the jews

After a year of terror, the Jews of Whitefish, Montana, look ahead

(JTA) — Around the picnic tables at Whitefish City Beach on the final Shabbat eve of last month, the Montana town’s tiny Jewish community shared kosher hot dogs, veggie burgers and memories of terror.

In a year when white supremacists have been ascendant, at least in their public profile, perhaps no community has been harder hit than the Jews in the one-time rail stop set against a backdrop of mountains and bordering the town’s shimmering namesake lake.

The election of Donald Trump as president and a feverish debate among Jews and others over whether he had actively courted the far-right vote raised the profile of the town’s best-known white supremacist, Richard Spencer. A dispute between a Jewish real estate agent and Spencer’s mother, whipped up by a neo-Nazi website, sparked months of harassment, targeting in particular three Jewish families.

Rabbi Francine Green Roston, whose family was among those targeted, said there was no way the community could put behind it the harassment, which reportedly included jarring phone calls and online onslaughts aimed at the families’ children.

“Our lives will never be the same,” Roston said this week in an interview, choosing not to detail the harassment she and her family suffered. “But we have returned to what we were building before this happened. We’re continuing to be part of initiatives to promote strong community ties to fight hatred wherever it arises.”

Positive takeaways, she said, include the awareness of national Jewish support.

“Secure Community Network, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Anti-Defamation League were on the ground supporting us in the first week,” she said. SCN is a security service backed by the federations and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Such attention was unusual for a Jewish community numbering perhaps 60 in Whitefish and a couple of hundred more in the surrounding Flathead County. Roston was in the habit of saying she practiced “pioneer Judaism” in a state with no local federation and no national affiliations.

“We felt the support and connection of the American Jewish community,” she said. Not just from the organizations, she said, “but we received cards and letters and donations from communities across the country. The donations enabled us to have a security fund, and our new normal is to have a security guard at our large community gathering.”

The cyber attacks, which escalated into threatening phone calls and abusive snail mail, were launched late last year after Spencer’s mother, Sherry, said in an online posting that Tanya Gersh, a local real estate agent, was pressuring her to leave the town.

The emails posted by the elder Spencer suggested instead that she and Gersh had, in friendly conversations, discussed selling her property. Gersh was ready to cut her fee in order to facilitate the sale.

Spencer’s posting prompted Andrew Anglin, a neo-Nazi who founded the Daily Stormer website, to write a screed on Dec. 16 calling on his followers in December to harass Gersh and her family, as well as the Rostons and the family of another rabbi in the area, Allen Secher.

Within a day SCN’s director, Paul Goldenberg, had commissioned a colleague in Seattle to drive to the community — no small feat in December, when the roads into Whitefish are icy and beset with snow. ADL National Director Jonathan Greenblatt also called to see how he could help.

There were also expressions of support from the local non-Jewish community and a commitment by local officials to intensify diversity education.

“After the attacks, a group worked with interfaith clergy, which we hadn’t had before,” she said. There were two “Love Not Hate” rallies in the region and diversity training in the school system.

Goldenberg said his experience with Whitefish was the most moving for him in over a decade dealing with Jewish security.

“Attacks that specifically target children are abhorrent and unthinkable and would have the capability to paralyze any community’s ability to function and thrive,” he said in an interview.

Goldenberg said the community’s resilience — the determination to stay put — amazed him. He was a guest of honor at the summer Shabbat event, which the community calls its annual “ShabbaBBQ.”

Indeed, Roston said, there has been a coming together. She said the community to a person backed Gersh’s lawsuit against Anglin. The Southern Poverty Law Center is assisting in the suit, which seeks damages from Anglin for invading Gersh’s privacy and causing emotional distress.

Still, clearly there are periods when Roston and others retreat into the fears prompted by the cyber onslaught of last winter. Last month’s white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which included deadly violence, triggered difficult memories for the rabbi. Richard Spencer was there to speak at a rally that Saturday morning.

In a speech at a Love Not Hate gathering after Charlottesville, Roston excoriated President Donald Trump, who has equivocated in condemning white supremacists — but also wondered about those closer to home.

“Did you know that residents of the Flathead Valley through their Twitter accounts and postings on the Daily Stormer threatened Whitefish residents and businesses by giving the Daily Stormer the names of our local businesses to attack?” she said in her speech. “Yes, you heard me correctly. We all have neighbors who joined the Nazis in their attacks on our community this past winter.”




“OUR NATION is not a nation except in its Torahs,” wrote medieval sage Saadia Gaon, referring to the Pentateuch, Mishna and Talmud.

Just what the concept “nation” meant to the philosopher and exegete who died in 942 CE, ages before the rise of the modern nation, is not fully clear, but what he meant to say was that even while the Jews lacked a common land, government and language, they were united by their common faith.

For centuries, this insight was accurate, as Saadia’s personal biography attests. Born in the Egyptian delta, his career took him to Tiberias and Aleppo before climaxing in Baghdad. Jews could move naturally between such distant and disparate communities because they shared one faith and similar institutions ‒ from the synagogue and yeshiva to the ritual bath and kosher butcher.

It was thanks to this interface that the great jurist Moses Maimonides, who was born and raised in Spain, could ultimately lead the Jews of Egypt; or that a rabbi named Yosef Maman Maghrebi (1752-1829), who was born on the Moroccan side of Gibraltar, could eventually emerge in today’s Uzbekistan, more than 4,000 miles from there, where he arrived as a fundraiser and stayed as the leader of the Jews of Bukhara.

The shared faith of the Jews generated a spiritual electromagnetism that flowed between, and brought closer, their global locations.

That is how the Mishna traveled in the third century CE from the Galilee, where it was written, to Babylonia, Persia, Egypt and Europe, and quickly became the ultimate manual for any Jew’s daily conduct. The subsequent legal codices of Maimonides and Rabbi Yosef Karo, respectively Mishne Torah and Shulhan Aruch, made similar journeys, defying geography and governing Jewish life.

It was thanks to this shared faith that the Talmudic academies along the Euphrates and Tigris functioned for centuries as a collective lighthouse for the rest of the Jewish nation, through a kind of Ivy League system whose version of Harvard – the Yeshiva of Sura some 100 kilometers downstream from today’s Baghdad – enrolled 1,200 students a good seven centuries before Europe established its first university.

The sages of Babylonia conducted a tri-continental correspondence in which they issued legal rulings to rabbis they never met, who lived in lands they never saw. The same global authority was wielded by Maimonides in Egypt, the rabbis of medieval France, and their successors in Poland and Lithuania. As a nation glued by its religion, it came naturally to the Jews to look up to the centers of Judaic scholarship in the Diaspora that gradually succeeded the Judean center that was razed by Rome.

The Jewish nation’s shared religious ground was so solid that it also provided Jewish travelers enough of a common denominator with which to feel at home in far-flung lands where they knew no one, but still could find hospitality by emerging unannounced in a local synagogue.

The same went for commerce. Medieval merchants known as Radhanites transported goods across the Sahara Desert, the Indian Ocean and the Asian steppe while corresponding with distant business partners in the Hebrew they knew thanks to praying and studying as ordinary Jews.

Faith glued the Jews not only in their journeys, enterprises and daily routines, but also in their spiritual imagination and dedication.

THAT IS how news of the false Messiah Shabtai Zvi’s “arrival” in 1666 swept off its feet the entire Jewish world, after traveling from Gaza, Izmir and Amsterdam to Vilnius, Sana and Fez. It was in such a religiously welded Jewish world that a Jew in Mexico chose to be burned alive rather than renounce his faith, just after a Jew in China jumped into floodwaters to save a floating Torah scroll, as happened with Tomás Treviño de Sobremontes in Mexico City in 1649, and with Gao Xuan in Kaifeng in 1642.

Now that unity of faith is history. Challenged by modernity and freedom, the Jews have become a spiritually disjointed nation increasingly beset by a religious rift.

THE SCHISM that has come to split the Jewish nation is so deep that it is far more slicing than the iron wall that once loomed between the Jews of oppression and freedom, or the Mediterranean that once sprawled between the Jews of Muslim and Christian worlds.

Just when faith began to divide the Jews can be debated. Philosophically, the origins of crisis begin with Benedict Spinoza, whose denial of the Pentateuch’s divinity in his Theological-Political Treatise (1670) arguably pioneered not only Jewish, but all of modern secularism.

Culturally, the Jewish rupture’s origins might lie in the 1783 publication of philosopher Moses Mendelssohn’s translation of the Pentateuch into German, which both encouraged and helped ordinary Jews embrace the non-Jewish world. Written in Hebrew characters, it taught worshipers German while they used it to follow the Torah reader in the synagogue.

Socially, the Jewish rift was fueled by the spread in Germany of secular schools whose founders, inspired by Mendelssohn’s legacy, believed in the promise of enlightenment as a key to a new harmony between gentile and Jew.

Institutionally, the Jewish schism began in 1818 with the opening of the first Reform synagogue in Hamburg. Located several minutes’ walk from the elegant Jungfernstieg promenade, it was in this cosmopolitan setting that the Israelitischer Tempel’s 65 founding families introduced prayers in German and deleted from the prayer book the pleas for the return to Zion.

Though there were earlier beginnings elsewhere in Germany, this one lasted while reforms proceeded from changing prayers and accompanying them with music to moving the Sabbath to Sunday, as Berlin’s Reform congregation did in the 1840s; canceling circumcision, as the Friends of Reform in Frankfurt did in 1842; abolishing the second day of biblical festivals, as the Breslau rabbinical conference did in 1846; abandoning rabbinical divorces, as a rabbinical conference did in Philadelphia in 1869; or shedding the dietary laws, as America’s Reform rabbis did in a conference in Pittsburgh in 1885.

A comet had fallen in the midst of the Jewish faith, and the shocked rabbis on its crater’s opposite end lost no time regrouping.

“ALL THAT is novel is forbidden from the Torah,” quipped an embattled Rabbi Moshe Sofer (1762-1839), the founder of ultra-Orthodoxy, who in 1811 prevented the establishment of a Jewish school that planned to teach secular subjects in his town, today’s Bratislava.

While that measure was local, his response to the establishment of the Reform Temple in Hamburg bore profound national meaning. Firing the sharpest arrow in his quiver, he ruled: “Had it been up to me, I would remove them [Reform Jews] from our borders… they will be in their realm, and we will be in ours.”

Two centuries on, the psyche of divorce that this ruling sparked has yet to lose its fervor.

Sofer’s marriage ban was but an opening shot in a trench war that steadily pitted premodern Judaism against three bearers of modernity: Reform, secularism and Zionism.

In itself, schism within Judaism was not new.

Ancient Judea’s Sadducee priests were challenged by the Pharisee jurists; East Europe’s emotional Hasidim defied the more intellectual mitnagdim; and medieval Jewry’s Rabbinites, who believed in the oral Torah, were challenged by the Karaites, who believed only in the written Torah. That is why Saadia, who led the rabbinical counterattack in that war, said in the statement with which we opened that the Jews are united by their Torahs, in plural.

What is novel about the current showdown is its duration, scope and depth.

The clash that now enters its third century involves the entire Jewish people while challenging Orthodoxy with two previously unthinkable realities: Most Jews ignore rabbinical law and a critical mass – possibly the majority – is not religious at all.

Judaism’s thinkers, unlike Christianity’s and Islam’s, never cared that the rest of the world did not join their faith. However, they sure did expect all Jews to be observant, and never prepared for wholesale non-observance of the sort that Jewish Orthodoxy has come to face.

That is why the theological response to this transition has been a mixture of denial and missionizing.

The denial has been particularly blunt in the thought of A.I. Kook, British Palestine’s first chief rabbi, who argued that secularism was part of the process of Redemption, a passing phenomenon that would vanish once the Jews complete the return from Exile to Zion.

Today, Shas activists wooing non-observant Israelis like to say that secularism is “a social invention,” part of the European baggage that was imposed by Israel’s Ashkenazi elite on the Middle Eastern Jews who arrived in Israel since the 1950s.

All walks of Jewish Orthodoxy – itself a term that did not exist until the rise of its modern alternatives – saw non-Orthodoxy and secularism as historic aberrations. Practical responses, however, varied.

The ban on marrying Reform Jews was part of a broader attitude of circling the wagons and redoubling the ghetto walls. That is how ultra-Orthodoxy came into being.

That attitude was later modified by the outreaching Menachem Schneerson in America and Ovadia Yosef in Israel, who launched vast educational networks dedicated to drawing secular Jews back to their forebears’ observance.

Kook’s attitude was markedly different because it lent religious meaning to a partnership between secular and observant Jews, as opposed to ultra-Orthodoxy’s dismissal of Zionism as a product of Jewish heresy.

That, along with Kook’s pragmatic attitude toward secular studies – as reflected in his addressing the Hebrew University’s inauguration in 1925 – inspired more than a century of cooperation between modern-Orthodoxy and secular Zionism in building the Jewish state.

It was in this spirit that, after Kook’s death in 1935, the Jewish state enshrined the socalled status quo – the set of arrangements that, for instance, placed marriage and divorce in the hands of an Orthodox bureaucracy; determined which parts of the public domain would operate on the Sabbath, and which would not; and imposed Jewish dietary laws on all military kitchens.

In many ways a work of political art, the deal that for 70 years helped secular and religious Israelis share one national roof now looms as an engine of the great Jewish rift.

The status quo is a paragon of pragmatism and compromise that contrasts with intra-Muslim bloodshed in today’s Middle East, and intra-Christian strife in yesteryear’s Europe.

It took millions of fatalities and a 30-year war for Europe’s Catholics and Protestants to reach the 1648 Peace of Westphalia in which the rival denominations accepted each other’s realms, and thus gave up on the quest to change their adversaries’ beliefs. The Israeli status quo was, for the fractured Jewish faith, that kind of deal, only it involved no violence.

That alone is an accomplishment many fail to appreciate. Such has also been the status quo’s prevention of a nation-splitting marriage ban like Sofer’s in Europe 200 years ago. The legally required Orthodox divorce has made secular Israelis religiously eligible to marry observant Israelis.

Then again, the status quo was never a peace agreement. It was an armistice. The Jewish state bandaged the wounds of Judaism’s great schism, but it did not heal them.

Now it is aggravating them.

HAVING PREVIOUSLY been surprised by mass demand for secularism, Orthodoxy in recent decades was caught off guard by mass demand for conversion. So was the status quo.

Back when David Ben-Gurion devised it, no one foresaw the sudden release of Soviet Jewry, much less its arrival here with some 300,000 children and spouses of intermarriages. Few, therefore, placed much significance in Israel’s early years on the politicians’ placing of conversion, too, in the hands of the Chief Rabbinate, which has since morphed from modern-Orthodox to ultra-Orthodox.

Now, the result of what was arranged in the 1950s is that the Jewish state is effectively helping ultra-Orthodoxy fend off converts by weighing on their conversion process. If anything, it is making the procedure even more demanding than it was anyhow.

In this regard, ultra-Orthodoxy’s harshest critics are modern-Orthodox rabbis such as Haim Drukman and Shlomo Riskin.

As they see it, Israel’s conversion candidates are unique because their flawed Jewishness is the result of Soviet persecution, meaning they are “seeds of Israel” whose admission process should be eased, for instance, by refraining from checking whether a convert lives observantly after converting.

More deeply, the conversion controversy is over Sofer’s vision of a shrunken, but maximally observant Jewish people: ultra-Orthodox rabbis want to uphold his legacy; their modern-Orthodox opponents want to defy it.

Modern-Orthodoxy is in this regard in synch with secular Israel, which embraces the semi-Jewish immigrants in the spirit of Ariel Sharon’s loose definition of “Who is a Jew,” which this series mentioned earlier.

However, the ultra-Orthodox politicians, for now, have the upper hand, and thus deepen the Jewish rift on both its Russian and American ends ‒ on the former, by keeping at arm’s length Israel’s semi-Jews, and on the latter, by delegitimizing Judaism’s Reform and Conservative versions.

This is besides the fact that Israelis are funneled from infancy into separate school systems that define them for life as either religious or secular. This, then, is how faith is splitting the Jewish people in the Jewish state.

The situation in the Diaspora is no better, perhaps worse.

THE DIASPORA’S religious vitality – once its hallmark – is now a fading memory.

With a majority of Diaspora Jews now marrying non-Jews, with more than one in five American Jews saying they are agnostic or atheistic, and with the once dominant Conservative Movement reporting that 95 of its 675 synagogues closed down in less than a decade – it is fair to suspect that the Diaspora’s Judaism is slowly but steadily evaporating.

What is not evaporating is the Diaspora’s observant flank, but it, too, besides being compact, has arguably lost its dynamism.

It has been a generation since the passing of the three great sages produced by the postwar Diaspora: Hasidic leader Menachem Mendel Schneerson, halachic ruler Moshe Feinstein, and modern-Orthodox thinker J.B. Soloveichik. None was followed by a successor of their stature and authority.

Ultra-Orthodoxy’s leading American yeshivot in Lakewood, New Jersey, and in Baltimore, Maryland, and its European flagship in Gateshead, England, graduate hundreds of students annually as does modern-Orthodoxy’s Yeshiva University. However, they are failing to produce leaders whose sway would transcend the local sphere, not to mention the national.

At the same time, Orthodox rabbis in the US – representing an estimated one tenth of American Jewry – are even more distant from non-Orthodox American Jews than Israeli rabbis are from secular Israelis.

The rising class of middle-aged, modern-Orthodox Israeli rabbis such as Yuval Sherlo, David Stav, Re’em Hacohen, Yehuda Brandes or Benny Lau all served in the army with Israelis of every walk and continue interacting with them daily in settings that transcend denominational limits.

Such rabbis can be frequently found officiating at a non-observant Israeli’s wedding or funeral or delivering a lecture in memory of a fallen secular soldier. America’s Orthodox rabbis less frequently have such interactions with their non-Orthodox brethren.

At the same time, Israeli Jews are cultivating from below a non-rabbinical traditionalism.

As mentioned in this magazine recently in a different context (“A messianic hangover,” June 12), polls show 90 percent of Israeli Jews observe the Passover Seder; 60 percent fast on Yom Kippur; 70 percent keep kosher; 94 percent circumcise their boys; and 66 percent hold a Sabbath meal including Friday night’s Kiddush. Theirs is a simple but broadly shared connection with Jewish heritage.

At the same time, a growing number of secular Israelis are studying Jewish texts, while a growing number of observant Israelis are joining new feminist prayer forums, some of which revise texts, and some of which have women giving sermons and even serving as rabbis. Moreover, observant Israeli women increasingly attend special Talmudic colleges whose very existence was once anathema to Orthodoxy.

In short, the spirit of Judaic experimentation that originated in Germany and then traveled to America is now fermenting in an Israeli society that is both courting and changing tradition. The Diaspora, by contrast, appears to be increasingly shrinking in size and religiosity.

It follows that, after having ruptured the Diaspora for 200 years, religion may in several generations loom as a major divider between a largely post-religious Diaspora and a traditionalist Jewish state.

The road from there to religious estrangement might be short, in the spirit of what Ezekiel reported during the brief days when Jerusalem had yet to be leveled, but an early transport of Jewish deportees, including that prophet himself, had already arrived at the rivers of Babylon:

“Keep far from the Lord,” people back in Jerusalem were saying of the Diaspora’s founding inhabitants, “the land [of Israel] has been given as a heritage to us” (Ezekiel 11:15). What they meant was that there was no way of being Jewish while living outside the Land of Israel, and that the Diaspora’s pioneers had better find themselves another faith.

Subsequent history proved that there was a way to be a Jew abroad, a way without which Judaism would not have become the inventive and adaptive faith Saadia described as the Jewish nation’s glue.

The greatest adapter of Judaism to historic change was Yohanan Ben Zakkai, the sage who, following Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem, revised Jewish observance to suit the Temple’s disappearance.

His greatest reform was to relocate the national assembly, the Sanhedrin, to Yavne, south of today’s Tel Aviv, despite the ban on convening that forum outside the Temple.

Less famously, but with no less vision, he also salvaged conversion by canceling the prospective convert’s duty to make a sacrifice at the Temple.

In terms of understanding history’s demands, it was the perfect opposite of the Israeli Rabbinate’s current handling of its own conversion crisis.

Back in 70 CE, the Jewish faith was salvaged by rabbis who grasped history’s menace – in their case, the loss of the center in Jerusalem around which Judaism had revolved. Today’s crisis is not about Judaism losing Jerusalem, but about Jews losing faith, Judaism losing Jews and Israel losing the Diaspora.

Will anything reverse this trend, and if so – what?

This is the third in a five-part series on the five great transitions reshaping the future of the Jewish people.



It was war by other means. Frustrated by their failure to convert them, early Christians set out to deface the Jews and defame their faith.

The success of the consequent effort transcended anything its originators could have imagined, inspiring a multipronged attack that eventually harnessed legislatures, kings, armies, literati and mobs while crossing continents, lasting centuries and killing multitudes.

Yes, governmental attacks on Jewish citizens have ended, as discussed in Part 2 of this series, but the hatred that fueled them is alive and well ‒ albeit adjusted to changing times. In the words of Jacob Talmon (1916- 1980), the dean of Israeli historians: “The state of the Jews has become the Jew of the states.”

The character assassination of the Jews originated in what is now Turkey. From Tarsus, in southeastern Anatolia, Paul emerged with the charges that “the Jews” killed Jesus and that “they displease God and are hostile to everyone” (Thessalonians I 2:15). In Sardis, off that peninsula’s opposite corner, Bishop Melito (d. 180) cried the seminal charge: “God has been murdered! The king of Israel has been slain by an Israelite hand!” And, in Nicaea, south of today’s Istanbul, Emperor Constantine instructed in 325 CE, “Let us have nothing in common with this odious people,” as he directed 250 bishops gathered on the azure shores of Lake Iznik to ban Easter’s celebration on Passover. “It is unbecoming,” he reasoned, “that on the holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews.”

It was against the backdrop of this steadily gathering hostility that the libelous imagination was altogether set loose when the Bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom (349-407), claimed: “The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan!” “The synagogue is a brothel” and the Jews are at “the level of the lusty goat and the pig” before adding for the few who might still have doubted it: “I hate the Jews!”

The geographic setting of this anti-Jewish fermentation is telling because it happened where a sizable Jewish minority flourished while interacting daily with the non-Jewish majority.

In Sardis, for instance, when the local bishop invented the charge of deicide, the town’s Jewish community was so large and solid that it built a magnificent synagogue that seated 1,000 people, was longer than a football field, fully marble paneled, checkered with decorative mosaics and illuminated by 18 chandeliers made of marble and bronze.

A landmark whose ruins survive to this day, it was, in the third century, the largest synagogue in the world. For Christian proselytizers, however, it was an eyesore because they were at a loss to explain their faith’s rejection by Christ’s people, in general, and in their own towns, in particular.

It was this social geography that Theodor Herzl had in mind when he vowed, in the closing paragraphs of his manifesto “The Jewish State” that as soon as the Jews will begin to return to their land “antisemitism will grind to a halt everywhere.”

It was the one prediction Herzl got totally wrong.

Seventy years since Israel’s emergence and 120 since Herzl assembled the First Zionist Congress, the Jewish state that was supposed to undo antisemitism has become its focus, excuse and obsession. How did this happen, and what does it mean for the future of the Jews?

Herzl’s logic was sound. Antisemitism, he assumed, demanded a social encounter between a Jewish minority and a gentile majority of the sort that took place in Roman Anatolia. It followed that once the Jews would leave the Diaspora and become their own rulers in their own land, their place in the world would be normalized and their enemies’ hatred would lose relevance and disappear.

This failed forecast is particularly intriguing because Herzl’s other predictions were strikingly accurate. In 1897, he foresaw Israel’s establishment “within 50 years at most” and, at another time, he detected the approach of the European catastrophe.

“I cannot imagine what appearance and form this will take,” he wrote. “Will it be expropriation by some revolutionary force from below? Will it be proscription by some reactionary force from above? Will they banish us? Will they kill us? I expect all these forms and others.”

Even more chillingly, he specified that the impending attack “will overtake even Hungarian Jews with brutality, and the longer it takes to come, the worse it will be… the more bestial will it be.”

In fact, antisemitism staged a grand return, casting the Jewish state as the new anti-Christ. Even so, and as if indulging in Herzl’s prophecy, Israelis took decades to appreciate this resurgence and its meaning.

This strategic drowsiness was inspired by events in Christendom that Israelis noticed, but belittled, and it was enabled by events in the Middle East that they altogether ignored.

In Europe, the Catholic Church was staging a historic retreat from the legacies of Constantine, Melito and Paul. The momentous process began in 1965 with the Vatican’s formal abandonment of the accusation of the Jews as Christ’s killers, and with its renunciation of antisemitism “at any time and by anyone.” In 1993, repentance matured with the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Jewish state.

The entire process was viewed in Israel with mixed feelings. Many dismissed it as part of a religious, rather than political, rapprochement, a tango between guilt-ridden bishops and starry-eyed American rabbis out to secure the Diaspora’s future even after the emergence of Herzl’s Jewish state.

American Jewry’s role in and enthusiastic embrace of the Vatican’s change of heart was seen by most Israelis not as part of the struggle for Israel’s place in the world, but as part of the war on antisemitism, and antisemitism was for most Israelis what it was for Herzl ‒ a Diaspora disease.

Jew hatred was the Diaspora’s problem because, in the Israeli mind, it connoted images such as a Jew barred from a medical school in Moscow; a Hasid mugged in Antwerp; or a swastika splashed on a tombstone in a Jewish cemetery in Munich ‒ all of which were unthinkable in Israel.

As for what Christian theologians did or didn’t say about the Jews, the thinking in Israel was inspired by David Ben-Gurion’s statement in his nationally broadcast speech during the 1955 Independence Day military parade: “Our future depends not on what the gentiles will say, but on what the Jews will do.”

Regardless of this distance, Israelis were skeptical about Christian repentance, noting the Vatican’s refusal to exchange ambassadors with Israel, and arguing that this was in line with Pope Pius X’s blunt rejection of the Zionist idea after Herzl explained it to him. “The Jews have not recognized our Lord,” he said in their 1904 meeting at the Vatican. “Therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”

When a papal ambassador finally presented his credentials to former president Ezer Weizman, Israelis had to acknowledge the seriousness of the transition, whose sincerity and meaning registered most forcefully seven years later, in March 2000, during John Paul II’s visit to the Jewish state.

The unprecedented sight of a pontiff standing at attention at Ben-Gurion Airport and listening solemnly, eyes shut, to the IDF orchestra playing the Israeli anthem’s recollection of “the hope of 2,000 years/ to be a free nation/in our land, the Land of Zion and Jerusalem” – stood in stark contrast to what John Paul II’s predecessor had told Herzl 96 years earlier.

The Polish pope’s climbing of the Chief Rabbinate’s stairs for an audience with then chief rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, his tucking of a note in a crevice of the Western Wall, his emotional visit to Yad Vashem, and his warm meetings with Israel’s leaders all generated an epiphanic impression that John Paul II had cured not only Catholicism’s, but also Protestantism’s and anyone else’s anti-Jewish complexes, phobias and hatreds.

Such was the euphoria of winter 2000. In autumn 2001, it came to its end.

Just two weeks after the suicide attack that took 15 lives in downtown Jerusalem’s Sbarro pizzeria, Israelis saw on TV multitudes in Durban, South Africa, shouting anti-Israel epithets, inspired by 3,000 NGOs at the World Conference Against Racism that had gathered there. Israel, they charged, is “a racist apartheid state” guilty of “systematic perpetration of… war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

Now Israelis understood.

The hijacking of a UN conference designed to fight racism, like the absurdity of the anti-Israel charges leveled there along with their loudness, visibility, and timing – the Palestinian war of terrorism that followed Israel’s peace offer at Camp David in summer 2000 – convinced Israelis that the hatred their forebears faced had traveled from the Diaspora’s Jew to Zion’s Israeli.

The Israeli awareness of hatred’s morphing and potency was novel, but the scourge they faced – a relocated and refocused antisemitism – had by then been more than half a century old.

Arab politicians, clergy and journalists had been regularly depicting Israel as a nation of well poisoners, ritual murderers and drinkers of blood. Anti-Jewish absurdities, like one that attributed evolution to “Darwin the Jew”; one that said Al Capone was an Israeli; one that claimed the assassins of John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley were Jews; and one that said abortion was a Jewish plot engineered to reduce the world’s non-Jewish population – abounded in Arab media, as Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis showed in his study “Semites and Anti-Semites” (1986).

The anti-Jewish bug that had unsettled Christendom was now stinging the Arab mind.

In 1951, the antisemitic classic The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was translated into Arabic, followed by countless editions. Saudi King Faisal (1906-1975), who used to hand his guests a copy of the Protocols, said – and likely believed – that “the Jews” were conspiring to rule the world, that they murder Muslim children and plotted the Crusades.

Subsequent events would prove that none of this was anecdotal, but Israelis in those years believed that “what the gentiles say” was not important and that antisemitism was the Diaspora’s challenge. That is why few in Israel took stock of the Arab response to Vatican II, which was no less fascinating than the Christian retreat it decried.

In Mecca, a grand meeting of the World Muslim League admonished “the Catholics” for “mutilating their own dogmas and altering their own laws” by allowing “a circle of prelates, seduced by and in complicity with Zionism, to trifle with dogmas and shatter religious convictions that have survived for 2,000 years.”

It must have been the first time ever that one faith demanded that another retain any of its tenets, let alone one that the former did not itself believe, as the Koran says Jesus was not executed at all (Surah 4:157).

Even so, an ambitious Arab effort was afoot, picking up from where the Vatican left off.

The religious statement soon inspired diplomacy as the Arab League called on all Arab ambassadors “to keep constant contact with the bishops and cardinals who participate in the Council in Rome and to enlighten them about the political background behind the Jewish schema debated by the Council.”

Arab media joined the campaign, most notably when influential Egyptian journalist Anis Mansur reprimanded the Catholic Church for “making peace with the Jews” whose “great deception” would now undo their blame “for killing both Christ and Kennedy.”

These political and journalistic attitudes were compounded by the education system in which, for instance, the Saudi highschool textbook “Studies from the Muslim World” taught that “Jewish influence has cut deeply into several Western countries and [the Jews] have taken control of their economies and media.” Syrian textbooks, surveyed by American Arabist Joshua Landis, taught that “it is dangerous to live with Jews or near them” and that the Jews constitute a “danger” that “threatens the existence of the Arab and Islamic world with destruction and disappearance.”

Coupled with newspaper caricatures that depict Israeli leaders and soldiers the way classical antisemitism demonized the European Jew, and bolstered by TV soap operas that depict Israeli soldiers as cold-blooded murderers, the hatred that was once driven by Christianity’s frustration with Judaism is now driven by Arab frustration with Zionism.

Moreover, the hostility that was originally brewed in Arab lands soon spread to non-Arab lands and their leaders from Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (“The Zionists are a cancerous tumor” speech in Tehran, August 2012) through Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (“Israel’s barbarism surpasses Hitler’s” speech in Ordu, July 2014) to Malaysia’s Mahatir Mohamad (“The Jews rule the world… they invented human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong” speech to the Organization of Islamic Conference in 2003).

The anti-Israel libel resembles classical antisemitism not only in the imagination, rhetoric and propaganda methods it deploys, but also in its motivation.

The early Christians were at a loss to explain the Messiah’s death and his tribe’s refusal to accept his divinity. Arab governments were at a loss to explain their failure to win the war they had picked with a vastly outnumbered and outgunned Jewish state. That is why they, too, set out to change the subject from their failures to their enemy’s character. Similarly, non-Arabs like Erdoğan set out to change the subject from what they see as Muslim civilization’s defeat by the West.

Then again, the new antisemitism’s motivations had to be hidden and its rhetoric had to be adjusted if it were to transcend the Muslim world. Classic antisemitism performed such adjustments well, back when it journeyed from religion to its secular alternatives, and its successor would now make such adjustments with equal agility and zeal.

Jhew hatred was first shepherded from religion to secularism by French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778), a founding oracle of modern liberalism who wrote that the Jews are “vagabonds upon the earth, abhorred by men… an ignorant and barbarous people” that is “the most contemptible” in the world.

After having journeyed this way from faith to heresy, the hatred of the Jews soon traveled to nationalism, which made thinkers such as German historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1803-1885) claim the Jews were “an alien element which has usurped too much space in our life.” It then traveled to socialism, whose prophet Karl Marx wrote that the Jews’ God is money; to capitalism, whose emblem, Henry Ford, warned that the Jew “controls the world’s finances” and “rules by the power of gold”; and to racism, whose prophet, Houston Stuart Chamberlain (1855-1927), claimed the Jews were out to “infect the Indo- Europeans with Jewish blood.”

This remarkable ability to harness disparate and contradictory ideas in order to spread and diversify hatred for the Jewish people also was applied to the hatred of the Jewish state.

The turning point in this transition was the Six Day War of 1967, and its pioneers were Charles de Gaulle and the Soviet Union.

De Gaulle sought a way to explain his moral betrayal of Israel by embargoing prepaid arms shipments just when Israel needed them most. The Soviets sought ways to explain the military defeat of their proxies and their Soviet-made arms. The Soviets launched a concerted media attack on Israel, which for the following two decades would be derided in cartoons, opinion articles and TV segments as a fascist, imperialist, colonialist and murderous oppressor. The undertone was obvious: The Soviets were emulating the czars who incited against the Jews to draw attention away from their own mismanagement of Russia.

De Gaulle, meanwhile, picked up from where Voltaire left off.

“The Jews,” he told 900 journalists and 200 diplomats, are “an elite people, domineering and sure of themselves,” a nation that – once gathered in its own state – was prone to display a “burning and conquering ambition” and a state that had indeed become “warlike” and “determined to expand.”

Moreover, Israel enjoyed “vast help in money, influence and propaganda from Jewish circles in America and Europe,” which meant that de Gaulle did not bet on the wrong horse, because the winning horse was doped by the “International Jew.”

Made in autumn 1967, when liberal Europeans still saw Israel’s struggle as legitimate and even inspiring, de Gaulle’s charges triggered public wrath, including a cartoon in Le Monde of a Jewish prisoner climbing a concentration camp’s barbed wire under the words: “Domineering, confident.” Yet, de Gaulle’s attack legitimized Israel’s defamation in polite society and showed Europeans how to dust the weaponry of Europe’s old war on its Jews and now aim it at Zion’s Israelis.

In due course, Israel’s conflict with its neighbors would be taken out of context and used to portray Israel as evil in its substance, and to ultimately demand that it not only alter its policies in disregard of its security, but – like Richard Wagner’s solution for the European Jew – cease to exist.

The new effort’s damage surfaced early with the UN’s equation in 1975 of Zionism and racism. At the same time, an alliance steadily emerged between the new incitement’s target audiences in the West, and the old incitement’s audiences throughout the Muslim world.

Yet, the worst damage, from the viewpoint of the Jewish future, is the new hatred’s creeping division of the Jewish people.

Among Israeli Jews, the new antisemitism is mostly a matter of consensus.

This became manifest, for instance, when Portuguese Nobel Laureate Jose Saramago emerged in Ramallah in March 2002 – a month in which 92 Israelis were murdered in 12 or so suicide attacks – and attacked Israel for fighting “in the spirit of Auschwitz.” The Israeli journalist who rose from the audience and asked angrily, “Where are the gas chambers?” was veteran anti-occupation activist Amira Hass.

It was also difficult to find anyone in Israel who would back Roger Waters’s cancelation of a concert in Tel Aviv, or his call to boycott Israel and his anti-Israel broadsides in front of the anti-terrorism barrier. All understood his partiality, considering he had previously held a concert in Istanbul while ignoring Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus and oppression of its Kurdish minority.

The same went for Irish Nobel Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire who, in 2010, joined a flotilla that symbolically tried to break Gaza’s naval blockade, but when asked by journalist Irit Linur why she had so much to say about Israel’s leaders and so little about China’s, answered cantingly, “I have never been to China.”

The sense of threat by the new antisemitism is so consensual in Israel that the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper published guidelines for debating anti- Israel libelers despite that paper’s frequent opposition to the current government’s Palestinian policy. The same goes for its centrist columnist Ben-Dror Yemini and opposition leaders Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid and Isaac Herzog of Labor, all of whom have been particularly active in combating the new antisemitism.

That is not what has been happening in the Diaspora. Yes, very few Jews go as far as Italian journalist Barbara Spinelli, who wrote in 2001 that “Israel constitutes a scandal,” or the late British playwright Harold Pinter, who derided Israel on the eve of its 60th birthday as “a state founded on terrorism, massacre and the dispossession of another people.”

More commonly, Diaspora Jews shy away from defending Israel, and in many cases prefer to hide their Jewishness rather than find themselves involved in a discussion of the Middle East. Most are uninformed to differentiate between legitimate criticism and libel, and unmotivated to study the facts.

Many Jews are vulnerable to anti-Israel propagandists, especially on university campuses, which the anti-Israel effort cleverly targets, realizing the vulnerability of uninformed, impressionable students whose Jewish education is shallow at best.

At the same time, many Jews who legitimately oppose the occupation, driven by a sincere concern for Israel, are arguably exploited by new antisemites whose hidden agenda is not the end of the occupation, but the end of Israel.

In any event, the possibility that behind American anti-occupation activists lurk European anti-Zionists behind whom lurk Muslim antisemites – is often ignored by Diaspora Jews, who assume that ending the occupation would swiftly end the new antisemitism.

This thinking about the new antisemitism is as wishful as Herzl’s was about the old antisemitism.

The Diaspora Jew’s thinking in the face of all this, therefore, should be this: If they are criticizing Israel fairly – I will hear them out; but if they are libeling Israel, they are libeling me and I will fight them. Such an attitude would echo the instinct of solidarity with which Jacob Schiff fought the czar, Elie Wiesel fought the Soviets, and Moses Montefiore fought the libelers of the Damascus Affair.

That is not what is happening now. The Right and Left camps that alternately hail and decry Israeli policies according to the government of the day are on the Diaspora’s margins. Between them sprawls a silent mass that increasingly sees anti-Israel libels the way Israelis once saw the anti-Jewish libel ‒ Israelis thought anti-Jewish libels were the Diaspora’s problem; now many in the Diaspora think anti-Israel libels are Israel’s problem.

So, the hatred, which once united the Jews almost as strongly as their religion, today seems ready to split them. What, then, should the Jewish people do, as its forebears’ instinct of solidarity wanes while their two great unifiers – the Jewish faith and the anti-Jew hatred – increasingly divide a shrinking Diaspora and a defamed Jewish state?

This is the fourth of a five-part series on the future of the Jews. Next issue: ‘Genius: Spiritual Zionism’s return from the cold’

Out of the Ghetto: The Jews Who Killed Elvis Presley


Many casual fans of Elvis Presley will be familiar with his Christian faith and affection for gospel music. Fewer are aware of his interest in Judaism, theosophy, yogic practices, and other New Age beliefs. The King’s hairstylist, Larry Geller, was the man who introduced him to the cosmos-spanning variety of the novel spiritualities finding adherents in the sick and psychedelic 1960s. Geller would bring him exotic books like Paramahansa Yogananda’s Autobiography of a Yogi, prompting Presley to seek consultation with Sri Daya Mata, spiritual leader of the Self-Realization Fellowship – Geller having facilitated a meeting. “Elvis loved the sylvan setting” of the SRF’s headquarters in the Mount Washington area of Los Angeles, “and he had an immediate rapport with Daya Mata,” relates Gary Tillery, author of The Seeker King: A Spiritual Biography of Elvis Presley.

The more she described the aims of the Fellowship, the more excited he became. He said he was ready to turn his back on his career and join a monastery or start a commune. She advised him to go slow – that his development must be evolutionary. They discussed a process of training and meditation, and she gave him her personal lesson books to study. He accepted them gladly, but he had the unbridled enthusiasm of the novice. “This higher level of spirituality is what I’ve been seeking my whole life,” he told her. “Now that I know where it is and how to achieve it, I want to teach it. I want to teach it to all my fans – to the whole world.” Over the coming months he returned to the site often for solace. He read and meditated, but like most seekers he hoped for a short path to his goal, and it did not come. The cosmos did not care that he was Elvis Presley. He kept coming back nevertheless, and he also liked to visit the Fellowship’s fourteen-acre retreat by the ocean in Pacific Palisades, where Yogananda had written most of his autobiography. (George Harrison, another admirer of Yogananda, also liked to visit the retreat when in Los Angeles.)1

“Daya Mata stressed that the goal of Yogananda’s teachings was to establish harmony between a person’s spirit, mind, and body,” and “Elvis made a sincere effort to meditate and transform himself according to her suggestions,” Tillery continues:

He kept looking for signs that he was developing special powers, and as time went on there was evidence that he was succeeding. […]

Priscilla was convinced that Elvis had a healing touch. “He was capable of spiritual healing, one touch of his hands to my temples and the most painful headaches disappeared.” […] Elvis’s grandmother Minnie Mae was also convinced, and she allowed Geller and her famous grandson to treat her arthritis and other ailments over the years.

[“Memphis Mafia” alumnus] Sonny West acknowledged Elvis’s belief in his capabilities, although he was dubious about the capabilities themselves: “Elvis announced that he possessed psychic healing powers and could cure the common cold or other ailments through his simple touch. He also thought he could make leaves move and turn the sprinkler system of the Bel Air Country Club on and off through telekinesis.”2

Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis Presley, and Larry Geller

Geller also encouraged Elvis’s interest in flying saucers. “As part of his spiritual training, Elvis liked to go outside in the middle of the night and spend hours watching the movement of the planets,” Tillery reveals. “He felt that there were waves of energy moving the planets through the universe and that with proper attunement they could be seen. One night he saw a UFO.” This would not be the singer’s only encounter with the otherworldly.

Geller gave Elvis a book on the subject. A week later, just after he had finished reading it, Elvis and some of the group were driving through New Mexico on Route 66. They saw a bright disk streaking across the dark sky, descending. Suddenly it stopped and made a right-angle turn, accelerating until it disappeared from view. Elvis said, “That was definitely not a shooting star or a meteor. It was clearly something different.” [Elvis’s friend] Jerry Schilling commented, “We don’t make anything that moves like that.” Geller voiced what they were thinking, “That object maneuvered like a flying saucer.” Still later, Elvis witnessed a UFO one evening at Graceland while in the company of his father. The eerie experience prompted Vernon to reminisce about the blue light he had seen the night Elvis was born in Tupelo.3

Toward the middle of the sixties, “the quest for mind expansion generally led, sooner or later, to experimentation with drugs,” Tillery continues. “Priscilla recalled that she and Elvis tried marijuana several times, but neither cared for it.” After reading Aldous Huxley’s book The Doors of Perception, the King dropped acid with Larry Geller while watching The Time Machine on television. “Elvis became fascinated by it” and ordered a pizza, but never tried LSD again4. Elvis and his persona were fairly stale commodities by mid-decade, and it may be that he was feeling some pressure to remain relevant by experimenting. It was also during this period that Brian Epstein “extended feelers to Colonel Parker about a meeting” between the Beatles and Elvis, which eventually happened at Elvis’s home in Bel Air, occasioning some awkward conversation and jamming to “Johnny B. Goode” and “I Feel Fine”. “George eventually wandered off and went outside to light up a joint. Larry Geller went to search for him, and they discussed Indian religion and philosophy.” At one point during the evening, admirers spotted the five stars together at the front gate, prompting “competing chants of ‘Elvis! Elvis!’ and ‘Beatles! Beatles!’”5

After Elvis had an accident, falling and hitting his head on a bathtub in his Bel Air home, Colonel Parker, “now driven to his limit, stepped in and took charge.” The impresario “attributed Elvis’s decline in popularity and his dissatisfaction with his career to his spiritual diversions with Larry Geller” and “insisted that Elvis stop spending so much of his time and mental commitment on the religious kick. The people around Elvis all welcomed this directive since, in their view, Elvis had turned from a fun-loving guy into a serious individual who found no fulfillment in what he was doing and spent most of his time reading boring tracts and trying to proselytize his new beliefs.” Colonel Parker “continued to cultivate the suspicion in Elvis that Larry had been manipulating him with mind-control techniques. In time, Elvis came to believe this was the case.”6 As far as the “Memphis Mafia” was concerned, “Geller was a West Coast Svengali determined to fill the head of their boss, and friend, with bunk.”7 Parker forbade Geller from discussing the far-out books with the King and did what he could to prevent Geller from being alone with the star. “That Parker had planted suspicions in Elvis […] became apparent in an offhand comment Elvis made one day to Geller: ‘Those masters of yours have hidden motives. They want to control others, and use them for their own damn purposes.’”8 According to Geller, Elvis had come “to believe that he was carrying out his role in the world under the guidance of these masters” – the theosophists’ “Great White Brotherhood” – “one of whom was Jesus.”9

The question of why Geller had been able to exercise such an influence on the clearly impressionable Presley may have something to do with a family revelation from Elvis’s mother.

Larry Geller had known Elvis for more than a decade [by the mid-seventies], so it came as a surprise when Elvis one day confided to Larry that he had Jewish blood in his veins. It turned out that [his mother] Gladys’s maternal grandmother, Martha Tackett Mansell, was Jewish. Gladys had once taken Elvis aside and told him the fact secretly, with a warning that he should never tell his father or relatives. Elvis had always cherished the secret knowledge. The Bible said the Jews had a special bond with God, and it pleased him to be in the bloodline. At one point he considered studying Hebrew in order to read the biblical texts in their original language. Geller suddenly realized that his own Jewish ethnicity might have played some role in his initial appeal to Elvis. He now understood why, after he told Elvis about the chai symbol, he had started to wear one in combination with his cross pendant. And Larry recalled the day, very early in their relationship, when Elvis took him to meditate beside Gladys’s grave and mentioned in an odd aside that he planned to have a Star of David engraved on her memorial stone next to the cross already there.10

Presley “also became fascinated by esoteric meanings in his own name,” Tillery explains:

“Elvis” was such an exotic name – where did it come from? With Geller’s help, he found that “El” traced back to ancient times, a cross-cultural phoneme that conveyed the meaning of light, or shining, and was used in Hebrew, for instance, to connote God. (Think of Beth-El – “House of God,” and Elohim, the plural of God.) And “Vis” had the meaning of the power of God.

The discovery of a connection with Hebrew held deep significance for Elvis – for reasons he wouldn’t divulge to Geller (or anyone else) until the year of his death. He began to wear a chai pendant, the Jewish symbol for living and life, in addition to his customary cross. (When a reporter asked him about the strange juxtaposition, he quipped, “I don’t want to be kept out of heaven on a technicality.”) He donated $12,500 toward a fund to build a Jewish community center in Memphis.11

Elvis wears the Star of David

“Yes,” writes Debbie Schlussel, “Elvis was Jewish.” Presley “also donated lots of money to Jewish charities and carried a yarmulke,” in addition to being photographed wearing a Magen David pendant. Schlussel adds that Elvis “regularly hung out with his rabbi neighbor when he was growing up in Memphis.”12 As Elvis’s relationship with this rabbi indicates, however, Jews did not recognize the King as one of their own. The Presleys, who “didn’t know anything about the Jewish religion” according to “Memphis Mafia” member Billy Smith13, occupied the basement of a boardinghouse where the rabbi, Alfred Fruchter, lived in Memphis, and, as Elvis related to disc jockey George Klein, he used to serve as Fruchter’s Shabbos goy on Saturdays. When Rabbi Fruchter was transferred to a temple in San Francisco, he visited Elvis backstage at one of his shows, after which the star insisted that Fruchter accompany him to a press conference. “Let me tell you,” Klein recalls, “there were a lot of surprised faces among those reporters when Elvis announced, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like you to meet my rabbi.’”14 “George Klein […] says that when the Presleys first came to Memphis, they didn’t have any place to live and no money, and a rabbi let them live in his basement rent free. That’s supposedly why Elvis hired so many Jews,” scoffs “Memphis Mafia” man Marty Lacker. “That’s bull. The Presleys paid $50 a month rent, plus utilities, on Alabama Street.”15

Larry Geller was present on the occasion of a freakish 1965 incident that provides valuable insight into Presley’s self-image and spirituality – and possibly a further indication of the entertainer’s mixed impressions of the Jewish people. They were driving from Memphis to Hollywood, where Elvis was to shoot Harum Scarum:

Late that day they had reached northern Arizona and were driving on Route 66 in the vicinity of Flagstaff. A lull had settled over the vehicle, the result of many hours on the road. Suddenly Geller heard Elvis punctuate the stillness with a “Whoa!”

His eyes were focused on the sky ahead. Geller looked there too and saw a strange cloud. “Do you see what I see?” Elvis asked.

Geller did. The lone cloud had taken the form of a human face – and not just any face. Both of them instantly recognized the thick moustache and heavy eyebrows of the late leader of the Soviet Union – Joseph Stalin. […] They watched the cloud in amazement. Elvis kept mumbling, “Why Stalin? Why Stalin?”

Finally the face changed. The cloud shifted and lost the likeness. Geller glanced over at Elvis, intending to comment. For some reason, Elvis was still transfixed. He had the look of Juan Diego at Guadalupe or Bernadette at Lourdes. Geller hesitated to interrupt.

Then Elvis jammed on the brakes and pulled to the side of the road. He jumped out of the vehicle, calling to Geller to follow to follow him, and went running into the desert. He hugged Geller when Geller caught up with him, and kept babbling about God being love. He kept telling Geller that he loved him. He kept saying that he felt filled with divine love. He kept repeating that God was love itself. As he became more coherent, he made clear what had been happening when Geller had seen him transfixed.

Elvis kept asking himself why the cloud had taken the form of Stalin. Was God trying to send him a message? Was God showing him a projection of his inner self? Elvis recoiled. In his mind he cried out to God – saying that if that face of evil was meant to represent him, then he wanted God to destroy him. He wanted only to be filled with God and love.

“And then it happened!” he told Geller. “The face of Stalin turned right into the face of Jesus, and he smiled at me, and every fiber of my being felt it. For the first time in my life, God and Christ are a living reality.”16

Only years later would Presley reveal to Geller the full import of this vision. “Late one night in 1974 in Palm Springs, Elvis and Larry Geller were sitting outside by themselves,” when the King “appeared to have something he wanted to confess.” Stammering, Elvis finally came out with it. “I didn’t only see Jesus’s picture in the clouds,” he revealed: “Jesus Christ literally exploded in me. Larry, it was me. I was Christ.”17

Was this pairing of Stalin and Jesus an allegorical rendering of the good and evil potentials of a cult of personality? Did the metamorphosis of Stalin’s face into Christ’s represent Elvis’s rejection of the former in favor of the latter – or had the singer’s subconscious mind conceived of a different parallel? Comrade Stalin and Jesus Christ, in addition to being world-famous figures of great symbolic and momentous historical significance, are both men against whom “the Jews” are alleged to have plotted. In 1952, a matter of months before his death, Stalin ordered the arrests of several physicians, most of whom were Jewish. This was the infamous affair of the “Doctors’ plot”, which – as Wikipedia bravely informs the public – “was an episode of antisemitism in the Soviet Union” in which “a group of prominent Moscow doctors (predominantly Jews) were accused of conspiring to assassinate Soviet leaders.”18 The Soviet newspaper Pravda is not remembered for its forthrightness; but its account of the Doctors’ plot in the January 13, 1953 issue is sufficiently interesting to warrant quotation:

The majority of the participants of the terrorist group […] were bought by American intelligence. They were recruited by a branch-office of American intelligence – the international Jewish bourgeois-nationalist organization called “Joint” [i.e., the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee]. The filthy face of this Zionist spy organization, covering up their vicious actions under the mask of charity, is now completely revealed.19

This episode was followed by the bombing of the Soviet embassy in Tel Aviv in February. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his history Two Hundred Years Together, insinuates the possibility that Jews – “internal forces” – then had Stalin murdered. “He did not understand how the thickening of the plot could threaten him personally, even within the secure quarters of his inaccessible political Olympus,” Solzhenitsyn writes. “The explosion of international anger coincided with the rapid action of internal forces, which could possibly have done away with Stalin.”20

Max Jacobson

Elvis would have his own dealings with a series of Jewish doctors – all of whom would play a part in the idol’s eventual demise. The man most commonly blamed for Elvis’s drug abuse is the singer’s personal physician, Dr. George C. Nichopoulos – called “Dr. Nick” for short. “Dr. Nick” was hardly the only professional who prescribed dangerous drugs to the King, however. “I mean, why not go after [Haifa-born Lebanese] Dr. [Elias] Ghanem?” poses Billy Smith. “He wrote a hell of a lot of prescriptions. I’d like to see Elvis’s bill from him. Or from Dr. [Max] Shapiro. How about Dr. [George] Kaplan?”21 Marty Lacker recalls that Elvis introduced him to drugs during the making of 1962’s Kid Galahad. Elvis used “uppers – Dexedrine, Dexemyl, Desbutal. But he had downers, too” and “got them from everywhere.”22 Max Shapiro, one of multiple dope dispensers to be dubbed “Dr. Feelgood”, was a dentist and “sort of like one of the Three Stooges,” Jewish “Memphis Mafia” member Lamar Fike recalls23. Another “Dr. Feelgood” consulted by Elvis was Dr. Max Jacobson, famous for dosing everybody from Judy Garland to John F. Kennedy. A kosher butcher’s son who had studied psychoanalysis under Sigmund Freud himself, Jacobson “began to experiment with methamphetamine – speed in today’s terminology – a drug that enhanced moods and stimulated the emotions” and “took to mixing it with vitamins, enzymes, animal placentas, blood serum and hormones to produce elixirs that he tested out on himself and then prescribed to private patients.”24

Did Elvis really die a few feet from his toilet25 – or did the King just get lost in space – abducted, perhaps, by little green men?

Rainer Chlodwig von K.


  1. Tillery, Gary. The Seeker King: A Spiritual Biography of Elvis Presley. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 2013, pp. 93-96.
  2. Ibid., pp. 96-97.
  3. Ibid., pp. 97-98.
  4. Ibid., p. 98.
  5. Ibid., pp. 99-100.
  6. Ibid., pp. 112-113.
  7. Ibid., p. 88.
  8. Ibid., pp. 112-113.
  9. Ibid., p. 102.
  10. Ibid., pp. 171-172.
  11. Ibid., p. 102.
  12. Schlussel, Debbie. “Yes, Elvis Was Jewish: On the 35th Anniversary of ‘The King’s’ Death”. com (August 16, 2012):
  13. Nash, Alanna, et al. Elvis and the Memphis Mafia. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2005, p. 27.
  14. Klein, George; with Chuck Crisafulli. Elvis: My Best Man: A Memoir: Radio Days, Rock ‘n’ Roll Nights, and My Lifelong Friendship with Elvis Presley. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, p. 101.
  15. Nash, Alanna, et al. Elvis and the Memphis Mafia. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2005, p. 28.
  16. Tillery, Gary. The Seeker King: A Spiritual Biography of Elvis Presley. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 2013, pp. 89-90.
  17. Ibid., p. 159.
  19. MacDonald, Kevin. “‘Chapter 22 of 200 Years Together: From the End of the War to Stalin’s Death’”. The Occidental Observer (July 19, 2010):
  20. Ibid.
  21. Nash, Alanna, et al. Elvis and the Memphis Mafia. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2005, p. 751.
  22. Ibid., p. 228.
  23. Ibid.
  24. Rennell, Tony. “Hooked by Dr. Feelgood”. Daily Mail (November 14, 2013):
  25. Tapley, Nathaniel. “The 9 Most Famous People to Have Died on the Toilet”. Nathaniel Tapley (September 2, 2011):

Originally posted at Aryan Skynet

Pence touts Trump to AIPAC as defender of Israel and the Jews

Vice President Mike Pence delivered a fierce defense to AIPAC of President Donald Trump as a defender of Israel and the Jewish people.

“He’s a man of action,” Pence said of Trump Sunday, closing out the first day of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. “For the first time in a long time America has a president who will stand with our allies and stand up to our enemies.”

The line earned warm applause, and Pence suggested that Trump, whose popularity ratings are unusually low for a new president because of recent legislative and legal failures, was popular among the 18,000 AIPAC activists in attendance.

“Thanks to the support of so many in this room President Trump won a historic victory,” he said. “All of you helped elect a president I know will make America great again.” Trump’s campaign slogan earned more applause.

Pence’s assumption of AIPAC support of Trump came amid the lobby’s endeavor to restore its reputation as a bastion of bipartisan support for Israel.

Pence also cast Trump as a defender of Jews, saying he was “never prouder” than when Trump condemned last month’s vandalism at a Jewish cemetery near St. Louis. But Trump’s statement, delivered through the White House, came several days after the vandalism and amidst criticism by many Jewish groups that he hadn’t denounced anti-Semitism earlier or more forcefully. Pence, in contrast, visited the cemetery and assisted in cleaning it up.

Pence, like other speakers at AIPAC, noted the change in rhetoric at the United Nations when it comes to Israel. Nikki Haley, the new envoy to the body whose name when mentioned at this conference earns robust applause, has been outspoken in defending Israel at the body, and helped bring about the withdrawal of a report by a U.N. affiliate likening Israel to an apartheid state.

The Obama administration also defended Israel in multiple U.N. forums, but the relationship ended on a sour note when as one of its final acts in December it allowed through an anti-settlements resolution.

“The United States will no longer allow the United Nations to be used as a forum for invective against Israel,” Pence said.

Pence also said he was looking forward to swearing in as ambassador David Friedman, Trump’s longtime lawyer who was confirmed by a deeply divided Senate, mostly along party lines. Democrats opposed Friedman because of his deep philanthropic investment in the settlement movement and his broadsides against liberal Jews.

On a range of other issues that AIPAC has long sought from successive U.S. presidents, Pence was cautious. Trump, he said, was “giving serious consideration” to moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, retreating from Trump’s campaign promise to do so. The Iran nuclear deal reached by Obama, reviled by Republicans, Israel’s government and AIPAC, was “disastrous,” Pence said, but offered no hint Trump would touch it.

Trump also wants to see Israeli-Palestinian peace, Pence said, “and undoubtedly there will have to be compromises,” an allusion to Trump’s asking Israel to slow down settlement building.


Was that so hard?

At some point in the past week, it looked like President Donald Trump was never going to use “antisemitism” in a sentence. It took a fourth series of hoax bomb threats at JCCs around the country and imprecations from Jewish groups across the ideological spectrum for the president to at last use the “A” word.


“Antisemitism is horrible and it’s going to stop, and it has to stop,” Trump said Tuesday morning. “The antisemitic threats targeting our Jewish community and our Jewish community centers are horrible, are painful and they are a reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil.”

That it took so long for Trump to condemn antisemitism after twice being asked about it last week, and coming on the heels of a White House International Holocaust Remembrance Day statement that somehow omitted any mention of the Jews, was “mind-boggling” to many groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, which said so in a tweet.

It had reached a point that I already started imagining a White House Passover greeting that didn’t mention the Jews.

“Starting at sundown, the world will come together to remember certain events in Egypt,” it would begin, and end with, “I’ve made it clear that all plagues are horrible.”

What made Trump’s demurrals stranger is that denunciations of antisemitism are to presidential declarations what kosher symbols are to supermarket goods: It doesn’t hurt to have one, and only Jews usually notice.

So why did it take the administration five tries to get it right? I am counting the two news conferences, in which Trump basically punted on the question from two Jewish reporters; a statement from the White House on Monday that denounced “hatred and hate-motivated violence of any kind” without mentioning Jews or antisemitism, and daughter Ivanka’s tweet saying “We must protect our houses of worship & religious centers. #JCC.” The JCC hashtag was a nice touch, but not exactly a Queen Esther-style declaration of co-religious solidarity.

Pundits spent the past week trying to explain Trump’s hesitation. Peter Beinart blamed narcissism, using the theory that when Trump hears “antisemitism,” he can’t help but take it as a personal attack that he must fend off. I wondered if it was simple belligerence — that the more you ask this president for something, the more he is likely to say “you can’t make me.”

Or maybe he was just annoyed at the ADL, the group most identified with combating antisemitism, for repeatedly calling him and his campaign out for either ignoring or encouraging intolerance. Maybe Trump saw CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s Feb. 17 column in The Washington Post recalling how “the Trump campaign repeatedly tweeted and shared antisemitic imagery and language,” thus “allowing this poison to move from the margins into the mainstream of the public conversation.”

The most ominous explanation, offered by Bradley Burston from the left-wing Haaretz newspaper and a surprisingly outspoken Chuck Todd of NBC News, was that Trump was throwing a bone to — or at least trying not to alienate — the “alt-right” trolls who formed a small but vocal part of his winning coalition.

“Mr. President, we believe you and many other Jews believe you, so please make it clear that not only are you not an antisemite but that you reject people who are even if they did vote for you,” Todd said last week.

If Trump had been struggling with a political calculation, it was reminiscent of one that played out in the 2008 campaign, when then-candidate Barack Obama was being pressed to disavow an endorsement from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. When he was asked about Farrakhan during a debate with fellow Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, you could almost see the thought bubble over Obama’s head as he weighed rejecting Farrakhan without alienating supporters who considered him a hero.

Obama answered by reiterating his “denunciation” of Farrakhan’s antisemitism, leading to a semantic debate with Clinton over the distinction between “denouncing and rejecting.” Eventually the ADL’s then national director, Abe Foxman, declared that Obama had cleared the Farrakhan hurdle.

If Trump’s allergy to the “A” word is a political calculation, what would it be? He knows that three out of every four Jews didn’t vote for him, and perhaps someone is whispering to him, a la James Baker, that he gains no advantage by caving to a special interest as liberal as the Jews.

Trump’s critics pin the issue on his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, who came to the Trump campaign after steering Breitbart News, which he himself called a “platform” for the alt-right, among other right-wing movements. In turn, Bannon’s defenders note that Breitbart is enthusiastically pro-Israel and often keeps tabs on antisemitism.

But search “antisemitism” at Breitbart and a pattern emerges — one that could explain the week that was. The site seems most exercised about Jew hatred when it is committed by Muslims, members of the left wing in Europe, and far left and anti-Israel activists on American college campuses. When it does report on hate crimes in the United States, its coverage is almost always skeptical, highlighting hate-crime “hoaxes” or quoting those who deny that there has been a surge in hate crimes here or in Britain since the US elections or Brexit.

This week, when much of the press corps was focusing on how and whether Trump would denounce antisemitism, Joel Pollak, a senior editor-at-large at Breitbart, was accusing the media of hyping fears of antisemitism. Pollak blames an “ongoing pattern of false ‘hate crimes’” and the media’s reluctance to report on left-wing antisemitism. But mostly he blames general “anti-Trump hysteria.”

“Trump’s critics seem to want to believe false accusations of antisemitism, which justify their hatred of him and maintain a sense of outrage and unity among activists,” writes Pollak.

For Pollak and other Breitbart contributors, the reporting and denunciation of antisemitism is a partisan weapon wielded by the left to discredit the right. (Just as Trump asserted that it’s a charge wielded by a dishonest media to discredit him.) Of course, Breitbart also politicizes antisemitism, using it as a scarlet “A” to be worn, almost exclusively, by Muslims, campus radicals, self-hating Jews and European leftists. In fact, it has become an increasingly familiar trope both on the left and the right that the other is more antisemitic.

At least both sides agree that antisemitism is bad, even if they hesitate to take responsibility for the version that metastasizes among their ideological allies. They want to target the Jew haters but are wary about friendly fire.

Maybe the mistake of Jewish groups in seeking a strong response from Trump is that they are living in a simpler past, when both sides could agree that antisemitism was an evil, no matter the perpetrators or their politics.

General Patton vs. the Jews

By Dr William Pierce 

Sourced from renegade

Patton quote 1945

At the end of World War II, one of America’s top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable, to end that danger. Unfortunately, his warning went unheeded, and he was quickly silenced by a convenient “accident” which took his life.

Thirty-two years ago, in the terrible summer of 1945, the U.S. Army had just completed the destruction of Europe and had set up a government of military occupation amid the ruins to rule the starving Germans and deal out victors’ justice to the vanquished. General George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army, became military governor of the greater portion of the American occupation zone of Germany.

It was only in the final days of the war and during his tenure as military governor of Germany — after he had gotten to know both the Germans and America’s “gallant Soviet allies” — that Patton’s understanding of the true situation grew and his opinions changed. In his diary and in many letters to his family, friends, various military colleagues, and government officials, he expressed his new understanding and his apprehensions for the future. His diary and his letters were published in 1974 by the Houghton Mifflin Company under the title The Patton Papers.

Several months before the end of the war, General Patton had recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders which he had been given to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian, and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.

On May 7, 1945, just before the German capitulation, Patton had a conference in Austria with U.S. Secretary of War Robert Patterson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and American occupation zones. He was also alarmed by plans in Washington for the immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army.

Patton said to Patterson: “Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect.”

Patterson replied, “Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture.”

Patton rejoined:

“I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof — that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let’s not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!”

Patton’s urgent and prophetic advice went unheeded by Patterson and the other politicians and only served to give warning about Patton’s feelings to the alien conspirators behind the scenes in New York, Washington, and Moscow.

The more he saw of the Soviets, the stronger Patton’s conviction grew that the proper course of action would be to stifle communism then and there, while the chance existed. Later in May 1945 he attended several meetings and social affairs with top Red Army officers, and he evaluated them carefully. He noted in his diary onMay 14:

“I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers, with few exceptions, give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits.”

And Patton’s aide, General Hobart Gay, noted in his own journal forMay 14: “Everything they (the Russians) did impressed one with the idea of virility and cruelty.”

Nevertheless, Patton knew that the Americans could whip the Reds then — but perhaps not later. On May 18 he noted in his diary:

“In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.”

Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: “If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.”

Having immediately recognized the Soviet danger and urged a course of action which would have freed all of eastern Europe from the communist yoke with the expenditure of far less American blood than was spilled in Korea and Vietnam and would have obviated both those later wars not to mention World War III — Patton next came to appreciate the true nature of the people for whom World War II was fought: the Jews.

Most of the Jews swarming over Germany immediately after the war came from Poland and Russia, and Patton found their personal habits shockingly uncivilized.

He was disgusted by their behavior in the camps for Displaced Persons (DP’s) which the Americans built for them and even more disgusted by the way they behaved when they were housed in German hospitals and private homes. He observed with horror that:

“these people do not understand toilets and refuse to use them except as repositories for tin cans, garbage, and refuse . . . They decline, where practicable, to use latrines, preferring to relieve themselves on the floor.”

He described in his diary one DP camp,

“where, although room existed, the Jews were crowded together to an appalling extent, and in practically every room there was a pile of garbage in one corner which was also used as a latrine. The Jews were only forced to desist from their nastiness and clean up the mess by the threat of the butt ends of rifles. Of course, I know the expression ‘lost tribes of Israel’ applied to the tribes which disappeared — not to the tribe of Judah from which the current sons of bitches are descended. However, it is my personal opinion that this too is a lost tribe — lost to all decency.”

Patton’s initial impressions of the Jews were not improved when he attended a Jewish religious service at Eisenhower’s insistence. His diary entry for September 17, 1945, reads in part:

“This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large, wooden building, which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General . . . The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it.”

These experiences and a great many others firmly convinced Patton that the Jews were an especially unsavory variety of creature and hardly deserving of all the official concern the American government was bestowing on them.

Another September diary entry, following a demand from Washington that more German housing be turned over to Jews, summed up his feelings:

“Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison (a U.S. State Department official) and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German we punish an individual German, while the punishment is — not intended for the individual but for the race.

Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law. In the second place, Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.”

One of the strongest factors in straightening out General Patton’s thinking on the conquered Germans was the behavior of America’s controlled news media toward them. At a press conference in Regensburg, Germany, on May 8, 1945, immediately after Germany’s surrender, Patton was asked whether he planned to treat captured SS troops differently from other German POW’s. His answer was:

“No. SS means no more in Germany than being a Democrat in America — that is not to be quoted. I mean by that that initially the SS people were special sons of bitches, but as the war progressed they ran out of sons of bitches and then they put anybody in there. Some of the top SS men will be treated as criminals, but there is no reason for trying someone who was drafted into this outfit . . .”

Despite Patton’s request that his remark not be quoted, the press eagerly seized on it, and Jews and their front men in America screamed in outrage over Patton’s comparison of the SS and the Democratic Party as well as over his announced intention of treating most SS prisoners humanely.

With great reluctance, and only after repeated promptings from Eisenhower, he had thrown German families out of their homes to make room for more than a million Jewish DP’s — part of the famous “six million” who had supposedly been gassed — but he balked when ordered to begin blowing up German factories, in accord with the infamous Morgenthau Plan to destroy Germany’s economic basis forever. In his diary he wrote:

“I doubted the expediency of blowing up factories, because the ends for which the factories are being blown up — that is, preventing Germany from preparing for war — can be equally well attained through the destruction of their machinery, while the buildings can be used to house thousands of homeless persons.”

Similarly, he expressed his doubts to his military colleagues about the overwhelming emphasis being placed on the persecution of every German who had formerly been a member of the National Socialist party. In a letter to his wife of September 14, 1945, he said:

“I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands (i.e., the Soviet Union’s Gulags), where many will be starved to death.”

Despite his disagreement with official policy, Patton followed the rules laid down by Morgenthau and others back in Washington as closely as his conscience would allow, but he tried to moderate the effect, and this brought him into increasing conflict with Eisenhower and the other politically ambitious generals. In another letter to his wife he commented:

“I have been at Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic, and I am sure of it.”

And in his diary he noted:

“Today we received orders . . . in which we were told to give the Jews special accommodations. If for Jews, why not Catholics, Mormons, etc? . . . We are also turning over to the French several hundred thousand prisoners of war to be used as slave labor in France. It is amusing to recall that we fought the Revolution in defense of the rights of man and the Civil War to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles.”

His duties as military governor took Patton to all parts of Germany and intimately acquainted him with the German people and their condition. He could not help but compare them with the French, the Italians, the Belgians, and even the British. This comparison gradually forced him to the conclusion that World War II had been fought against the wrong people.

After a visit to ruined Berlin, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945:

“Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. It’s said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”

This conviction, that the politicians had used him and the U.S. Army for a criminal purpose, grew in the following weeks. During a dinner with French General Alphonse Juin in August, Patton was surprised to find the Frenchman in agreement with him. His diary entry for August 18 quotes Gen. Juin: “It is indeed unfortunate, mon General, that the English and the Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country — and I do not mean France. Therefore, the road is now open for the advent of Russian communism.”

Later diary entries and letters to his wife reiterate this same conclusion. On August 31 he wrote: “Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. it’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.” And on September 2: “What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole.”

By this time the Morgenthauists and media monopolists had decided that Patton was incorrigible and must be discredited. So they began a non-stop hounding of him in the press, a la Watergate, accusing him of being “soft on Nazis” and continually recalling an incident in which he had slapped a shirker two years previously, during the Sicily campaign. A New York newspaper printed the completely false claim that when Patton had slapped the soldier who was Jewish, he had called him a “yellow-bellied Jew.”

Then, in a press conference on September 22, reporters hatched a scheme to needle Patton into losing his temper and making statements which could be used against him. The scheme worked. The press interpreted one of Patton’s answers to their insistent questions as to why he was not pressing the Nazi-hunt hard enough as: “The Nazi thing is just like a Democrat-Republican fight.” The New York Times headlined this quote, and other papers all across America picked it up.

The unmistakable hatred which had been directed at him during this press conference finally opened Patton’s eyes fully as to what was afoot. In his diary that night he wrote:

“There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs.

“They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . .

“Another point which the press harped on was the fact that we were doing too much for the Germans to the detriment of the DP’s, most of whom are Jews. I could not give the answer to that one, because the answer is that, in my opinion and that of most nonpolitical officers, it is vitally necessary for us to build Germany up now as a buffer state against Russia. In fact, I am afraid we have waited too long.”

And in a letter of the same date to his wife: “I will probably be in the headlines before you get this, as the press is trying to quote me as being more interested in restoring order in Germany than in catching Nazis. I can’t tell them the truth that unless we restore Germany we will insure that communism takes America.”

Eisenhower responded immediately to the press outcry against Patton and made the decision to relieve him of his duties as military governor and “kick him upstairs” as the commander of the Fifteenth Army. In a letter to his wife on September 29, Patton indicated that he was, in a way, not unhappy with his new assignment, because

“I would like it much better than being a sort of executioner to the best race in Europe.”


On October 22 Patton wrote a long letter to Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord, who was back in the States. In the letter Patton bitterly condemned the Morgenthau policy; Eisenhower’s pusillanimous behavior in the face of Jewish demands; the strong pro-Soviet bias in the press; and the politicization, corruption, degradation, and demoralization of the U.S. Army which these things were causing. And He saw the demoralization of the Army as a deliberate goal of America’s [Jewish] enemies.

LD: Shortly after this General Patton, one of the last of America’s patriotic heroes who’d had the courage to stand up to Jews, met with an untimely end. Was he assassinated? And if so, by whom? The intelligent reader is invited to draw his own conclusions.


In his book “Target Patton,” author Robert Wilcox describes his interviews with WWII sharpshooter, Douglas Bazata, a Lebanese Jew, who died in 1999. Bazata had apparently arranged for the General to be shot with a low-velocity projectile which entered Patton’s neck.

Bazata said, “Many high-ranking military persons hated Patton. I know who killed him because I was hired to set up the accident by General William Donovan for $10,000.”

General Bill Donovan is alleged to have been a crypto Jew.

Patton didn’t die in the automobile accident, incidentally. He was kept in isolation in the hospital where he was killed with a lethal injection. [LD]

Today in History: Rome Defeats the Jews in the Year 70 (GOOD!!!!)

Roman bas-relief of the victory march of Titus, displaying items captured from the Jewish rebels he defeated
Roman bas-relief of the victory march of Titus, displaying items captured from the Jewish rebels he defeated

“On this day in 70 C.E., rebel forces in the city were vanquished. The conquest of Jerusalem was the climax of the Great Revolt, which began four years earlier with a number of attacks by Jewish rebels in the Land of Israel against Roman authorities.”

EDITORS’ NOTE: What you are reading here is the nucleus around which so many geo-political events of today revolve: Rome’s destruction of Judea and the Jewish attempt to re-write history and make the aggressors pay for their crime of harming the “apple of Yahweh’s eye,” the Jews.

Much as they are today, the Jews then were behaving badly: Stealing from and waging war on everyone around them, so much so that the Roman Empire had to deal with them sternly — which they did. This is the mentality of the Jews — never any self-examination of their historical bad behavior which led to Rome’s actions. All they can see is just evil Whites (the Romans, in this case) always attacking virtuous Jews for no reason except “hatred of Jews.” To the Jews, we, the people of Europe and North America — in short, White civilization — are the descendants of the Roman Empire, and we have to pay for what Titus did to them almost 2,000 years ago.

This is one reason most Jews hate Trump so much — a blond man who resembles in some ways a Roman emperor, a leader who does not want to support the Jews’ desired wars with Russia and Syria, and who denounces many of their agents and main points of their agenda.

From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

ON THIS DAY in 70 C.E., the Roman siege of Jerusalem ended as rebel forces in the city were vanquished. The siege and conquest of Jerusalem was the climax of the Great Revolt, which began four years earlier with a number of attacks by Jewish rebels in the Land of Israel against Roman authorities. After Syrian-based legionnaires failed to put down the unrest, responsibility for quelling the rebellion fell to the Roman general Vespasian, accompanied by his son Titus. They slowly made their way south from the Galilee beginning in 67 C.E., conquering town after town.  When Vespasian returned to Rome to become emperor in 69 C.E., Titus took over the leadership of the counter-offensive.

Titus began his assault on Jerusalem in March of 70 C.E. with the help of four Roman legions who trapped between 600,000 (according to Tacitus) and 1 million people (the estimate of Josephus) in the city. The residents’ situation was significantly worsened by the fact that the Jewish extremist group, the Sicarii, burned the Jewish population’s stocks of food as part of a strategy meant to force them to fight the Romans rather than negotiate surrender.

Following the destruction of the Third Wall and the Antonia Fortress, the Romans set themselves to conquering the Temple. Titus supposedly intended to leave the grand structure — just built in the preceding century by Herod the Great — intact to turn it into a temple to Jupiter, but a Roman soldier threw a torch into it and burned it to the ground famously on the 9th of Av. By this point in late August of 70 C.E., many Jews fled the city and others moved to the upper city to make a final stand. The upper city fell on September 7 (although some sources say it happened September 26).

According to Josephus, the former Jewish general who defected to the Romans and became the great historian of the “Jewish Wars,” Titus killed most of the residents of the city, and ordered the razing of all but its tallest structures. Titus went on to succeed his father as emperor when Vespasian died in 79 C.E. His conquest of Jerusalem is commemorated by and dramatically depicted in the Arch of Titus, which tourists can visit today in Rome. (On another historical note, Titus also reportedly had a love affair with the Jewish Queen Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa I, who joined him in Rome during Vespasian’s rule.)

A Real Case Against Jews

The following is an article written by an American Jew in 1928:

by Marcus Eli Ravage

reprinted from The Century Magazine January 1928

Of course, you do resent us. It is no good telling me you don’t. So let us not waste any time on denials and alibis. You know you do, and I know it, and we understand each other. To be sure, some of your best friends are Jews, and all that. I have heard that before once or twice, I think. And I know too, that you do not include me personally – “me” being any particular individual Jew – when you fling out at us in your wholesale fashion, because I am, well, so different, don’t you know, almost as good as one of yourselves. That little exemption does not, somehow, move me to gratitude; but never mind that now. It is the aggressive, climbing, pushing, materialistic sort you dislike – those, in a world, who remind you so much of your own up-and-coming brethren. We understand each other perfectly. I don’t hold it against you.

Bless my soul, I do not blame anybody for disliking anybody. The thing that intrigues me about this anti-Jewish business, as you play at it, you make such fantastic and transparent excuses, you seem to be suffering from self-consciousness so horribly, that if the performance were not so grotesque it would be irritating.

It is not as if you were amateurs: you have been at it for over fifteen centuries. Yet watching you and hearing your childish pretexts, one might get the impression that you did not know yourselves what it is all about. You resent us, but you cannot clearly say why. You think up a new excuse – a “reason” is what you call it – every other day. You have been piling up justification for yourself these many hundreds of years and each new invention is more laughable than the last and each new excuse contradicts and annihilates the last.

Not so many years ago I used to hear that we were money-grubbers and commercial materialists; now the complaint is being whispered around that no art and no profession is safe against Jewish invasion.

We are, if you are to be believed, at once clannish and exclusive, and unassimilable because we won’t intermarry with you, and we are also climbers and pushers and a menace to your racial integrity.

Our standard of living is so low that we create your slums and sweat industries, and so high that we crowd you out of your best residential sections. We shirk our patriotic duty in wartime because we are pacifists by nature and tradition, and we are the arch-plotters of universal wars and the chief beneficiaries of those wars (see “The protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”.)

We are at once the founders and leading adherents of capitalism and the chief perpetrators of the rebellion against capitalism.

Surely, history has nothing like us for versatility!

And oh! I almost forgot the reasons of reasons. We are the stiff-necked people who never accepted Christianity, and we are the criminal people who crucified its founder.

But I tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, we crucified Jesus but because we gave him birth. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity but that we have imposed it upon you!

Your loose, contradictory charges against us are not a patch on the blackness of our proved historic offence. You accuse us of stirring up revolution in Moscow. Suppose we admit the charge. What of it? Compared with what Paul the Jew of Tarsus accomplished in Rome, the Russian upheavals a mere street brawl.

You make much noise and fury about the undue Jewish influence in your theatres and movie palaces. Very good; granted your complaint is well-founded. But what is that compared to our staggering influence in your churches, your schools, your laws and your governments, and the very thoughts you think every day?

A clumsy Russian forges a set of papers and publishes them in a book called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which shows that we plotted to bring on the late World War. You believe that book. All right. For the sake of argument, we will underwrite every word of it. It is genuine and authentic. But what is that besides the unquestionable historical conspiracy which we have carried out, which we never have denied because you never had the courage to charge us with it, and of which the full record is extant for anybody to read?

If you really are serious when you talk of Jewish plots, may I not direct your attention to one worth talking about? What use is it wasting words on the alleged control of your public opinion by Jewish financiers, newspaper owners, and movie magnates, when you might as well justly accuse us of the proved control of your whole civilization by the Jewish Gospels?

You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom of not merely the latest Great War but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of nearly every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long, we shall go on doing it.

Look back a little and see what has happened. Nineteen hundred years ago you were an innocent, care-free pagan race. You worshipped countless Gods and Goddesses, the spirits of the air, of the running streams and of the woodland. You took unblushing pride in the glory of your naked bodies. You carved images of your gods and of the tantalizing human figure. You delighted in the combats of the field, the arena and the battle-ground. War and slavery were fixed institutions in your systems. Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life and laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the prickings of the social conscience or by any sentimental questionings about human equality. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone.

But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the whole course of your history. We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda.

We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the world, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to unexplored ends of the earth.

Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems. Our legends and our folk-tales are the sacred lore which you croon to your infants. Our poets have filled your hymnals and your prayer-books. Our national history has become an indispensable part of the learning of your pastors and priests and scholars. Our Kings, our statesmen, our prophets, our warriors are your heroes. Our ancient little country is your Holy Land. Our national literature is your Holy Bible. What our people thought and taught has become inextricable woven into your very speech and tradition, until no one among you can be called educated who is not familiar with our racial heritage.

Jewish artisans and Jewish fishermen are your teachers and your saints, with countless statues carved in their image and innumerable cathedrals raised to their memories. A Jewish maiden is your ideal of motherhood and womanhood. A Jewish rebel-prophet is the central figure in your religious worship. We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you.

How did we do it? Almost by accident. Nearly two thousand years ago in far-off Palestine, our religion had fallen into decay and materialism. Money-changers were in possession of the temple. Degenerate, selfish priests grew fat. Then a young patriot- idealist arose and went about the land calling for a revival of the faith. He had no thought of setting up a new church. Like all the prophets before him, his only aim was to purify and revitalize the old creed. He attacked the priests and drove the money- changers from the temple. This brought him into conflict with the established order and its supporting pillars. The Roman authorities , who were in occupation of the country, fearing his revolutionary agitation as a political effort to oust them, arrested him, tried him and condemned him to death by crucifixion, a common form of execution at that time. The followers of Jesus of Nazereth, mainly slaves and poor workmen, in their bereavement and disappointment, turned away from the world and formed themselves into a brotherhood of pacifists non-resisters, sharing their memory of their crucified leader and living together communistically. They were merely a new sect in Judea, without power or consequence, neither the first nor the last.

Only after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did the new creed come into prominence. Then a patriotic Jew named Paul or Saul conceived the idea of humbling the Roman power by destroying the morale of its soldiery with the doctrines of love and non- resistance preached by the little sect of Jewish Christians. He became the Apostle to the Gentiles, he who hitherto had been one of the most active persecutors of the band. And so well did Paul do his work that within four centuries the great empire which had subjugated Palestine along with half of the world, was a heap of ruins. And the law which went forth from Zion became the official religion of Rome.

This was the beginning of our dominance in your world. But it was only a beginning. From this time forth your history is little more than a struggle for mastery between your own old pagan spirit and our Jewish spirit. Half your wars, great and little, are religious wars, fought over the interpretation of one thing or another in our teachings. You no sooner broke free from your primitive religious simplicity and attempted the practice of the pagan Roman learning than Luther armed with our Gospel arose to down you and re-enthrone our heritage. Take the three principal revolutions in modern times – the French, the American, and the Russian. What are they but the triumphs of the Jewish idea of social, political and economic justice?

And the end is still a long way off. We still dominate you. At this very moment your churches are torn asunder by a civil war between Fundamentalists and Modernists, that is to say between those who cling to our teachings and traditions literally and those who are striving by slow steps to dispossess us. Again and again the Puritan heritage of Judea breaks out in waves of stage censorship, Sunday blue laws and national prohibition acts. And while these things are happening you twaddle about Jewish influence in the movies.

Is it any wonder you resent us? We have put a clog upon your progress. We have imposed upon you an alien book and an alien faith which you cannot digest, which is at cross-purposes with your native spirit, which keeps you everlasting ill-at-ease, and which you lack the spirit to either reject or accept in full.

In full, of course, you never have accepted our Christian teachings. In your hearts you still are pagans. You still take pride in the glory of the nude human figure. Your social conscience, in spite of all democracy and all your social revolution, is still a pitifully imperfect thing. We have merely divided your soul. confused your impulses and paralysed your desires. In the midst of the battle you are obliged to kneel down to him who commanded you to turn the other cheek, who said “Resist not evil” and “Blessed are the peace-makers”. In your lust for gain you are suddenly disturbed by a memory from your Sunday school days about taking no thought for the morrow. In your industrial struggles, when you would smash a strike without compunction, you are suddenly reminded that the poor are blessed and that men are brothers in the Fatherhood of the Lord. And you are about to yield to temptation, your Jewish training puts a deterrent hand on your shoulder and dashes the brimming cup from your lips. You Christians have never become Christianized. To that extent we have failed with you. But we have forever spoiled the fun of paganism for you.

So why should you not resent us? If we were in your place we should probably dislike you more cordially than you do us. But we should make no bones about telling you why. We should not resort to subterfuges and transparent pretext. With millions of painfully respectable Jewish shopkeepers all about us we should not insult your intelligence and your own honesty by talking about communism as a Jewish philosophy. And with millions hard-working impecunious Jewish peddlers and labourers we should make ourselves ridiculous by talking about international capitalism as a Jewish monopoly. No we should go straight to the point. We should contemplate this confused ineffectual muddle which we call civilization, this half- Christian half-pagan medley, and – we should say to you point- blank: “For this mess thanks to you, to your prophets, and your Bible.”

Click here for Commissary to the Gentiles by Marcus Eli Ravage (The Century Magazine February 1928)

Thule Productions: Fear – The Greatest Weapon of the Jews


In this video I am discussing how “Fear” is used as a weapon to manipulate and control our White race, aimed at robbing our kin of their will and determination to resist and fight back; to attempt to render us into a state of despair and hopelessness, to disarm us mentally and spiritually of our strongest characteristics and leave us weakened to be picked off.