Anti-Neocons

I read it in under a week. It was a damn good book. Very long too. The print on the pages are very small. He dug up some largely unheard of Jewish and Roman and Greek sources to prove the massive exhiles in 70 AD and the Bar Kobha revolt in 132-5 AD of Jews never happened. He even had as a footnote a book by a Jew named Levine called Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence. It was one of the many books indicating how there were conversion of Greeks to Judaism and of Jews to the Greek religion. He also talks about how the cultures and religions of each respective party adopted many aspects of the other into their life and belief systems. Levine's book is most assuredly one of the many books that Jews themselves don't want to admit exists or talk about. I recommend that one too.

Speaking of great books in Sand's footnotes that one should pick up, Sand also referenced a lot of work by Paul Wexler, a Jew who even over forty years ago was making arguments that could have been used to shoot down the myths of a Jewish race. It seems Wexler wrote a book with a title THE NON JEWISH ORIGINS OF THE SEPHARDIM or something like that. He also had another book which shows that Yiddish doesn't have as much German influence as we would like to think and probably has a lot more Slavic background than previously thought. He also touches on what Kevin Alan Brook figured out on his khazaria.lcom website. That Yiddish does have a lot of Turkish words, which is something hardcore Zionists would prefer to forget. Why? Simple. Because it was largely a Turko-Mongolion stock that was in Khazaria at the time of the mass conversion in the 800's (Kevin A Brook and Shlomo Sand agree that Koestler's 740 conversion date was premature). Those people were anything but German as I understand it. They formed the bulk of Eastern European Jews while a large part of the Western European Jews were around Germany. And they of course are almost solely credited with Yiddish. Which as just stated can't really be the case. This was in a completely different Wexler book though.

Edit:
Although to be fair, there is more than one Yiddish. I think Wexler actually said eastern yiddish should be a slavic language in terms of how to classify it.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Saturday, January 23, 2010
In Defense of the Truth and the Right to Speak It: O'Connell Is Innocent: Jews Are Racists. Part 1
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com




The racist Australian government is harassing an innocent man, Brendon O'Connell, merely because he allegedly stated that Jews are racists. Jews are, in fact, racists and it is not a crime to iterate this eternal truth.

I will soon be releasing a new book which I am presently writing, The Protocols of the Old Testament. I will publish some of the text from that work here on my blog as proof that the alleged statements of Brendon O'Connell are demonstrably true and that it is in the public interest for these facts to be widely and openly discussed, disseminated and known.

The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, is saturated with racism and expresses the genocidal Jewish plan to exterminate all non-Jews.

In the Old Testament, the racist and genocidal Jews call themselves the "holy seed" (Ezra 9:2. Isaiah 6:13; 44:2-3; 59:20-21.) and the "elect" of their god (Isaiah 42:1; 45:4) who will survive the apocalypse, after which the Jews will have exterminated all non-Jews (In the Old Testament, see: Deuteronomy 32:43; 33:29. Psalms 2:1-2, 8-9;18:40-50; 72:1-20; 75:3, 10; 79:6-7; 82:6-8; 83:9-10; 110:6; 137:8-9 Isaiah 11:4; 17:12-13; 33:12; 34:2; 41:11-12; 42:1; 49:26; 60:16; 65; 66. Jeremiah 2:3; 10:10-11, 25; 30:11; 33:15-16; 46:28. Ezekiel 25:14. Amos 9:8-10. Obadiah 1:18. Micah 4:12-13; 5:8. Zephaniah 3:8. Zechariah 2:8-9; 12:2. In the Babylonian Talmud it states that non-Jews and proselytes will have no place in the future world, see: Tractate Abodah Zarah, folio 3b. Tractate Yebamoth, folio 24b. Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 105a). The hateful Jews plan on sending all non-Jews to Hell forever (Psalms 9:17. Ezekiel 32:17-32).

The Old Testament, which claims that Jews and their seed are divine, calls Gentiles unclean animals, subhuman and filthy beasts, whom the Jews must exterminate.

Leviticus 20:25-26:


"Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine."


Leviticus 22:25:


"Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you."

Ezra 9:2-3:


"Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied."

Ezra 10:11:


"Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives."

Nehemiah 9:2:


"And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers."

Nehemiah 13:3:


"Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude."

Isaiah 6:13:


"But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof."

Isaiah 42:1:


"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles."

Isaiah 44:2-3:


"Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:"

Isaiah 45:3-4:


"And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me."

Isaiah 59:20-21:


"And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Isaiah 65:9:


"And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there."

Isaiah 65:17:


"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

Isaiah 65:22:


"They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands."

Isaiah 66:22:


"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain."

Ezekiel 16:26:


"Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger."

Ezekiel 23:20:


"Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."

Ezekiel 34:31:


"And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord GOD."

Ezekiel 36:36-38:


"Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it. Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock. As the holy flock, as the flock of Jerusalem in her solemn feasts; so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of men: and they shall know that I am the LORD."

The Jewish, as opposed to Christian and Muslim, interpretations of these Old Testament passages are found in the Talmud and Cabalah. The Talmud states:


"'If he sells to a heathen' -- because a heathen is certainly not subject to [the exhortation], 'And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord.' "--I. Epstein, Editor, H. Freedman, Translator and Annotator, The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Baba Mezia, folio 108b, The Soncino Press, London, (1935), pp. 619-622, at 619.


"For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men;6 only ye are designated 'men'.7 "--I. Epstein, Editor, H. Freedman, Translator and Annotator, The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Baba Mezia, folio 114b, The Soncino Press, London, (1935), pp. 651-653, at 651.


"Raba stated: With reference to the Rabbinical statement that [legally] an Egyptian has no father,10 it must not be imagined that this is due to [the Egyptians'] excessive indulgence in carnal gratification, owing to which it is not known [who the father was], but that if this were known1 it is to be taken into consideration;2 but [the fact is] that even if this is known it is not taken into consideration. For, surely, in respect of twin brothers, who originated in one drop that divided itself into two, it was nevertheless stated in the final clause,3 that they 'neither participate in halizah nor perform levirate marriage'.4 Thus it may be inferred that the All Merciful declared their children to be legally fatherless,5 for [so indeed it is also] written, Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.6"--I. Epstein, Editor, I. W. Slotki, Translator and Annotator, The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim, Tractate Yebamoth, Volume 2, folio 98a, The Soncino Press, London, (1936), pp. 670-673, at 670-671.


"It was taught: And so did R. Simeon b. Yohai state [61a] that the graves of idolaters do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel,15 for it is said, And ye My sheep the sheep of My pasture, are men;1 you are called men2 but the idolaters are not called men.2"--I. Epstein, Editor, I. W. Slotki, Translator and Annotator, The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim, Tractate Yebamoth, Volume 1, folios 60b-61a, The Soncino Press, London, (1936), pp. 401-408, at 40-405.


"AND WHATEVER [WOMAN] WHO CANNOT CONTRACT KIDDUSHIN etc. How do we know [it of] a Canaanitish bondmaid?13 -- Said R. Huna, Scripture saith, Abide ye here with ['im] the ass14 -- it is a people ['am] like unto an ass.15 We have thus found that kiddushin with her is invalid: [68b] how do we know that the issue takes her status? -- Because Scripture saith, the wife and her children shall be her master's.1 How do we know [it of a freeborn] Gentile woman? -- Scripture saith, neither shalt thou make marriages with them.2 How do we know that her issue bears her status? -- R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai, Because Scripture saith, For he will turn away thy son from following me:3 thy son by4 an Israelite woman is called thy son, but thy son by a heathen is not called thy son.5"--I. Epstein, Editor, H. Freedman Translator and Annotator, The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Dashim, Tractate Kiddushin, folio 68a, The Soncino Press, London, (1936), pp. 342-345, at 344-345.


"OR USES OF ANOINTING. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over heathens or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man [adam] shall it not be poured;6 and cattle and vessels are not man. Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called a corpse and not man. But why is one exempt in the case of heathens; are they not in the category of adam? -- No, it is written: And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are adam [man]:7 Ye are called adam but heathens are not called adam."--I. Epstein, Editor, I. Porusch, Translator and Annotator, The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Kodashim, Tractate Keritoth, folio 6b, The Soncino Press, London, (1948), pp. 43-47, at 45.


"R. Hamnuna further said: If one sees a crowd of Israelites, he should say: Blessed is He who discerneth secrets.5 If he sees a crowd of heathens, he should say: Your mother shall be ashamed, etc.6 [***] Our Rabbis taught: On seeing the Sages of Israel one should say: Blessed be He who hath imparted of His wisdom to them that fear Him. On seeing the Sages of other nations, one says, Blessed be He who hath imparted of His wisdom to His creatures. On seeing kings of Israel, one says: Blessed be He who hath imparted of His glory to them that fear Him. On seeing non-Jewish kings, one says: Blessed be He who hath imparted of His glory to His creatures. R. Johanan said: A man should always exert himself and run to meet an Israelitish king; and not only a king of Israel but also a king of any other nation, so that if he is deemed worthy,1 he will be able to distinguish between the kings of Israel and the kings of other nations. [***] R. Shila administered lashes to a man who had intercourse with an Egyptian5 [footnote 5 in the Soncino Edition states: "Var. lec. Gentile." Varia lectio is Latin for: "a variant reading", indicating that Jews do not only consider Egyptians, but all non-Jews to be subhuman animals.--CJB] woman. The man went and informed against him to the Government, saying: There is a man among the Jews who passes judgment without the permission of the Government. An official was sent to [summon] him. When he came he was asked: Why did you flog that man? He replied: Because he had intercourse with a she-ass. They said to him: Have you witnesses? He replied: I have. Elijah thereupon came in the form of a man and gave evidence. They said to him: If that is the case he ought to be put to death! He replied: Since we have been exiled from our land, we have no authority to put to death; do you do with him what you please. While they were considering his case, R. Shila exclaimed, Thine, Oh Lord, is the greatness and the power.1 What are you saying? they asked him. He replied: What I am saying is this: Blessed is the All-Merciful who has made the earthly royalty on the model of the heavenly, and has invested you with dominion, and made you lovers of justice. They said to him: Are you so solicitous for the honour of the Government? They handed him a staff2 and said to him: You may act as judge. When he went out that man said to him: Does the All-Merciful perform miracles for liars? He replied: Wretch! Are they not called asses? For it is written: Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses.3 He noticed that the man was about to inform them that he had called them asses. He said: This man is a persecutor, and the Torah has said: If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.4 So he struck him with the staff and killed him. [***] Our Rabbis taught: On seeing the houses of Israel, when inhabited one says: Blessed be He who sets the boundary of the widow;4 when uninhabited, Blessed be the judge of truth. On seeing the houses of heathens, when inhabited, one says: The Lord will pluck up the house of the proud;5 when uninhabited he says: O Lord, thou God, to whom vengeance belongeth, thou God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shine forth.3 [***] Our Rabbis taught: On seeing Israelitish graves, one should say: Blessed is He who fashioned you in judgments who fed you in judgment and maintained you in judgment, and in judgment gathered you in, and who will one day raise you up again in judgment. Mar, the son of Rabina, concluded thus in the name of R. Nahman: And who knows the number of all of you; and He will one day revive you and establish you. Blessed is He who revives the dead.4 On seeing the graves of heathens one says: Your mother shall be sore ashamed, etc. [***] R. Joshua b. Levi said: On seeing pock-marked persons one says: Blessed be He who makes strange creatures. An objection was raised: If one sees a negro, a very red or very white person, a hunchback, a dwarf or a dropsical person, he says: Blessed be He who makes strange creatures. "--I. Epstein, Editor, M. Simon, Translator and Annotator, The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zeraim, Tractate Berakoth, folios 58a-b, The Soncino Press, London, (1948), pp. 359-366.


Jakob Ecker's Der ,Judenspiegel' im Lichte der Wahrheit: Eine wissenschaftliche Untersuchung, Bonifacius-Druckerei, Paderborn, (1884), p. 120; states that the Jewish Tosapoth (additions to the Talmud) declare that the seed of Gentiles is to be regarded as cattle seed, and that copulating with Gentiles is like having sexual relations with beasts:


"Tosaphoth zu Talmud Kethuboth 3, b:

,,Sein (des AKUM) Same wird angesehen wie Viehsame.''

Tosaphoth zu Talmud Sanhedrin 74, b:

,,Concubitus AKUM ist wie concubitus bestiae.''"


See Ecker's book at pages 18-24 for proof that the term "Akum" refers to non-Jews.


The next major Jewish commentary on the Old Testament after the Talmud is the Cabalah, specifically, the Zohar, which states, inter alia:


"AND SARAH SAW THE SON OF HAGAR THE EGYPTIAN, WHOM SHE HAD BORN UNTO ABRAHAM, MAKING SPORT. R. Hiya said: 'After recording the birth of Isaac, the Scripture never mentions Ishmael by name so long as he was still in the house of Abraham: dross cannot be mentioned in the presence of gold. Hence Ishmael is referred to here as the son of Hagar the Egyptian, as it was not fitting that his name should be mentioned in the presences of Isaac.' Said R. Isaac: 'The words and Sarah saw imply that she looked at him disdainfully, as being the son not of Abraham but of Hagar the Egyptian, and, furthermore, only Sarah regarded him so, but not Abraham, as we read that THE THING WAS VERY GRIEVOUS IN ABRAHAM'S SIGHT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SON-not the son of Hagar, but his son.' R. Simeon said: 'The Scripture really speaks in praise of Sarah. For what she saw was that he was indulging in idolatrous practices. Hence she said: Surely, this not the son of Abraham, who follows in the footsteps of Abraham, but the son of Hagar the Egyptian, who is reverting to the type of his mother. Hence: AND SHE SAID UNTO ABRAHAM: CAST OUT THIS BONDWOMAN AND HER SON; FOR THE SON OF THIS BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH MY SON, EVEN WITH ISAAC.' The truth, therefore, is that she observed him worshipping idols, and performing the practices which his mother had taught him. Hence the words of Sarah, For the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir, as much as to say: I know that he will never enter the fold of the true faith and that he will have no portion with my son either in this world or in the world to come. Therefore God supported her, since He wished to keep the holy seed carefully separated, for that was the end for which He created the world, as Israel was already in His thought before the creation of the world. It was therefore that Abraham appeared in the world, so that the world could be sustained for his sake. Abraham and Isaac together upheld the world, yet they were not firmly established until Jacob came into the world. When Jacob appeared, both Abraham and Isaac became firmly established and the whole world with them. From Jacob the holy people gradually emerged into the world, and so the whole of existence became duly established according to the holy pattern. Hence God said, In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee, i.e. in Isaac and not in Ishmael. [colored emphasis added--CJB]"--The Zohar, Volume 1, Vayera, I, folio 118b, Soncino, London, (1933), pp. 367-368.


Additional proof that the Jews view non-Jews as if subhuman was gathered by Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, who wrote in his The Traditions of the Jews, Contained in the Talmud and other Mystical Writings, Volume 1, J. Robinson, London, (1748), pp. 254-255:


"In the Great Jalkut Rubeni, in the Parasha Bereshith, [Footnote: Fol. 10. Col. 1.] we have the following Passage, 'The Skin and the Flesh is the Coat of a Man. The Spirit within is the Man. But the Idolaters (meaning all the Nations but the Jewish) are not call'd Men, because their Souls have their Origin from the Unclean Spirit. But the Souls of the Israelites are derived from the Holy Spirit.' And a little farther on in the same Treatise, it is said, [Footnote: Fol. 10. Col. 2.] 'An Israelite is called a Man, because his Soul cometh from the Supreme Man. But an Idolater, whose Soul cometh from the Unclean Spirit, is call'd a Swine. If so, then is an Idolater the Body and Soul of a Swine.' In another Part of the said Treatise, entitled Shaar olam hattobu [Footnote: Fol. 23. Col. 4.], there is a Passage running thus: 'The Wicked are stiled the Dead in their Life-Time, because they have not a Holy Soul from the Foundation, which is called Him that liveth for ever. But they have the Soul from Kelifa (i. e. the Shell) by which is meant the Devil) who is call'd Death, and the Shadow of Death: And through the Sparklings of the same they live.'"

Likewise, I. B. Pranaitis wrote in his book The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians, Eugene Nelson Sanctuary, New York, (1939), pp. 49-51:


"7. NOT LIKE MEN, BUT BEASTS

In Kerithuth (6b p. 78) it says:


'The teaching of the Rabbis is: He who pours oil over a Goi, and over dead bodies is freed from punishment. This is true for an animal because it is not a man.48 But how can it be said that by pouring oil over a Goi one is freed from punishment, since a Goi is also a man? But this is not true, for it is written: Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezechiel, XXXIV, 31). You are thus called men, but the Goim are not called men.'

In the Tract Makkoth (7b) he is said to be guilty of killing 'except when, if intending to kill an animal he kills a man by mistake, or intending to kill a Goi, he kills an Israelite.'

In Orach Chaiim (225, 10) it says:


'He who sees beautiful creatures, even though it be an Akum or an animal, let him say 'Blessed art thou Our Lord God, King of the Universe, who has placed such things on the earth!''

8. THEY DIFFER ONLY IN FORM FROM BEASTS

In Midrasch Talpioth (fol. 225d) it says:


'God created them in the form of men for the glory of Israel. But Akum were created for the sole end of ministering unto them [the Jews] day and night. Nor can they ever be relieved from this service. It is becoming to the son of a king [an Israelite] that animals in their natural form, and animals in the form of human beings should minister unto him.'

We can quote here also what is said in Orach Chaiim, 57, 6a:


'If pigs are to be pitied when they suffer from disease, because their intestines are similar to ours, how much more should the Akum be pitied when thus affected.'49

9. ANIMALS

In Zohar, II, (64b) it says:


'...People who worship idols, and who are called cow and ass, as it is written: I have a cow and an ass...'

Rabbi Bechai, in his book Kad Hakkemach, ch. I, beginning with the word Geulah -- redemption -- referring to Psalm 80, v.13:

The boar out of the wood doth waste it, says:


'The letter ain is dropped [suspended] the same as these worshippers are followers of him who was suspended.'

Buxtorf (Lex.) says:


'By wild pig the author here means the Christians who eat pork and, like pigs, have destroyed the vineyard of Israel, the City of Jerusalem, and who believe in the 'suspended' Christ. Else the letter ain is dropped in this word because they, as worshippers of Christ who was hanged, are also dropped.'

Rabbi Edels, in commenting on Kethuboth (110b) says:


'The Psalmist compares the Akum to the unclean beast in the woods.'

10. WORSE THAN ANIMALS

Rabbi Schelomo Iarchi (Raschi), famous Jewish commentator, explaining the law of Moses (Deuter. XIV, 21) forbidding the eating of meat of wounded animals, but which must be given to the 'stranger in thy gates,' or which, according to Exodus (XXII, 30) is to be thrown to the dogs, has this to say:


'. . . for he is like a dog. Are we to take to word 'dog' here literally? By no means. For the text in speaking of dead bodies says, Or thou mayest sell it to an alien. This applies much more to the meat of wounded animals, for which it is permitted to accept payment. Why therefore does the Scripture say it may be thrown to 'dogs?' In order to teach you that a dog is to be more respected than the Nokhri.'

11. THEY PROPAGATE LIKE BEASTS

In the Sanhedrin (74b) Tosephoth, it says:


'The sexual intercourse of a Goi is like that of a beast.'

And in Kethuboth (3b) it says:


'The seed of a Goi is worth the same as that of a beast.'

Hence it is to be inferred that Christian marriage is not true marriage.

In Kidduschim (68a), it says:


'. . . How do we know this? Rabbi Huna says: You can read: Remain here with the ass, that is, with a people like an ass. Hence it appears that they are not capable of contracting marriage.'

And in Eben Haezer (44, :


'If a Jew enters into marriage with an Akum (Christian), or with his servant, the marriage is null. For they are not capable of entering into matrimony. Likewise if an Akum or a servant enter into matrimony with a Jew, the marriage is null.'

In Zohar (II, 64b) it says:


'Rabbi Abba says: If only idolaters alone had sexual intercourse, the world would not continue to exist. Hence we are taught that a Jew should not give way to those infamous robbers. For if these propagate in greater numbers, it will be impossible for us to continue to exist because of them. For they give birth to sucklings the same as dogs.'"


We find the racist Jews Isaac Luria, Nachman of Bratslav and Shneur Zalman degrading Gentiles as if sub-human. Shneur Zalman believed that:

"Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Consequently, references to gentiles in Rabbi Shneur Zalman's teachings are invariably invidious. . . . Their material abundance derives from supernal refuse. Indeed, they themselves derive from refuse, which is why they are more numerous than the Jews, as the pieces of chaff outnumber the kernels. . . . All Jews were innately good, all gentiles innately evil. Jews were the pinnacle of creation and served the Creator, gentiles its nadir and worshiped the heavenly hosts."-- From: A. Nadler, "Last Exit to Brooklyn: The Lubavitcher's Powerful and Preposterous Messianism", The New Republic, (4 May 1992), pp. 27-35, at 33. Nadler appears to quote from: R. A. Foxbrunner, Habad: The Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, (1992).

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook wrote in the Twentieth Century that:


"the difference between the Israelite soul. . . and the souls of all non-Jews, no matter what their level, is bigger and deeper than the difference between the human soul and the animal soul."--Y. Sheleg, "A dark reminder of the Dark Ages", Haaretz.com, (28 June 2005).

In an alternative translation:


"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews--all of them in all different levels--is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."--A. C. Brownfeld's review of I. Shahak and N. Mezvinsky's book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Pluto Press, London, (1999); in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Volume 19, Number 2, (March, 2000), pp. 105-106, at 105.

The Jewish Encyclopedia wrote in its article "Gentile":


"According to Hananiah b. Akabia the word (Ex. xxi. 14) may perhaps exclude the Gentile; but the shedding of the blood of non-Israelites, while not cognizable by human courts, will be punished by the heavenly tribunal (Mek., Mishpatim, 80b). [***] Another reason for discrimination [against Gentiles] was the vile and vicious character of the Gentiles: 'I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation' ( = 'vile,' 'contemptible'; Deut. xxxii. 21). The Talmud says that the passage refers to the Gentiles of Barbary and Mauretania, who walked nude in the streets (Yeb. 63b), and to similar Gentiles, 'whose flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses' (Ezek. xxiii. 20); who can not claim a father (Yeb. 98a). The Gentiles were so strongly suspected of unnatural crimes that it was necessary to prohibit the stabling of a cow in their stalls ('Ab. Zarah ii. 1). Assaults on women were most frequent, especially at invasions and after sieges (Ket. 3b), the Rabbis declaring that in case of rape by a Gentile the issue should not be allowed to affect a Jewish woman's relation to her husband. 'The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast' (Mik. viii. 4, referring to Ezek. l. c.)."--"Gentile", The Jewish Encyclopedia, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York, (1903), pp. 615-626, at 618 and 621.

Albert Einstein's Jewish friend Georg Friedrich Nicolai (Lewinstein) stated in 1917:


"Apart from this strange story of Cain, however, murder is forbidden in the Bible, and very sternly forbidden. But--it is only the murder of Jews. As is natural, considering the period from which it dates, the Bible is absolutely national, in character. Only the Jew is really considered as a human being; cattle and strangers might be slain without the slayer himself being slain. In this case there was a ransom. Accordingly, war was of course allowed also, and the Jews were no more illogical than the Moslem who kills the outlander. Of late years the Jews and the Old Testament have often been reproached for their contempt for those who were not Jews; and in practice even Christ acted in precisely the same way."--G. Nicolai, Die Biologie des Krieges, Betrachtungen eines deutschen Naturforschers, O. Füssli, Zürich, (1917); English translation: The Biology of War, Century Co., New York, (1918), p. 531.

In an article "Begin and the 'Beasts'", New Statesman, Volume 103, Number 2674, (25 June 1982), page 12, Amnon Kapeliuk wrote of Menachem Begin, the Prime Minister of Israel:


"The war in Lebanon cannot be interpreted, even by its most devoted proponents in Israel, as a war of survival. For this reason, the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as 'beasts walking on two legs'. Palestinians have often been called 'bugs' while their refugee camps in Lebanon are referred to as 'tourist camps'. In order to rationalise the bombing of civilian populations, Begin emotively declared: 'If Hitler was sitting in a house with 20 other people, would it be correct to blow up the house?'"--See also: J. Kuttab, "West Bank Arabs Foresee Expulsion", The New York Times, (1 August 1983), p. A15.

This is merely part one, detailing and documenting the racist and genocidal Jewish belief that non-Jews are not human and must be exterminated. I intend to add several more parts covering Jewish beliefs, including the racist and genocidal Jewish beliefs that non-Jews are descended from the Devil, and that non-Jews are the slaves of the Jews.

O'Connell is innocent. If we do not defend his fundamental human right to speak the truth, we are also guilty of his persecution through the cowardly complicity of our silence.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Thursday, January 28, 2010
On the Racist Australian Government's Attempts to Define the "Jews" as If a "Race" or "Ethnicity"
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

On 25 July 1963, on page 8, the Times of London quoted Israeli Supreme Court Justice Haim Cohn's statement that,


"It is one of the bitterest ironies of fate that the same biological or racist approach which was propagated by the Nazis and characterized the infamous Nuremberg laws should, because of an allegedly sacrosanct Jewish tradition, become the basis for the official determination or rejection of Jewishness in the state of Israel." [See also: J. Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel, Twayne Publishers, New York, (1961), p. 156.]

The racist Australian Government is claiming that "Jews" are a "race" under a statutory definition which incorporates "ethnicities" as if "races". Inevitably, Brendon O'Connell will be asked to explain why he believes that "Jews" are a religious community and not a "race" or "ethnicity" when there are so-called "secular Jews".

Brendon O'Connell is an "O'Connell" by virtue of his birth, but that does not mean that the O'Connells are so homogenous and unique as to constitute a "race" or an "ethnicity". The Australian O'Connells may call themselves "Irish", but they cannot vote in Ireland and probably bear the characteristics of Australians, not the Irish. If we were to trace back O'Connell's ancestors, we would discover that many were not called "O'Connell" and if we were to go back far enough in time we would discover that beyond a certain point in the past none were called "O'Connell". The first "O'Connell" did not change either genetically or ethnically when he or she adopted the name "O'Connell". The O'Connell women who married and took on different names did not change genetically or ethnically when they converted from "O'Connells" to some other name.

"Secular Jews" do not share the prominent ethnicity of any given sect of ultra-orthodox Jews. The only reason they call themselves "Jews" is that if we trace their ancestry back far enough we will discover that their ancestors were members of the Jewish faith. If we go back far enough, we will discover that the ancestors of their "Jewish" ancestors were not "Jews". The first "Jew" in their line did not change genetically or ethnically from his or her brother, or sister, or cousin who did not adopt Judaism.

The so-called "secular Jew" is merely continuing the mythologically-based religious racial prejudice of his religious ancestors and is therefore religiously Jewish, not genetically nor ethnically Jewish; or is merely acknowledging, without intending any prejudice, that some of his ancestors believed in Judaism. That makes the "secular Jew" a religious racist, or a non-Jew with Jewish ancestors, not a member of an unique and homogenous Jewish "race" nor an unique or homogenous Jewish "ethnicity". The nomenclature of "secular Jew" is therefore misleading to some. If O'Connell has a daughter and she marries an O'Toole, her descendants named O'Toole may claim to be O'Connells even though they are not. They may carry on some of the same blood as persons who called themselves O'Connells, but that does not render them a distinct race nor ethnicity.

The American Ashkenazi "secular Jew" is of a different ethnicity and race than the Yemeni Mizrahi "secular Jew" and the only common link between them is that both had ancestors who were religiously Jewish. That religious link does not bind them ethnically nor does it unite them genetically, but it has produced their racist religious prejudice that they are "Jews".

There were many persons in Germany under the NSDAP whose ancestors believed in Judaism and who were surprised and shocked to discover that the German Government had classed them as if a member of the "Jewish race". These persons had assimilated and had not adopted the racist mythology that they were a member of an unique and homogenous "race" or "ethnicity" of "Jews".

The racist Australian Government mirrors the racism of the NSDAP by artificially and with malicious and illegal intent creating a class of person it claims are members of the "Jewish race" and/or "Jewish ethnicity". The NSDAP had made the same artificial distinctions with regard to "Jews" and "Germans" and used this mythology as a basis to invade Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, etc. and discriminate against "non-Germans" even in foreign lands. The Jews of Israel use these same artificial and mythological claims to illegally discriminate against all non-Jews.

The negative impact of the racism of the Australian Government is already being felt both in its harassment of its own citizens who are defending the nation from foreign aggression, with illegal prosecutions of those citizens, and in the illegal privileges the Government is granting sworn enemies of the State.

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 5:00 PM

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Racist Australian Government's Selective and Arbitrary Definition of "Jew" in the Brendon O'Connell Case to Match the Statute Without Prior Notice
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

Even if the courts in Australia arbitrarily and in plain error rule that the term "Jew" can be applied to a "race" and/or an "ethnicity"; the courts must also rule that the term "Jew" can be applied to a religious community, a group of persons which anyone can enter by way of conversion to the faith without changing one's genetics or ethnic status. This places the burden of establishing the defendant's mental state on the prosecution, and one of the elements of the alleged "offense" must be that the government prove that the defendant believed and meant to say that "Jews" are a race or ethnicity, as opposed to a religious group.

It is important that the court not only determine whether or not "Jews" can be categorized as a race or an ethnicity, but more importantly whether or not the term "Jews" can accurately be applied to a religious group. This applies not only to the trial, but also to the indictment itself, which, to be sufficient to claim an offense, must allege that the defendant meant to state that "Jews" are a race or ethnicity, an allegation which must first be made in the indictment, then proven at trial, which it cannot be.

If the indictment fails to allege that the defendant believed the "Jews" to be a race or ethnicity, and that the defendant used the term "Jew" to intentionally categorize and vilify a race or ethnicity, then the indictment does not allege an offense and must be dismissed. Should the court ever hold hearings to determine whether or not "Jews" can be accurately categorized as if a race or ethnicity, without concurrently holding hearings to determine whether or not "Jews" can be accurately categorized as a religious group, then the court will have violated the defendant's due process rights to argue his defense and to not be prosecuted under an indictment which fails to allege that a crime has been committed.

If the government is allowed to prosecute the defendant without alleging an offense and all of its elements, if the government is allowed to indict the defendant without alleging that the defendant believed that the "Jews" are a race or ethnicity, then the government will not have to prove what was not alleged, and an innocent man will face the loss of his liberty for a charge that fails to allege that a crime has been committed.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Saturday, January 30, 2010
Proof that the Australian Government Is Mirroring Nazi Racism, Which in Turn Has Its Roots in Judaism
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

Proof that the Australian Government is mirroring Nazi racism, and that the Jews are racists as a religious group, comes from the Nuremberg trials, where Julius Streicher affirmed that the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were patterned after racist religious Jewish Law which is the basis of Nazism,


"Yes, I believe I had a part in it insofar as for years I have written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood must be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should serve as an example to every race, for they created a racial law for themselves—the law of Moses, which says, 'If you come into a foreign land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.' And that, Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws. These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When, after centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra discovered that notwithstanding many Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and civilizations have perished."--Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 — 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 315.

Dr. Marx asked Julius Streicher,


"Were you of the opinion that the 1935 legislation represented the final solution of the Jewish question by the State?"--Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 — 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 316.

Streicher responded that Zionism was the final solution of the Jewish question,


"With reservations, yes. I was convinced that if the Party program was carried out, the Jewish question would be solved. The Jews became German citizens in 1848. Their rights as citizens were taken from them by these laws. Sexual intercourse was prohibited. For me, this represented the solution of the Jewish problem in Germany. But I believed that another international solution would still be found, and that some day discussions would take place between the various states with regard to the demands made by Zionism. These demands aimed at a Jewish state."--Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 — 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 316.

The full text is available on many reputable websites, including:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-26-46.asp

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 11:05 AM

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Saturday, January 30, 2010
The Absurdity of the Charges Against Brendon O'Connell
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

I can easily demonstrate the absurdity and illegality of the charges against Brendon O'Connell with a simple analogy.

Assume that a person X is charged with plotting to commit "battery" against another person Y, because X was recorded saying to a third person Z,


"Let's give Y a battery for the flashlight he took from me."

Assume that the government then charged X with conspiring to beat Y, in retaliation for the fact that Y took X's flashlight, and the prosecution then asked the court to determine that the definition of "battery" is the statutory definition,


"To beat violently and with intent to cause pain and harm."

Imagine then that the prosecuting officials rejected the fact that "battery" can also mean,


"An electrical device to store charge."

And that the government charged X even though the plain meaning of X's statement depends upon the definition that "battery" mean "an electrical device to store charge" and X always maintained that is what he meant by the word "battery".

Can you imagine what would happen to X if the court ruled that "battery" cannot be a term used to describe an electrical device for storing charge, and barred X from employing that definition at trial, limiting all parties and the jury to defining "battery" as if exclusively, "to beat violently and with intent to cause pain and harm"? Such would be plain error, and a gross abuse of X's due process rights to raise a legitimate defense and argue his case.

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 11:06 AM

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The Brendon O'Connell Case: Sentenced to Death for Chewing Gum?
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

In order for an indictment to be a legal accusation based upon probable cause and made in good faith, it must at a minimum allege that an offense has occurred, specify the alleged offense with sufficient clarity to enable the defendant to prepare and assert a defense, and establish each and every element of the alleged offense. Consider the following quotation of jury instructions which names the four elements of first degree murder:


"Murder in the first degree is the wilful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing of a human being. Malice, wilfulness, premeditation and deliberation, these four things, must co-exist before a defendant can be convicted of murder in the first degree. And the burden is upon the State of Alabama in this case to convince you gentlemen of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that these four elements did co-exist before the defendant can be convicted of murder in the first degree, the highest degree of unlawful homicide."--Ala. Code, tit. 14, §§ 314-20 (1958 recomp.) (repealed): http://www.law.ua.edu/colquitt/crimmain ... urymur.htm

An indictment alleging murder in the first degree must, at a minimum, allege that a human being has been killed, that the accused caused the death, and that the accused did so with malice, wilfulness, premeditation and deliberation. An allegation which fails to allege each and every one of these elements, fails to allege the crime of murder in the first degree.

Not only must the government allege each and every element of the offense being alleged, the government must also prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury in order for the jury to find the defendant guilty of the accusation. However, where no elements are alleged, the jury will not be asked to determine if the elements which were not alleged in fact occurred. Therein lies the danger of an insubstantial accusation. A person can be convicted and sentenced based upon conduct that is entirely legal.

Assume that the government issued an indictment which stated,


"Person X commited murder in the first degree in violation of Statute 10001 of the Looneyland Criminal Code; in that he chewed bubble gum."

The government could issue such an indictment despite the fact that it is obviously fatally defective on its face due to its failure to allege that a crime has been committed. Nevertheless, if defendant X failed to object to the indictment and demand that it be dismissed on the grounds that it failed to allege an offense and all of the elements of the offense, the defendant could be tried, and the government would need only prove what it had alleged, that the defendant chewed bubble gum, in order for the defendant to be found guilty and sentenced to death. An innocent man who fails to defend himself from an illegal charge that fails to state that a crime has been committed can conceivably be executed if the government simply proves what it has alleged.

There are, of course, remedies and rights to prevent such an occurrence. The defendant has the right to have the indictment dismissed before trial. The defendant has the right to demand specific jury instructions which require the jury to find as fact that all of the elements of the offense in fact occurred. The defendant has the right to claim innocence at trial that despite the fact that the allegation is factually correct, it fails to allege that a crime has occurred. After the trial, if convicted, the defendant has the right to move to quash the conviction on the basis that no crime was proven. Then, the defendant has the right to appeal.

However, how many Pro Se defendants know these rights and requirements under the law and know how to exercise them? Very, very, few, I suspect. So it is possible that a man could be sentenced to death for chewing bubble gum.

An indictment for "racial vilification" must allege all of the elements of the alleged offense and in so doing: specify the exact language of the alleged "vilification" and explain how it constitutes "vilification" and how it constitutes the "vilification" of a "racial" trait; allege that the accused believed the "vilification" to be false statements; allege that the defendant did not intend to forward the public interest by making the alleged "vilification"; allege that the defendant believed the group allegedly "vilified" is a "race" as defined by the statute; demonstrate that the group allegedly "vilified" is a racial group under the letter of the law; allege that the law provided the defendant with notice that the "vilified" group is a "race"; allege that the defendant intended to "vilify" what the defendant believed to be a "race"; allege that the defendant had no legal right to make the statements he is accused of having made; allege that the alleged "vilification" in fact plainly vilified the "race", was heard in public and was meant to be heard in public; allege that the "vilification" was unambiguous and could only be interpreted by a reasonable man as the "vilification" of a "race"; etc. etc. etc.

Of course, no such lawful indictment could be had alleging that a person, believing his statements to be true and in the public interest, made a valid and accurate critique of religious beliefs; because such conduct violates no laws, is not an offense and does not constitute a crime. Any such fatally flawed indictment must be dismissed at the earliest possible date so as to end the illegal harassment of the wrongfully accused; and, where the court refuses to dismiss such a fatally defective indictment, and society suffers the suppression of public debate on a matter of public interest as a result, the denial of the motion to dismiss ought to be appealable directly and immediately to the highest court as a matter of substantial, pressing and urgent public interest.

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 1:41 PM

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Three blog entries in one day folks.




Monday, February 15, 2010
On the Free Exercise of a Defendant's Rights Without Any Fear of Retaliation By the State

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

In America, a defendant charged with a crime is free to exercise his rights without any fear that the State will retaliate against him by filing additional and/or more serious charges against him. Should the defendant exercise a right, such as filing a motion to dismiss, and the State then subsequently files additional and/or more serious charges against the defendant, then the State will be guilty of illegal "vindictive prosecution" and all the charges must be dismissed due to the violation of the defendant's due process right to exercise all of his rights without fear of retaliation by the State.

This is a fundamental principle of law, for when the exercise of one's rights carries with it the threat of retaliation, then there are no rights, only invitations to disaster.

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 8:44 AM




On the Jurisdiction of the Trial Court Over Evidence to Be Used at Trial

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

In America, the trial court has the jurisdiction to order subpoenas and other orders necessary to the defense so that the defendant can acquire and/or secure the integrity and preservation of evidence he intends to use in his defense at trial. Any denial of its jurisdiction over such matters by the court so as to deny the defendant his rights to obtain and/or secure evidence in his favor is a violation of the defendant's due process rights which prevents him from obtaining a fair trial and which obstructs justice and which contributes to the obstruction of justice, such that it is grounds for the dismissal of the indictment against the defendant.

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 8:43 AM




The Brendon O'Connell Case: Untangling the Web

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

The Brendon O'Connell case involves two separate issues, one of which must be determined by the Judge, and one of which comes solely under the discretion of the Jury.

Pursuant to a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it fails to allege an offense, the Judge must determine whether or not the LAW states that the Jews are a race, and only a race, with sufficient clarity to inform the public, and provide the public with legal notice, that the LAW considers the Jews to be race and only a race.

The question of whether or not the Jews are IN FACT a race, and can only be considered a race, and cannot be considered a religious group, and whether or not Brendon O'Connell intended the term "Jews" to mean a race, or instead a religious group, are questions of FACT which must be, and which can only be determined by the Jury.

There is an all important distinction between determining whether or not the LAW states that Jews are a race, and only a race, for the purposes of the determining the sufficiency of the indictment pursuant to a pretrial motion to dismiss; and the entirely separate question of determining whether or not the Jews are IN FACT a race and/or can be considered a religious group for the purposes of determining O'Connell's guilt or innocence at trial.

The court has the authority to determine if the charges are legally sufficient to proceed, which will involve the question of whether or not the LAW states that Jews are a race. However, the questions of whether or not the Jews can be considered a race, and whether or not the Jews can be considered a religious group, are also questions of FACT for the Jury to decide when considering guilt or innocence based upon the FACTS of the case.

The Judge only has the lawful authority to determine whether or not the LAW states that Jews are a race and only a race with sufficient clarity to provide the public with notice that it is illegal to criticize the Jews. The Judge does not have the lawful authority to determine whether or not the Jews are IN FACT a race.

The Jury has sole jurisdiction over questions of FACT, such that whatever the Judge rules regarding the LAW in relation to a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment for its failure to allege an offense, the Jury must still determine, and has the sole discretion to determine, whether or not Jews are IN FACT a race, and whether or not the term "Jews" can instead, exclusively or also refer to a religious group, and whether or not O'Connell intended to refer to a race or a religious group when making the alleged statements.

The Judge is only lawfully authorized to determine whether or not the LAW unequivocally states that Jews are a race and if the LAW states that the term can only be applied to a race. The question of FACT remains; and the LAW, if it states that the Jews are a race and only a race, is in error IN FACT and the Jury is entitled to rule on that issue, though I do not believe that the LAW anywhere states that the Jews are a race and only a race. Nor does the LAW anywhere define "race" with sufficient precision to unambiguously inform the public that the LAW states that Jews are a race and only a race.

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 7:57 AM

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.