The conundrum of the Jews
The question of Israel is one where you’ll read diametrically opposite views on the net and it seems to me that both views are right.
On the one hand, there is the Ashkenazi issue, Tribe of Dan, Nehanyahu, Zionism, Rothschilds, Them, who cause all the things we hear about and have the neighbours up in arms. Evil trickles down.
On the other hand, there is this deep and abiding detestation of them throughout history. Clifford Tower in York is testimony to that. There are not too many peoples who others, universally, wish to wipe off the face of the map and have done so for millennia. That’s one of the reasons a WASP can feel a certain sympathy.
On the other hand again, there is this Zionist element and also this moneygrubbing [as distinct from moneymaking] thing. My father told me as a child never to get a bank card [a newish idea at the time] and my mother chimed in with, “Don’t give it to the Jews.” This went over my head.
My father though, as mentioned here a few times, stood on the banks of the Jordan during the war and observed the feckless state of the inhabitants and the undeveloped land on one side and then Israeli orchards on the other. That impression never left him. He was Yorkshire, by the way, my mother Irish. As far as I know, there’s no Jewish blood in me. Wouldn’t worry me if there was.
They’re a quarrelsome people as their own Torah testifies to and I’ve seen it at first hand in schools. They do see themselves as distanced from us Gentiles and that perhaps is the main thing. Haven’t yet seen anyone say they’re the Ickean lizards. Let me throw in another from the Oxford Book of Quotations:
How odd
Of God
To choose
The Jews
[William Norman Ewer, Weekend Book, 1924]
But not so odd
As those who choose
A Jewish god
But spurn the Jews.
[Cecil Browne, in reply] And whilst we’re there on religion, Daniel Defoe wrote:
Wherever God erects a house of prayer,
The devil builds a chapel there
And ’twill be found, on examination,
That the latter has the larger larger congregation.
[The True-born Englishman, 1701, two grammatical corrections made]
I read that the Jews caused 911. Before dismissing that, seems to me it wasn’t so much “the Jews” per se as the people at the top definitely at least in the loop on that and on 7/7. Nethanyahu was on hand for the latter and was getting intelligence delivered to him. But is he a Jew or is he one of Them who know no land or race?
It’s the old story about the ordinary person, whilst capable of great wrong, e.g. the Germans in WW2, mainly through the sin of twisted pride and as a misdirected sheep, is basically not as harmful as his “leaders” are. I have no desire to take Berlin or Manhattan but if Berlin or Manhattan were to attack us here, I’d join Dad’s Army.
And the bottom line is that the people in Israel have every right to be in that land, they’re mainly hardworking as far as I can see and what? Why can’t they exist there in pretty well designated corridors of land? I was looking at a Ron Paul vid last evening – a 2011 Republican debate and almost everything he said was right.
Except on Israel, where he was right and wrong. Yes, the Rothschild money can keep them alive in the Holy Land without bleeding America of lives and money but Them doesn’t want to play its hand and would surely sit back and let the Jews be slaughtered again to show the Americans their folly in following Ron Paul’s lead.
On the other hand, they don’t need American middle-class money. Them already own most of the sophisticated weaponry and other tech so Israel wouldn’t go down unless Them wanted it so, which all indications from their literature say that they do. Rothschild is no friend of the Jewish people.
So they’re kept alive over there due to this game of Rothschild’s getting American middle-class money to obviate the need for them to invest in keeping the Jews alive and if Americans pull the plug on that, the Jews probably get slaughtered again.
What should Americans do? It’s a form of blackmail. Don’t know why but I’d not like to see the Jews slaughtered. Call it religious tradition, call it what you like.
Filed under: History & Culture, Politics & economics, Religion & Philosophy
One must not forget that according to the Old Testament revelation, the Jews are the covenant people of God. The very name ‘Jew’ derived from the Hebrew word Yehuda, which literally means for the praise of God. The unfolding of the New Testament through Christ by no means nullifies their original calling – indeed, the apostle Paul refers to this in Romans 9, where he declares that despite their denial of Yeshua they have still a future in the divine economy; many will come eventually to recognise and acknowledge ha-Maschiach. I met a Messianic Jew in Israel recently, and one of his companions admitted that although he himself wasn’t a Messianic Jew (but still orthodox), he was nevertheless a believer.
A visit to Yad Vashem also reinforced to me the significance of the Holocaust in their national psyche. Perhaps the underlying reason for the unjustifiable hatred against them is by virtue of their position in the redemptive purposes of God. “They hated Me without a cause” also refers to the Jews as well as the Maschiach.
I don’t hold to the erroneous premillennial belief that Christ will literally reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and I’m not so naive to assume that the formation of the state of Israel was a miracle. However, the Israeli people seem to have a clear sense of purpose, and I found Jews and Arabs alike to be charming and friendly. Our Israeli tour guide directed us to shops of Arab traders, who’ve felt the economic pinch like everyone else. That doesn’t fit the current left-liberal narrative!
As for the Rothschilds, ‘Them’ and high-level politics – I’ve no idea what to think. They themselves – whoever they might be – are also accountable to God, as we all are.
Caedmon’s Cat recently posted…Time Out
“my mother Irish”: what do you expect, then?
Now then, naughty!
CC – thanks for that, it needed it.
James Higham recently posted…Pippa
My my James, you do like to mix it up. (I mean get into the nitty gritty, rather than make a muddle of things)
My mind doesn’t turn over at 200 Mph like your seems to.
If I come across a tricky subject in which I become engrossed, I like to “run it to ground” as far as I can.
So by the time I have even written this short comment, you will be off again onto something else interesting.
You are asking some really tricky questions which might entail an answer which would appear anti-Semitic.
I will just throw the tradition of the Talmud and the practice of Kabbalah, into the equation, then add God’s judgement upon the Jews at the hands of Assyria.
Unfortunately, the Church at large, is massively confused about this issue.
I’ve just been emailed a long answer too and it’s a pretty good one. Sunday methinks for that on a no names basis.
James Higham recently posted…Religious unorthodoxy
“And the bottom line is that the people in Israel have every right to be in that land.”
Do they? I’m not so sure. There’s no escaping the fact that many Palestinians have been forced out of their land and villages and treated appallingly in the process. That land didn’t belong to those foreign Jews who have supposedly returned from exile so I don’t quite see how they had a right to it.
The whole Israel/Middle East conundrum is a hard one to fathom and there’s no doubt that Them are heavily involved in deepening the ‘conflict’. That said I can’t give ‘the people of Israel’ a free pass. All I know is that if a similar thing happened in England I’d be resisting every bit as much as the average Palestinian does.
How odd Of God To choose The Jews
He didn’t, he chose the Israelites. The Judahites of the tribe of Judah were but one of the twelve tribes.
But not so odd As those who choose A Jewish god But spurn the Jews.
See above.
“… the Jews are the covenant people of God”.
Again, see above. The covenant was made with all Israel not just Judah. It’s even debatable that the Jews of modern day Israel are actually of the House of Judah (Benjamin and Judah with the majority of Levi) but that’s another story.
“The very name ‘Jew’ derived from the Hebrew word Yehuda, which literally means for the praise of God.”
As I understood it the words (plural) translated as Jew are Iouda (ee-oo-dah) which means Judah (the country) and Ioudaios (ee-oo-dah’-yos) which means Judean (an inhabitant of Judah). Not all the inhabitants of the country Judah were Israelites of the House of Judah.
“A visit to Yad Vashem also reinforced to me the significance of the Holocaust.”
The more I’ve looked into the Holocaust the more I realise why it’s the only subject in history you can go to prison for questioning. There’s some pretty serious holes throughout the whole narrative. From my perspective it seems the ordinary Jew has long been at the mercy of their elite/leaders and as such have borne the brunt of the wrath generated by the sins of those leaders. Pretty much the same as the ordinary Briton really.
HarryJ
The northern kingdom of Israel was taken into exile by the Assyrians before the kingdom of Judah were by Nebuchadnezzar. Although the Jews were able to return from Babylonian exile some 70 years later, no account of a corresponding return of the Israelite kingdom exists. The prophecy of Isaiah speaks of a remnant or stump. As for your contention that modern-day Jews aren’t necessarily the House of Judah, it’s worthwhile bearing in mind that entry into the community was never restricted solely to true-blood Jews; converts have always been accepted and still are to this day. Arthur Koestler’s thesis about the Ashkenazim’s mass conversion to Judaism from the Khazars may have more than a grain of truth to it. As for your point concerning the Holocaust – I’ve not read any convincing evidence that it was exaggerated for the sake of some narrative. However, it seems odd to me that those who challenge the accounts are demonised and criminalised. If such people as Irving are deluded, this should be self-evident, and such people already consign themselves to self-imposed isolation without the need of legal apparatus.
Caedmon’s Cat recently posted…Time Out
“The northern kingdom of Israel was taken into exile by the Assyrians before the kingdom of Judah were by Nebuchadnezzar. Although the Jews were able to return from Babylonian exile some 70 years later, no account of a corresponding return of the Israelite kingdom exists. The prophecy of Isaiah speaks of a remnant or stump.”
The House of Israel and the bulk of Judah is not meant to return until the last days when the ‘two sticks’ (Houses) are reunited. For several (prophetic) reasons this could not be the current State of Israel.
“As for your contention that modern-day Jews aren’t necessarily the House of Judah, it’s worthwhile bearing in mind that entry into the community was never restricted solely to true-blood Jews; converts have always been accepted and still are to this day.”
That may be true of Judaism but the fact that the Biblical promises were made to Abraham’s seed can’t be escaped. I’ve read several articles that suggest that no ‘stranger’ can become an Israelite. If you can guide me towards a good one that claims otherwise I’d be grateful.
“Arthur Koestler’s thesis about the Ashkenazim’s mass conversion to Judaism from the Khazars may have more than a grain of truth to it.”
I’ve read both sides of the story and I’m not sure either way to be honest, although it does seem to make sense.
“As for your point concerning the Holocaust – I’ve not read any convincing evidence that it was exaggerated for the sake of some narrative. However, it seems odd to me that those who challenge the accounts are demonised and criminalised. If such people as Irving are deluded, this should be self-evident, and such people already consign themselves to self-imposed isolation without the need of legal apparatus.”
I remember feeling sick to my stomach the first time I realised that the Holocaust wasn’t all that it seemed. On reflection that was merely an indicator of how strong the ‘mind control’ is around this subject. It’s pointless entering into a debate about this here for all sorts of reasons. All I’ll say is that there’s plenty of very good ‘revisionist’ material to review. As you say, if the likes of Irving were self evidently deluded, then there’s be no need for any legal repercussions. It’s because he isn’t that they are necessary.
Here’s one small example though. The figure of six million having died has always been a central part of the narrative. When in 1989, the number of deaths at Auschwitz was reduced down to around one million from the previous figure of four million there was no subsequent reduction in the overall total of six million. Perhaps the article below sheds some light on why that is.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=24369
CC (and you James), I’m not sure if you’re receiving comment alerts for this article but here’s something I’ve just stumbled upon on the Truth Seeker website. It makes for interesting reading. Can it be denied? What am I meant to make of something like this?
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=67371
Re Harwood’s pamphlet:
Curiouser and curiouser.
http://www.fighthatred.com/profiles-in-hate/political-figures/466-richard-verrall
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007271
I’m dead against holocaust denial being a crime – people must be allowed their own views. However, there seems too much evidence of the holocaust from footage to German accounts themselves.
James Higham recently posted…Warning to esteemed readers
My first response would be, well of course they’d claim he misrepresented the work of historians etc, although I haven’t studied all of his particular claims so I can’t comment either way.
What I was referring to specifically in the article linked to was the Red Cross information. Is that information true? Harwood claims that at the Zundel trial it was “agreed that in the nineteen instances that “Did Six Million Really Die?” quoted from the Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War and Inter Arma Caritas (this includes the above material), it did so accurately.” Some of those instances were figures of both the numbers of Jews in the camps and of those who died that were substantially lower than the numbers that have since been claimed.
http://www.historiography-project.com/clippings/1979/05/red-cross-concentration-camp-r.html
As for the Wannsee Conference Protocol you won’t be surprised at claims it’s a forgery. A more balanced view can be found here.
http://www.deliberation.info/the-wannsee-conference-truth-and-myth/
Much of the footage is taken from camps at the end of the war when allied bombing had caused severe food shortages right across Germany. The result of which were the emaciated bodies etc we see in the films of the liberated camps.
We’ve all been lied to and deceived about so much in this world. Is it any surprise that the Holocaust is yet another example of this? There’s no denying that many Jews, amongst others, suffered terribly and that many died. The ‘denial’ is that it was six million and that there was a specific extermination policy that included gas chambers. Here’s a Jewish person’s reasons for ‘denying the Holocaust’.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=64860
Just for the record here’s another interesting article looking at messages decoded by British Intelligence during 1942. Again, if anyone’s looking, I wonder what you make of them.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=67696