Archive for February, 2011

"Israel" preparing to deport star of Oscar-winning documentary ‘Strangers No More’

February 28, 2011

UPDATED

With the ‘goy’ kids’ P.R. usefulness expended, it’s time for them to be gone. See:

Israel preparing to deport star of Oscar-winning doc ‘Strangers No More’

Which should be read in tandem with:

“The Haiti Disaster is Good for ‘The Jews”

There is no genuine benevolence for outsiders in Judaism, only the illusion thereof.


The executive producer for ‘Strangers No More’ is Lin Arison widow of Ted Arison, an exceedingly powerful and wealthy Israeli of Romanian origin, said to be the world’s wealthiest ‘Jew’ at the time of his death. The Arisons are founders of the ‘National Foundation for Advancement in the Arts,’ likely where the funding for the hasbara piece ‘Strangers No More’ comes from.

The Arison family (née: Arisohn, Arizon) among others, with the Rothschilds, founded the town, Zikhron Ya’acov (named after James Jacob Rothschild) in Palestine in 1882. Ted Arison was born in Zikhron Ya’acov and is a descendant of founders of the town. Romanian Judaic Sarah Aaronsohn and her brother Aaron of Zikhron Ya’acov founded the N.I.L.I. spy ring which cooperated with British intelligence and was instrumental in establishing the British Mandate and expelling Turks and Palestinians from Palestine, a crucial step towards the establishment of the Zionist state. Sarah Aaronsohn was captured by Turks and shot herself rather than give information. Aaron Aaronsohn managed N.I.L.I. spy operations in Egypt. Under a thin cloak of philanthropy the Arison family are self-serving Zionist fanatics of the most extreme bent.

A museum in the Israeli state, ‘First Alyah Museum’ honors Ted Arison’s grandparents, among the first European Judaic Zionists to “settle” in Palestine:

The First Aliyah Museum opened its doors to the public in February 1999. It was established in memory of Moshe & Sara Arisohn, who were among Zichron Ya’acov’s first settlers … The museum is located in a building that was built by Baron de Rothschild’s staff in 1892. Known at times as the Administration House, when built, it was the largest and most magnificent building in Israel … The first national settler’s conference was held in Zichron Ya’acov, it dealt with opposition to the Uganda Plan.

http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000004386.htm

With Rothschild funding, a ‘Christian mystic’ Zionist, Laurence Oliphant escorted Sarah and Aaron Aaronsohn’s parents, Ephraim Fischel Aaronsohn and his wife Malkah to Zichron Ya’acov, which is on Mount Carmel, a location central to mystical tradition.

Ted Arison’s father, Meir Arison was a Mason.

THE FILMMAKERS

Kirk Simon & Karen Goodman

Kirk Simon and Karen Goodman have made over twenty documentaries and in the process have garnered four Academy Award nominations, three Emmys and the DuPont-Columbia Award for Independent Programming. They have received filmmaking grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, the Ford Foundation, and the American Film Institute.

Their documentaries have been broadcast nationally on PBS, HBO, and MTV, and screened at festivals around the world including the New York Film Festival, Sundance, New Directors / New Films, London, Berlin, Montreal and St. Petersburg. In addition, they have overseen and filmed dance preservation projects for the Paul Taylor Dance Company and Lincoln Center’s Library and Museum of the Performing Arts.

Both Mr. Simon and Ms. Goodman are active voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. They have served as consultants to the National Endowment for the Humanities Media Program, on the Documentary Screening Committee for the Academy Awards and as judges for the Emmy Awards and the DuPont-Columbia Broadcast Journalism Award.

http://www.simongoodmanpictures.com/

‘Noahides’ Embrace Rabbinic, Babylonian Wedding Tradition

February 17, 2011

The ketubah is a non-biblical, rabbinic tradition. Like so many rabbinic traditions, it overturns biblical law allegedly for the purpose of ‘repairing’ God’s alleged poor judgment. Jesus Christ vehemently opposed these traditions of the rabbis which make God’s word of no effect, but today this hard fact is brushed aside with such fluffy slogans as, “Jesus was Jewish, and we appreciate his culture, where he came from.” In reality, the people who sign these ketubot form a covenant not with God but with the rabbis in their millenia-old struggle to overthrow God and His word and to put themselves in God’s place and replace His word with Talmud, Kabbalah and the ‘Noahide laws’ of Babylon:

We must conclude, therefore, that the writ in general and the marriage writ in particular are not original Jewish institutions. Originally they belong to Babylonia, mother of commerce and commercial deeds in antiquity. Jewish contact was necessary to introduce the writ in Judea. This contact came about in a political and commercial way during the last century of the first Commonwealth, and with it came the adoption of the ketubah, among other writs, by the Jews. (Rabbi Dr. Louis M. Epstein, The Jewish marriage contract: a study in the status of the woman in Jewish law, p.31)

Christians Embrace a Jewish Wedding Tradition

SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN – New York Times

February 11, 2011

In a San Antonio chapel last August, after reciting their wedding vows and exchanging their rings, Sally and Mark Austin prepared to receive communion for the first time as husband and wife. Just before they did, their minister asked them to sign a document. It was a ketubah, a traditional Jewish marriage contract.

The Austins’ was not an interfaith marriage. Nor was their ceremony some sort of multicultural mashup. Both Sally and Mark are evangelical Christians, members of Oak Hills Church, a nationally known megachurch. They were using the ketubah as a way of affirming the Jewish roots of their faith.

In so doing, the Austins are part of a growing phenomenon of non-Jews incorporating the ketubah, a document with millennia-old origins and a rich artistic history, into their weddings. Mrs. Austin, in fact, first learned about the ketubah from her older sister, also an evangelical Christian, who had been married five years earlier with not only a ketubah but the Judaic wedding canopy, the huppah.

“Embracing this Jewish tradition just brings a richness that we miss out on sometimes as Christians when we don’t know the history,” said Mrs. Austin, 29, a business manager for AT&T. “Jesus was Jewish, and we appreciate his culture, where he came from.”

Beyond its specific basis in Judaism, the ketubah represented to the Austins a broader concept of holiness, of consecration. “We wanted a permanent reminder of the covenant we made with God,” Mrs. Austin said. “We see this document superseding the marriage license of a state or a court.”

Full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/12religion.html?_r=1

On the Contrary: Rabbinic Tradition Proves the Eucharist?

February 16, 2011

For those with itching ears, the rabbis and their ‘Goy’ imitators, through Talmud and Kabbalah, will ‘unlock’ any secret for the mere price of one’s soul.

See:

Rabbinic Tradition Proves the Eucharist?

Anthony Julius’ "Trials of the Diaspora" Reviewed by Michael Hoffman

February 12, 2011

This review was censored by Amazon twice.

Gentiles forever on trial in Anthony Julius’s Beth Din

by Michael Hoffman | Amazon.com | published May 18, 2010 and Jan. 30, 2011

There are plenty of unintentionally funny bits in Harold Bloom’s fulsome review in the New York Times (May 7, 2010) of Anthony Julius’s tedious book, Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Antisemitism in England. The theme of Mr. Julius is that “the Jews are always on trial” and after whining thus, in the familiar full-blown paranoiac pattern, Julius and Bloom proceed to conduct their own Beth din (rabbinic court) inquisition: “Julius casts this huge book as a series of trials, not of the Jews but of the English.” (Bloom).

No one may judge the Judaic people, but Julius and Bloom presume to judge the English people. This makes perfect Talmudic sense! Israeli leader Shimon Peres said something similar after the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Jenin in 2002, when there was a call for a U.N. war crimes investigaton. “No one judges Israel!” Peres shrieked. But counterfeit “Israel” will put western civilization on trial, or at least three of its most eminent writers, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, along with the English nation as a whole. According to Bloom:
“Trials of the Diaspora takes its title from its final epigraph, Philip Roth’s pungent observation in his still undervalued novel Operation Shylock: ‘In the modern world, the Jew has perpetually been on trial; still today the Jew is on trial, in the person of the Israeli — and this modern trial of the Jew, this trial which never ends, begins with the trial of Shylock.’…The best chapter in Trials of the Diaspora concerns the cavalcade of anti-Semitism in English literature, with its monuments in Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale, Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice and Charles Dickens’s Oliver Twist…
“As an old-fashioned bardolator, I am hurt when I contemplate the real harm Shakespeare has done to the Jews for some four centuries now. No representation of a Jew in literature ever will surpass Shylock in power, negative eloquence and persuasiveness….Shakespeare, still competing with the ghost of Christopher Marlowe, implicitly contrasts Shylock with Barabas, the Jew of Malta in Marlowe’s tragic farce…It is Shakespeare’s continuing triumph over Marlowe that such an exchange will not work. Shylock is darker and deeper forever. For Julius, The Merchant of Venice is both an anti-Semitic play and a representation of (attack on) anti-Semitism. I dispute the latter: the humanizing of Shylock only increases his monstrosity.”
If you attend Yale University and seek to plumb the depths of the literature of the West, Prof. Bloom will be your guide —the Prof. Bloom who loves Shakespeare but despises The Merchant of Venice. We can learn an instructive lesson from what Bloom hates about the play. He writes, “No representation of a Jew in literature ever will surpass Shylock in power, negative eloquence and persuasiveness….” Then he relates to us the secret of Shakespeare’s power: “… the humanizing of Shylock.”

Shakespeare does not make Shylock a stock character of utter revulsion. Shylock is not presented as wholly evil or completely unsympathetic. The Christians in The Merchant of Venice are not completely blameless. The Bard acknowledges Shylock’s humanity and presents him as a challenge to the flawed Christians.

Shylock’s final arguments are persuasive and almost carry the day, until Portia’s speech, wherein she contrasts the Judaic call for “justice” (i.e. vengeance, the “pound of flesh”), with Christ’s call for mercy, after which a chasm materializes that Harold Bloom, Anthony Julius and all the Zionist professors and lawyers in the world cannot traverse.

Shakespeare attacked Shylock’s ideals; lesser artists would have attacked Shylock himself. They hate the sinner. Shakespeare only hated the sin. Every drama, oration, book, movie or volume of history or theology that denies the humanity of Judaic persons and refuses to love them (Luke 6:27), cannot achieve what Shakespeare achieved: “…the humanizing of Shylock only increases his monstrosity.” Call it the Shakespeare Factor, this approach toward enemies, so radically different from the rabbinic mentality which paints enemies, as Bloom and Julius do, in hateful shades of pure evil, is what is missing from many writings that oppose Judaism.

Bloom: “Dickens created the second most memorable Jew in his superb Fagin. There is no third figure to compete with Shylock and Fagin….How does one estimate the lasting harm done by Shakespeare’s and Dickens’s egregious Jews?…nothing mitigates the destructiveness of the portraits of Shylock and Fagin. The greatness of Shakespeare and of Dickens renders their anti-Semitic masterpieces more troublesome than the litany of lesser but frequently estimable traducers…”

Charles Dickens based Fagin on a real-life receiver of stolen goods, the notorious Ikey Solomons. In a statement after the book’s publication, Dickens wrote, “Fagin in Oliver Twist is a Jew because it unfortunately was true of the time to which that story refers that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew.” Shylock and Fagin are truth-types, not stereotypes, something the Juliuses and Blooms of the world can’t accept. The efficacy of Dickens’ portrayal of Fagin rests on the Shakespeare Factor: Dickens portrayed Fagin as fully human, animated and lively. The scene of Fagin in prison awaiting execution is suffused with pathos. He is evil, but Dickens puts forth gentiles who are at least as evil (Bill Sikes) or more so (Monks).

Lawyer Julius and Prof. Bloom have a bone to pick with Chaucer (for his testimony about ritual murder in “The Prioress Tale,”), and with Shakespeare and Dickens, and they are not reluctant to demean them out of deference for the offense their attacks may give to western civilization by sullying the memory of its literary giants. This is the one-way prerogative of the Talmudic mentality: they feel entitled to bash in the faces of our heroes, but when we topple their cherished icons, we are guilty of filthy, stinking bigotry. There is no reciprocity or quid pro quo with imperious personalities like these. They assess our humanity and burnish or damn our reputation predicated upon the degree to which we are willing to succumb to their sense of entitlement.

Bloom engages in some stereotyping of his own: “Julius links anti-Semitism to sadism. He might have done even more with this, since sado-masochism is something of an English vice, and is so much a school-experience of the upper social class.”

An English vice. To say that usury or fencing stolen goods are Judaic vices is rabid Shakespearean and Dickensian antisemitism, yet Bloom feels entitled to stigmatize the English as sadomasochist, as people who derive pleasure from extreme cruelty. As one of the Holy People, Bloom can libel the English nation with impunity, while the profound insights of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens constitute an “immemorial stench” (Bloom), out of a “sewer” (Julius).

In his chapter on “The Mentality of Modern English Anti-Semitism,” Mr. Julius presents what Prof. Bloom terms, “the puzzle of what appears to be an incessant prejudice, never to be dispelled.”

The concept of gentiles harboring never-to-be-dispelled prejudice toward Judaics is a troglodyte dogma taught to bochurim (yeshiva boys). They are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that any opposition to the religion of Judaism is irrational (based on no legitimate grievance) and ineradicable, the assumption being that all opposition to Judaism reflects a hereditary gentile predisposition toward hatred of the Holy People. This traditional rabbinic brainwash is expressed as follows: “Halacha hi beyoduah she’Eisav soneh l’Yaakov” (“It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob;” cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 463-466).

It will come as a shock to the acolytes of Julius and Bloom that despite their morally superior liberal pretensions, they are steeped in 2,000 years of Talmudic anti-gentile darkness.

also see:

Pharisee Tzvee (and the comments, in particular).

U.S. Media Mocks Victims in Egypt

February 6, 2011

In response to the mocking news reports from the U.S. establishment press on the violence in Egypt which the Israeli/U.S. backed Mubarak regime is most responsible for, and the Israeli/U.S. scheming towards imposing another Israeli puppet regime as a replacement for Mubarak, and the recent revelations on the sellout of the Palestinian Authority, this post from 2007 seems relevant again:

The Judeo-Masonic Tradition of Mocking the Victim

"Yom HaShoah" Liturgy for Catholic Children

February 2, 2011


Teaching the Holocaust: Commemoration in the Classroom: Liturgy for Christian Schools

Collected by members of the Seattle Archdiocese