CofE partly because it ‘never seems to know what it thinks about anything’.
He replied: ‘I think I’m right, you think I’m wrong. We differ.’

Arabs, not Islam, spread by the sword

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765580085/Arabs-not-Islam-spread-by-the-sword.html?pg=all

Islam didn’t spread by the sword; the Arabs did.

Pre-Islamic Arabia, like much of the rest of the pre-modern world, was a place of continual low-intensity warfare. (So was Europe, which is why castles and fortifications litter the continent’s landscape, and why Shakespeare’s historical plays almost always feature violent conflicts and intrigue.)

But when Muhammad came along and when, in response to his preaching, people from various Arabian tribes began to join the Islamic community, he told them that they could no longer pillage and murder one another. They were now, in effect, members of a single faith-based super-tribe.

So their traditional urge to raid — again, not much different than that of every other tribe and petty kingdom worldwide — had to be turned outward. Which it was, and with great success. The Sassanid Persian Empire, one of the two great powers of the seventh century Middle East, fell under Arab control not many years after the Prophet’s death, and much of the rest of the Middle East, along with North Africa and Spain, fell to the Arabs within the next few decades.

So, were the Arabs’ defeated subjects compelled to accept Islam? Was the ultimatum really “Convert or die?”

No. In fact, for the first two centuries or so, conversions to Islam were often actually discouraged. In Egypt, which seems to be roughly typical, fully three centuries were required before Muslims constituted a bare majority of the population.

Why would the Arab overlords of the Middle East discourage conversions to their Islamic faith? The answer lies within the politics of the Arab empire itself.

After Muhammad’s relatively sudden death in 632 AD, his immediate successors, known as the four “orthodox caliphs,” were chosen from among the ranks of his earliest disciples. But then, in 661 AD, a new dynasty called the Umayyads took power, based in Damascus.

The Umayyads were descendants of Muhammad’s archenemies in Mecca. Mu’awiyah, the first Umayyad ruler, was the son of Abu Sufyan, who had led armies in battle against the Prophet and the Muslims.

When Muhammad defeated Mecca, though, the Umayyad clan converted to Islam. But the depth of their conviction has always been questionable. (Complicating the matter considerably, most of the chronicles about the Umayyads were written by historians under the dynasty that later overthrew them, the ‘Abbasids. Those historians thus had an obvious interest in making the Umayyads look bad.)

Non-Muslims were required by Islamic law to pay a tax called the “jizya,” in exchange for which they were permitted to continue practicing their faith while enjoying some degree of self-rule, to be entitled to the Muslim state’s protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from both military service and the charitable taxes imposed upon Muslims. Thus, the ultimatum actually given by Arab conquerors was “Convert, or die, or pay the jizya tax.”

The earliest Arab Muslims appear, in many cases, to have understood Islam as a religion specifically geared to Arabs, so there was little initial missionary effort among non-Arabs. Moreover, the Umayyads seem to have preferred to continue to collect the jizya tax rather than to preside over a mass conversion of foreigners.

In other words, ironically, the image that many have of Islam expanding at the point of a sword is quite the opposite of the historical truth, which is that early Islamic authorities actually tried to discourage and prevent conversions, and sometimes even pretended that no conversion had taken place when, in fact, it had.

Dissatisfaction with the Arabocentric rule of the Umayyads appears to have been a major factor in the ‘Abbasid revolution that swept them from power in 750 AD. The revolt began in the largely non-Arab eastern provinces of the empire, in Iran and Khurasan, and quickly gained momentum among subjects who wanted to be treated as the equals of their Arab neighbors.

And, indeed, they were treated equally. The caliphs of the new ‘Abbasid regime, who had promised to treat all subject peoples the same, were absolute monarchs, distant autocrats, in a way that the Umayyads could only have fantasized about. Their subjects were, yes, all equal — equally nothing — before them. (Then as now, those hoping for change from a new political leader should carefully scrutinize his election promises.)

Islam didn’t spread by the sword; the Arabs did. Both Muslims and Westerners can and should reflect on that fact.

Spreading Islam by the Sword

http://www.renaissance.com.pk/juneq122y2.html

Question: In the early period of Islam, we find that the Islamic rule was extended by the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) to a large part of the world. They conquered Persia, Rome, Egypt and many other countries of their times. My question is that why did they impose Islam on these countries? Why were they not given the option of accepting Islam if they wanted to?
Answer: Indeed, it is generally held that the rise of Islam in the early period was due to a wave of ‘Arab Imperialism’ that shook the super powers of those times and forced them into submission. In an astounding series of conquests, country after country fell to the sword of Islam. It was not long before the Muslim empire stretched from the shores of the Mediterranean in the west to as far as Indonesia in the east.1
The fact that all these conquests took place is established history and hence cannot be denied in any way. However, the thesis that it was ‘Arab Imperialism’ that accounted for these conquests is something which cannot be condoned. While looking at the spread of Islam in the early period, one must resort to the basis which the Qur’an itself offers for these conquests:
It has already been explained in a previous query2 that those who are divinely invested with the status of shuhada ‘ala al-nas (witnesses to the truth before people) are ‘used’ and ‘employed’ by the Almighty to punish people who deny the truth in spite of being convinced about it. According to the Qur’an, Muhammad (sws) and his Companions (rta) were invested with this status.
Consequently, the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) in their collective capacity were only enforcing the implication of their status as witnesses of the religion of the truth. Their conquests were not basically aimed at spreading Islam as such. Their basic objective was to subjugate and punish people who had deliberately denied the truth. Muhammad (sws) himself initiated their task by writing letters to eight heads of state and thereby demarcated the areas where the Companions (sws) could go. It was only these areas upon which the process of shahadah would get completed before the Companions (rta) would reach them.
However, after the departure of the Companions (rta) from this world, no one has the authority to subjugate people in the name of Islam. This is so because no one after them has been conferred the status of Shuhada (witness to the truth). Moreover, the conquests that took place after their departure by their followers must be viewed separately. Whether they were justified or not must be viewed in the light of the Qur’an.
Summing up, it can be said that it is erroneous to conclude that Islam was spread by the sword. The whole exercise of the Companions (rta) must be viewed as a specific practice of the Almighty according to which He punished people who deny the truth even though they are fully convinced about it.

How Israel protects its settlers who burn Palestinian children alive

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-protects-its-settlers-who-burn-palestinian-children-alive

A relative mourns next to the body of 18-month-old Palestinian Ali Dawabsha, who was killed after his family’s house was set on fire in a suspected attack by Jewish settlers in Duma village in the occupied West Bank on 31 July.

Ahmad TalatAPA images

Before dawn on Friday morning, Ali Dawabsha, an 18-month-old Palestinian toddler, was burned to death in an arson attack on two homes in the village of Duma in the northern occupied West Bank.

The murder of Ali Dawabsha is not the first time Israeli settlers have burned Palestinians alive.

Given the impunity Israel grants its settlers, what chance is there really that Ali’s killers will be brought to justice?

“We saw four settlers running away keeping distance between each other,” 23-year old Musallam Dawabsha, one of the villagers who tried to assist, told Ma’an News Agency. “We tried to chase them but they fled to the nearby Maaleh Efraim settlement.”

A Hebrew word painted on the wall of one of two houses damaged in an arson attack in Duma village in the occupied West Bank, 31 July, reads “Revenge.” Another slogan painted on the house read “Long live the Messiah King.”

Ahmad TalatAPA images

The attackers also left behind graffiti making clear their racist motives: they painted a Star of David and the words “revenge” and “Long live the Messiah King” on the walls.

Ali’s mother is now in critical condition with serious burns over 90 percent of her body. His father has burns on 80 percent and Ali’s 4-year-old brother has 60 percent burns.

Crocodile tears

Following this horror, Israeli officials from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on down have put on an ostentatious show of condemnation and sorrow and vows to bring the killers to justice.

At the same time, the occupation has begun its collective punishment of Palestinians, moving reinforcementsinto the West Bank to repress potential protests and barring Palestinians from al-Aqsa mosque in occupied Jerusalem.

Family photos lie in the debris of the house in which 18-month-old Ali Dawabsha was burned to death in an attack by suspected Jewish settlers, Duma, occupied West Bank, 31 July.

Ahmad TalatAPA images

It is hard to imagine a more hypocritical display than the crocodile tears of the same leaders who perpetrated the massacre of 2,200 Palestinians in Gaza last year, more than 500 of them children, now feigning outrage at the murder of one more.

Of course the Israeli declarations have a specific goal: to try to paint the killing of Ali Dawabsha as an exceptional act and to obscure the reality that the violence of individual settlers is integral to the structure of Israeli colonial occupation and apartheid.

For Israel this is a mere public relations crisis and the expressions of outrage and “sorrow” are no more than thehasbara – propaganda – prescribed by spin doctors for the current news cycle.

Equally hypocritical would be any condemnations from the US administration of President Barack Obamawhich regularly boasts about how much it has done to arm and finance Israel and protect it from any accountability.

As the satirical Twitter account @Ask_Netanyahu put it so well:

“A matter of time”

“A burned infant was only a matter of time,” Israeli human rights group B’Tselem declared after this morning’s attack.

“This is due to the authorities’ policy to avoid enforcing the law on Israelis who harm Palestinians and their property,” the group added. “This policy creates impunity for hate crimes, and encourages assailants to continue, leading to this morning’s horrific result.”

“In recent years, Israeli civilians set fire to dozens of Palestinian homes, mosques, businesses, agricultural land and vehicles in the West Bank,” B’Tselem said. “The vast majority of these cases were never solved, and in many of them the Israeli police did not even bother to take elementary investigative actions.”

Impunity and laxness is the norm even in the most brutal and egregious cases.

Just over a year ago a group of Israeli youths abducted and burned to death the eastern occupied Jerusalem teenager Muhammad Abu Khudair.

In that case, Israeli police took their sweet time to find the suspects, despite the fact that they had video footage of their faces and getaway car (first published exclusively by The Electronic Intifada).

It was perhaps only due to the massive international outrage that they bothered to find them at all.

Their case is grinding its way through Israeli courts but there’s little reason to trust a system that treats Israelis who attack or kill Palestinians with exceptional leniency.

This month, two Israelis who burned a Jewish-Arab school in Jerusalem got a light sentence despite the fact that they were totally unrepentant. On leaving court, they declared that the crime was “worth it” in order to deter Jewish and Arab “assimilation.”

Burned in a taxi

Then there was the case of the family who settlers burned alive on 16 August 2012.

Jamila Hassan, her husband Ayman and their children Iman, 4, and Muhammad, 6, were riding in a taxi south of Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, along with another passenger and the driver.

The car was hit by a Molotov cocktail. Ayman and the two children were badly injured. Muhammad suffered severe burns all over his body.

“We are lost, our life has turned upside down. The father, son and daughter are each in different worlds, our life is difficult and miserable,” Jamila told Ma’an News Agency two weeks after the attack.

Muhammad had just emerged in agony from yet another surgery. “He screams from the pain a lot,” his mother said.

At that time too there were Israeli promises of “justice.” But what happened?

Police arrested three minors from a nearby Jewish settlement and told the judge that they had found fingerprints at the scene linking the suspects to the crime.

According to Haaretz, Judge Yaron Mintkevich ruled to keep the boys in custody “with a heavy heart, due to their age” – they were reported to be between 12 and 13.

But in January 2013, Israeli prosecutors dropped the case, citing a “lack of evidence.”

Had they been Palestinian children accused of throwing stones at occupation soldiers, they would have been kept in custody for months, subjected to horrific abuse amounting to torture and forced to confess.

Obviously, that’s not how Israel treats its own settlers who are subject to Israeli civil law, while Palestinians, including children, are subject to Israel’s military kangaroo courts.

Dismantle Israeli apartheid

That built-in colonial equality is a reminder that the settlers are not the cause, but merely an ugly manifestation of Israeli colonial violence, rooted in Zionism, that is fed from the top.

Who can believe that a “justice” ministry led by Ayelet Shaked – who in her notorious genocidal appeal last year called for the killing of Palestinian mothers who give birth to “little snakes” – can do justice for Palestinians?

Perhaps the settlers who burned little Ali to death had taken the words of Shaked or any of the other Israeli politicians who routinely incite against Palestinians in the most extreme and violent terms to heart.

The bottom line is this: the murder of hundreds of children in Gaza last summer, the burning of Muhammad Abu Khudair, the attack that killed Ali Dawabsha are all part of the price Palestinians must pay for Israel to continue to exist and expand on their land as a racist self-declared “Jewish state.”

The only way Ali Dawabsha or any other Palestinian can ever get justice from the Israeli apartheid system is if it is completely dismantled.