Archive for the ‘Zionism’ Category

Schonborn and B’nai B’rith Ancestors, Together Cruelly Exploiting Common People for Centuries

November 29, 2013
Traditionalist pundits have pointed to the recent honoring of Cardinal Schonborn by the Juedeomasonic B’nai B’rith lodge. The information is typically framed; as a post-Vatican II aberration. We will attempt to get to the true essence of the matter here.

First, what really is Schonborn being honored for? We say, precisely what his family has done for centuries, that is, keep the Christian common folk as mystified, dumbed down, docile sheep for shearing by themselves and their fellow rabbi and banker mobsters.

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn is a descendant of old nobility of the Holy Roman Empire known for its sheltering of usurers, rabbis, intelligencers and the Talmud itself (see: Judaism Discovered) and peddling of alcohol on credit via Judaic front-men to the poorest of Christian peasants.

The Schonborn clan was made at Kazenelnbogen, coincidentally (or, rather, not), where the Katzenellenbogen rabbinic dynasty originates, whose descendants allegedly include the Rothschilds, Karl Marx, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, ‘Messiah’ Schneerson, among many others (see: The Unbroken Chain* by Neil Rosenstein, himself allegedly a descendant of Katzenellenbogen, who recently plead guilty to the charge of knowingly possessing child pornography).

The first Jews likely settled in Subcarpathian Rus’ [Western Ukraine] during the Turkish occupation of Hungary (1526–1686); they were probably of Sephardic origin. Refugees from the Khmel’nyts’kyi rebellion of 1648–1649 followed. Later, a tiny stream of Moravian and Bohemian Jews arrived via the northern Slovak counties. The major influx of Jews, however, occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and consisted of migrants wandering southward from Galicia. The newcomers were welcomed by Magyar magnates, in particular by the Schönborn dynasty, which owned much land in the area. Nobles hired Jews to administer estates, sell spirits, and develop local trade.
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Subcarpathian_Rus

Est Coelum Nobilitorum. Paradisus Judeorum. Et Infernum Rusticorum

The following is excised from an article,”Die wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhaeltnisse der Juden auf dem Dominium Munkacs-Szentmiklos im XVIII Jahrhundert.” (Economic and social conditions of the Jews on the Munkacs-Szentmiklos Estate during the 18th Century) by Dr. Andreas Sas, in Juedisches Archiv 2, issue 1-2, Oct.-Dec. 1928:

In 1711, after the revolt of Franz Rakoczi II (1705-11) against princely absolutism had been quashed, the Habsburgs confiscated the Rakoczi estates and Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain was administered as a state property. In October 1728, Lothar Franz Schoenborn (1655-1729), archbishop of Mainz, was awarded this domain as a reward for his loyalty to the emperor, but he died almost immediately thereafter. Successor to the property was Schoenborn’s nephew Friedrich Karl Count von Schoenborn (1674-1746), the bishop of Wuerzburg and Bamberg.
Both rulers represented princely absolutism and the age of the baroque life at court. Their personalities leaned toward the worldly; their zeal went to the accumulation of wealth; their enthusiasm for the arts competed with their splendid ambitions for the Munkacs estate. Their methods of governing, which were slightly affected by the coming enlightenment and which they introduced into their territories, provide a key to understanding the economic and social conditions of the second largest estate in Hungary in the 18th century.
The Munkacs and Szentmiklos estates in the former Hungarian Komitate (county) Bereg (today [1928] part of the province Podkarpatska Rus in the Czechoslovak Republic) were liquidated on January 1, 1928, as part of a Czech landholding reform. In 1749, this enormous complex comprised 61.5 percent of Komitate Bereg. [Since the Middle Ages Munkacs had been ruled variously by the houses of Arpad, Anjoy, Piast, Hunyadi, Jagello, Lazarevics, Valois-Bourbon, Hohenzollern, Rakoczi and Bethlen. The old fortress of Munkacs was the site of far-reaching political decisions well into the 18th century.]
The internal history of the estate is a typical slice of the economic past of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. Rich in natural resources, but worked inefficiently by a thinly scattered population, its peasantry remained economically and culturally backward until the 19th century. The most recent two centuries of the rule of the Schoenborns can be studied thoroughly on the basis of large archival holdings. All of the data comes from the handwritten material of the archive of the Munkacs domain in Munkacevo.
For Eastern European Jewry, the giant domain provided an entry to the West; on its territory is the town of Munkacs in which Jews today [1928] make up a plurality. Soon after the Schoenborns took over the Munkacs-Szentmiklos estate in 1729, one of the first decisions of Friedrich Karl Graf Schoenborn included a claim to the protection fees (toleration taxes) imposed on Jews. Schoenborn claimed that the collection was a royal privilege that devolved to him along with all other fiscal entitlements. The protection tax entitled those who paid to receive certain privileges under private law, assurance to a kind of island in a world of serf-like attachment to the land and similarly confined industrial production, an island on which the Jews, within firmly established limits, could enter into contracts, could buy and sell under conditions of the then prevailing aristocratic private laws.
At the beginning of the 18th century, Jews adapted themselves to the life of the estate by paying for concessions to deal in liquor (as innkeepers), sale of meat, sale of distilled spirits, grinding of cereals and collection of tolls (custom duties). At Munkacs-Szentmiklos, concessions for the sale of soap and candles existed until 1761, longer for trade in wool and kosher wine. In 1738, the adjoining village of Rosvigovo even had a concession for the trade in cheese.
According to documents in the Munkacs Schoenborn archives, the custom of leasing concessions to Jews dates back to the middle of the 17th century. Around 1730, the fees paid by Jews represented one-third of the official income of the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain. The importance to the owners of the fees from concessions may be determined not only from the amounts, but also from the fact that they were truly secure and could be controlled. That is, they were incomes that reliably could be delivered to the central administration of the Schoenborn domains in Vienna.
Income from the Munkacs domain during the 18th century was extremely small because of low population density and inefficient exploitation of the land. The Schoenborns lived far away and exerted control indirectly through agents; this made possible increases in the personal income of some agents at the expense of the owners. The careers of numerous senior employees on the domain during the 18th century ended with sudden discharge and investigations embarrassing to the employees.
Under such circumstances, Vienna appreciated the income secured by the concessions, income that was known because it derived from a public auction and the winning proposal was forwarded to Vienna for approval. The income could not be diverted and flowed undiminished into the coffers of the Schoenborns.
Records show the first concessionary or resident Jews in the domain of the Munkacs castle as of 1649. During the revolt of Franz Rakoczi II against Leopold I, a series of concessions covering the entire domain were conveyed to Jews for the dispensing of wine, beer and brandy. Later, during the 17th century, grants of entitlements were made for running the inn, collecting tolls, quarries and meat storagealmost exclusively to Jews. The Schoenborns imported German colonists from Franconia to their north Hungarian domain in an attempt to make them concessionaires, but they did not succeed in this role.
The attitude of the owners and administrators of the Munkacs Schoenborn property during the 18th century toward the Jews living on their property was determined primarily by economic considerations. The founder and accumulator of the family fortune generally was tolerant toward Jews, a view the Schoenborns brought with them from Germany. After the turmoil of the Thirty Years War (1618-48), the largest Jewish population in Germany at the start of the 18th century was in the city of Fuerth near Nuremberg where 400 Jewish families lived. There also was a large printing concern that supplied central Europe with Hebrew books. 
Fuerth was under the rule of the Bamberg diocese, and the holder of the diocese in 1729-46 was lord of the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain. The view of Jews that the bishop of Wuerzburg and bishop of Bamberg, Imperial Prince Friedrich Karl Schoenborn, held which also were followed by administrators of the domain, were relatively humane. This helps to explain why the Schoenborns wanted to establish a Hebrew press in Munkacs-Szentmiklos to publish books in 1768, if the Jews could assure production and distribution. Undoubtedly, the Schoenborns knew of how profitable the famous Hebrew presses in Fuerth were and hoped to duplicate the process in Munkacs-Szentmiklos. Count Friedrich Karl von Schoenborn knew the revenues of the residence (tolerance) tax  and income taxes imposed on the Jews only too well, since he shared half the income from the Fuerth tolerance tax with the Margrave of Ansbach. Jewish communities managed to persist in Ansbach and Fuerth even in those days when the sweeping and radical measures of the Catholic counter-reformation expelled even Protestants from various cities in southern Germany.
Occasional cries arose against the Jews in the domain in the first half of the 18th century. An edict of the owner in 1739 emphasized that Jews could acquire no real estate and referred to them as bloodsuckers who feast on the other subjects of the ruler. He added that it would be preferable if the concessions could be leased by Christians insofar as they were reliable. In fact, the idea surfaced that it might be necessary to introduce a quota for Jews.
This outburst, however, stands apart amid a long series of declarations that contradict it and, even more important, of policies that contradict it in their economic applications. When in the same year no Christian could be found who was willing to pay the annual rental of 300 guilders for the toll concession in the border town of Verecke, the antipathies of the bishop of Wuerzburg and Bamberg against the Jewish lessors were reduced. He even ordered that, under certain conditions, some Polish Jews were to be brought or admitted to settle in Verecke. Many years later in 1761, the prefect representing the owner sought to award the concession in Szentmiklos to a non-Jew. He was not successful because the local administrators declared that they could not find a single reliable and qualified Christian man.
The Countess Maria Theresia Montfort, mother and guardian of the then-minor owner of the domain, in 1748 asked only that when a concession was to be awarded at auction, a Jew was not to be preferred over a Christian provided that an award to a Christian would not impair the revenues of the owners.
This means that existing antipathies toward the Jews were limited by the understood economic interest of the owners of the domain. When the Countess Montfort issued her 1748 ruling, the inspector replied (in archaic, stilted German):
While your excellency had ordered most graciously that the aforementioned lessors are to be awarded by preference to Christians and subjects rather than to Jews, experience has shown that no subject is as productive as a Jew.
The inspector also recalled that in the German village of Unter-Schoenborn, the local village official had leased the inn for 6 guilders per year, but at the most recent auction, Jews had offered 15 guilders. In addition, the problem of harmful competition also made exclusion of Jewish lessors ill-advised. As an example, the inspector told of the Jew Isaak, lessor in Munkacs and at the same time holder of the concession for the inn in the domain of the noble Leövey family. Were Isaak to be dismissed by the owners of Munkacs, he could offer his drinks in the inn on the Leövey property which would represent dangerous competition. Young Eugene Erwin Schoenborn understood this reasoning and, in 1752, ordered that the concessions be awarded to whomever offered the most money, no matter whether his name was Schmul or Itzig.
Jews were considered a nation on the domain of the Schoenborn, which is only natural since the Jews, who increasingly infiltrated from Poland during the 18th century, carried the stamp of Eastern European ghettos. An occupation that could almost be said to be hereditary is the dealing in drinks (all of which were taxed).
The inn was an important source of revenue for Polish nobility, but Polish lords did not like to have Polish innkeepers, because when it came to providing payment or accounting, Polish innkeepers dared to be difficult, while Jews delivered the sometimes very high concession fees most punctually to the lords and magnates. German and Austrian diplomats, who expressed surprise in their travel accounts that, during the 18th century, the largest share of Polish inns was in Jewish hands, could have made a similar observation about the Munkacs domain.
Reports dealing with the administration of the domain during the 18th century are full of complaints about the typically negative attitudes of the serfs, the poverty of the population living in the hills of the estate and their lack of initiative. With this went the knowledge that the cares and misery of the locals would not be alleviated even if they worked harder for their overlords. Of local population groups, the Jews were the ones who made it possible, without special incentives or administrative duress, for the owners to exercise their feudal rights and also to utilize their natural resources. They brought to the slow rhythm of agriculture some notions of movement and trade that increased the scarce cash incomes which, because of their rarity, were that much more desirable. The large landowners sought to increase their revenues, and to achieve this the Jewish concessionaires were essential. The charge by the owners, that the peasantry was delivered to the mercy of the Jews, was neither sincere nor tactful because the landowners made no efforts to protect the serfs against the Jews. For example, whenever a serf violated the monopoly on alcohol (i.e., bootlegged) and thus damaged the Jews, the fine was 12 guilders.
The social position of the Jews unquestionably was more favorable than that of the serfs, because even when they were oppressed by demands for various feesthe status of the Jews in the economy and in the legal order of the domain was governed by a contract that had its roots in the economy (i.e., contracts could be enforced by the courts). There also is no doubt that in the rural feudal society, the Jews followed the lead of the ruling landlord and sided with him. This lifestyle, when considered objectively, cannot be used to justify either historically or morally the claim that the large landowners were defenders of the peasantry vis-a-vis the Jews. The serfs could have been protected against their indebtedness at the local pubs by preventing the establishment of dispensaries of beer and brandy in the poorest villages. The landlords who awarded the concessions for the pubs cannot be relieved of their responsibilities when, on the one hand, they accumulated the considerable concession fees, which they sought to increase through the sales of beverages with all of the means at their command, while, on the other hand, cast the concessionaire, the Jew, as a bloodsucker.
If there is a responsibility in this matter, it falls equally on the domain as well as the Jews, except that the landlords were, from a social point of view, in a more despicable position because their use of the liquor licensing power was a governmental function. The Jews, scattered individuals who fought a hard battle for their existence, were isolated, without legal rights at the bottom layer in a society in which, without permission of the rulers, they never could have dealt with the peasantry.
The concessions were based on annual contracts until 1748 when they ran for three years. The public auctions were held during the second half of December under the following conditions: The highest bidder was awarded the concession but was obligated to meet the need for grain from the landlord at prevailing prices. The concession fee had to be paid quarterly. The innkeeper could extend credit up to two guilders to better situated serfs, and only one guilder for a poor one. Beverages had to be served in mugs that were flawless and marked with the etch mark of the domain. (Even today in many European countries, beer and other alcoholic beverages are served in glasses with a horizontal mark, etched to show that the glass has been filled to the proper level.) Joseph II von Habsburg-Lorraine, who became emperor of the Austrian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire in 1765, later reduced credit at the inn to 30 kreuzer.
The Toleranz, the tax paid by the Jews, introduced in 1718 by the same Karl VI von Habsburg (1711-40) who had awarded the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain to the Schoenborns, consisted at first of a head tax, a capital tax and an income tax. Later the toleration tax was put on a uniform schedule for all of Hungary, but scaled according to each county. Within each county, it was allocated according to the leases paid by the Jews. The domain protested this practice as late as 1735 because the county wanted to determine the number and the economic conditions of the Jews in the domain. Later the local rulers were forced to yield when the Royal Chamber in Kaschau (today Kosice, Slovakia) installed a tax collector, who also was a Jew, by awarding him the concession to collect the toleration tax. The system of collecting taxes through concessionaires ended, and the public administrative office in Munkacs administered the toleration taxes.
On May 21, 1730, an administrator of the domain petitioned that officials charged with the collection of toleration taxes not collect more than the officially prescribed sums from the Jewish innkeepers “for otherwise it is to be feared that the concessionaires, now frightened, might leave the domain.” The administrators of the domain clearly differentiated between the Jews living in the four districts of Bereg County, the so-called Komitatsjuden, and the Jews living within the domain.
As an example of how the administrators concerned themselves with the interests of the Jews living within the domain, consider the conflict between Inspector Rosshirt in 1751 with the deputy, because the latter reportedly overburdened the innkeepers of the domain with toleration taxes, especially the Jew Schmul from Munkacs who paid the largest fee. Rosshirt complained that the deputy assessed the Jews not according to their wealth (net worth) but rather according to the concessionary fees paid. Rosshirt noted especially that in the four districts of Bereg Komitat controlled by nobles: Jews in many localities are members of the AKompossessorates (an obsolete term that apparently refers to a form of ownership or control of land), that they enter only into smaller leases and thus are better off when it comes to toleration taxes, while the Jews of the domain have entered into large leases but own no real estate.
The administrator of the domain, in opposing the deputy, found it necessary to explain that in this matter he (the administrator) was not guided by the interests of the Jews, but those of the rulers of the domain. He feared that to the extent the concessionary fees might be the basis for assessing the toleration taxes, Jews would be willing to take on only smaller leases and the expensive leases (like the liquor concession for Munkacs-Rosvigovo, for which 160 guilders were due and some 80 guilders of toleration taxes on top of that), would remain without innkeepers, leaving the ruling landlord stuck.
According to Rosshirt, the Jews paid toleration taxes in return for royal protection. Thus, the greater the wealth and larger the household of a Jew, the greater the need for protection.
Within the domain it may happen that some Jews pay high leases and thus acquire nothing (no property), while in the noble Komitate districts it happens that the Jew who pays a modest leasing fee may, at the same time, accumulate as a Kompossessor a considerable fortune through cattle.
Rosshirt’s effort was successful. The assembly of the Komitate opposed his proposal and sided with the deputy. What is clear is that the domain sought to protect its Jews from overtaxation …
… During the early days of the Schoenborn rule, the leading figure among the local Jews was Berko Daniel Dalovicz, holder of the tax concession and military supplier, who was a confidant of the commander of the Munkacs fortress as well as of Ungvar Baron Anton Behmen. The latter for several consecutive years had acquired the lease from the Chamber for the Munkacs property. In 1732, the widow of Baron Behmen complained to the Chamber in Zips that Dalovicz had failed to provide an accounting for his dealings with her late husband. In his rebuttal, Dalovicz rejected the charges, invoked his proper and useful services and emphasized, “I never was a subject or slave of His Lordship.”

Jews residing in the domain also provided political services. Innkeepers were obliged to observe their customers and were responsible not to serve “suspicious persons” and even to report them to the authorities. The lessee for Szentmiklos, Israel Lazarovits, was sent to Poland in 1742 as a buyer of arms and supplies for the army of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. When General Field Marshall Count Alexander Karolyi, whose possessions were in the adjoining Szatmar Komitat, learned of this, he urgently contacted the prefect of the domain because he wanted to know what intelligence the Jews had brought and whether or not the Poles were planning an invasion.

*[This writer views Judaic genealogies with skepticism; one of the key mechanisms used to gain undeserved prestige. Judaism’s stepchild, Freemasonry, adapts this mechanism by writing itself into major historical events and usurping historical figures and legacies. My interest is primarily in the associations these storytellers claim about themselves].

Also see:

Schönborn Upstages Falwell

Queen Beatrix Makes Chabad Chief Rabbi ‘Officer of the Order of Orange-Nassau’

The “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

Advertisements

The Rothschild-Gutmann Money Behind the SSPX Kosher Imperative

November 1, 2012
Traducción parcial al Español aquí: MAS DE LA FUNDACION JAIDHOF

(All images below may be enlarged by clicking on them)

‘The Remnant’ has published an ‘interview’ with SSPX lawyer and asset manager Maximillian Krah in which he makes a statement regarding his involvement with a Jaidhofer Foundation:

Siscoe:  Another company name that is mentioned is Jaidhofer Foundation. Can you discuss this company?
Krah:  Yes, this is linked with the SSPX … There is a family in Austria which wanted to donate to the SSPX, but did not want to donate directly. They wanted to establish a foundation that would support the SSPX.  And in every foundation you need some trustees.  It’s a kind of trust, and I am one of the trustees.  I was chosen by the family who established the foundation …  This foundation is supporting the SSPX and using the money which was donated by this family. As an example, it is supporting the new Seminary project in Virginia …

Below is a picture of Maximillian Krah at Jaidhof with members of the Austrian Gutmann family he describes above as benefactors of the SSPX:

From the Rothschild family archive we find some background on the Gutmann family and how its wealth was amassed:

The steel heart of Czechoslovakia, as Frankova names it, was once owned by the Austrian Rothschilds, in partnership with the Gutmann brothers [Wilhelm and David] … It is Salomon von Rothschild who, in 1844, bought the iron works, and founded the United Coal Mines of Vítkovice and Austro-Hungarian Blast Furnace Company … Salomon’s English cousins helped fund the creation of De Beers in 1887.

http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/vitkovice

The Jewish Encyclopedia gives us the proper name of the Gutmanns who partnered with Salomon Rothschild:

GUTMANN, WILHELM, RITTER VON: …In 1853 he and his brother David established the firm which, during the war of 1859-60, despite the difficulties then surrounding business ventures, supplied coal for all the railroads, for all the great factories throughout the empire, and for the cities of Vienna, Budapest, and Brünn. Gutmann Bros. leased some coal-mines from the Rothschilds in 1865, and purchased outright other valuable carboniferous properties in Silesia, Galicia, and Hungary. The close connection between coal and the production of iron easily led the Gutmanns to combine their interests with the Witkowitz iron-works, which they afterward owned conjointly with the Rothschilds and the counts Larisch and Andrassy. With Kuffner they built (1871) the first sugar-factory in Austria …

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6962-gutmann-wilhelm-ritter-von

From the Jewish Encyclopedia we find that Wilhelm von Gutmann partnered with the Rothschilds in financing a rabbinical seminary in Vienna:

ISRAELITISCH-THEOLOGISCHE LEHRANSTALT: Rabbinical and teachers’ seminary in Vienna, founded 1893 at the suggestion of Wilhelm and David von Guttmann and with the assistance of Albert von Rothschild and Freiherr von Königswarter, and opened Oct. 15 of that year. It is subventioned by the Austrian government, by the “Cultusgemeinden” of Vienna, Prague, and Lemberg, and by the “Landesjudenschaft” of Bohemia, and is governed by fifteen curators. The first president was Baron von Königswarter, who, at his death, was succeeded by Moritz Karpeles; the latter was followed by Moritz Edler von Kuffner.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8305-israelitisch-theologische-lehranstalt

From an obituary for one of Wilhelm von Gutmann’s sons, Moritz, we find that he was a relative of the Rothschilds of Vienna:

Below is a historical overview of the Gutmann family and its ownership of the Jaidhof property, which the Austrian branch of the SSPX is based from, beginning with the Rothschild partner Wilhelm Ritter von Gutmann bringing us to the present heir Guntard Gutmann who is pictured above with Maximillian Krah at an SSPX chapel on the Jaidhof grounds:

Below is a brief history of the Jaidhof property and its ownership including how the Jaidhof castle was given to the SSPX by the Gutmann family:

Below is a webpage from a “Europa Institute” which Guntard Gutmann seems to serve as an advisor on matters including think tanks and economics. He’s credited as working for many years as an international banker. This Europa Institute seems to be associated with the Acton Institute which serves to acclimate Catholics to predatory economics and ‘neo-con’ politics. It’s figurehead, Fr. Sirico officiated at the first homosexual ‘marriage’ in the U.S:

Also see:

Maximilian Krah’s Zionist, Philo-Judaic, ‘Neocon’ bona fides

SSPX Superior Bp. Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner’s Visit to Israeli Military Special Forces Base Documented

Maximilian Krah’s Handler, Oren Heiman Co-Chairs Zionist Organization with Former Head of Mossad, Meir Dagan

SSPX Bishop Fellay’s Lawyer/Business Partner Attends Israeli Fundraiser

Bonetus

Catholic Palestinian-American Murdered by Terrorist "Fathers in the Faith"

October 11, 2012
Perpetrators Remain at Large

A Warning Regarding ‘Post-Zionism’

October 6, 2012
The following is excised from an article that appeared in Haaretz titled, Following the dream of a Third Temple in Jerusalem. It reveals many aspects of the dispensational nature of Judaism and Zionism. Increasing talk of ‘post-Zionism’ is no cause for celebration or rest. This is the fake Haskalah (Judaic so-called ‘enlightenment’) reaching the destination intended by Moses Hess (see: Judaism Discovered), the Bernays family, Rabbi Benjamin Szold, B’nai B’rith and others. No one should be deceived into believing that a new temple in Jerusalem would end Judaic hostility.

‘Zionism has brought us to here and now it’s time to move on, to continue from here. And this is the time of our redemption.’

‘… the expression of an almost inevitable development of the Zionist project’

Post-Zionism and the Temple

Dr. Ron Naiweld, who studies the literature of Hazal ‏(the ancient Jewish sages‏) at CNRS ‏(the National Center for Scientific Research‏) in France, and is doing research on the “rabbinization” of the Jewish world, sees the growth of the Temple movements as part of a post-Zionist trend. “The Zionist project has, in a way, run its course, and in its place movements are arising that are asking questions about the substance, content and legitimacy of that project,” he said. “It is yet another post-Zionist movement, really − like the ‘state of all its citizens’ idea. It’s a movement that said: ‘Zionism has brought us to here and now it’s time to move on, to continue from here. And this is the time of our redemption.’

“The religious redemption discourse possesses a logic of its own,” he continued. “The issue of the Temple remains a last protuberance, a dangling tooth that enables the religious Zionists to say, in the face of the religious injunction not to hasten the end, ‘Look, we are not hastening the end; when it comes to the Temple, we are waiting.’ It remains a last, disconnected remnant from all the rest of the activity of the religious Zionist movement. The messianic fervor, which assumed strong activist traits in the settlement project, shunted everything else aside. You cling to every bit of desolate land of a downtrodden Palestinian village, but you forgo the Temple Mount? There really is no logic to it. Until 1967, there was a compromise between two types of discourse, but after 1967, religious Zionism became more militant, with messianic fervor gaining the upper hand over pragmatism.”

From the time of the Second Temple, Naiweld explained, there have been two approaches in the Jewish world to the essence of halakhic law. “Daniel Schwartz addressed this subject 20 years ago in a groundbreaking article. There is the approach of the priests, which presents a realistic conception of halakha, holding that the law is determined by the nature of things. In other words, something will be pure or impure because it is pure or impure by the nature of its creation; because God created it pure or impure. In the face of this, there is the Pharisaic-rabbinical conception of the law, which is a nominalist concept. It holds that the halakha was determined by the human agent, which in the case of the Talmud consists of a group of rabbis who decide whether something is pure or impure, and this categorization does not derive from the inherent nature of the things.

“The struggle between these two approaches existed throughout Jewish history,” he added. “In the Second Temple period, it is seen in the struggle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. You can see it in the form of people like [the late] Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who sanctify the law, the halakha, which is the determining element: intellectual religiosity, as compared with messianic movements − for whom halakha is divine law, because it expresses the true nature of objects and of human beings. That is why viewpoints like this will assume a very essentialist direction in terms of racism as well, because of the difference between Jews and Gentiles: A Jew is by the nature of his creation a purer being. Similarly with the holiness of the land: The soil of Israel is essentially holier, the stones are holier because the land was destined by God to serve as the place of the Children of Israel.”

Can it be said that these movements are the avant-garde of contemporary Judaism?

“It is an avant-garde that is the expression of an almost inevitable development of the Zionist project. And secular Zionism has nothing of interest to offer that can withstand these arguments. After all, the redemption is already under way; the Jews have already returned to the Land of Israel and the settlement enterprise is highly active. It doesn’t make sense for that activism to stop just before the Temple. That is the next logical target. There is no reason to stop at the Holy of Holies. If everything is so holy, then what is holiest is even more holy.”

Full article:

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/following-the-dream-of-a-third-temple-in-jerusalem.premium-1.468221

Madman’s Hava Megillah Caught on Camera

September 21, 2012
More Hava Megillah from  Netanyahu. Megillah is the talmudic tractate dealing with the the book of Esther and Purim, the rabbinic festival of intoxication, paranoia and vengeance which instructs the rabbinized West.

Also see:

Netanyahu: “The [Lubavitcher] Rebbe said to me …” and to every ‘Jewish’ child from age 5

“We Want Moshiach NOW”: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam

Fanatical Judaic Con Man, Bernard-Henry Lévy: same old scheme

August 1, 2012
‘Holocaust’ sophist, player of the Great Game, Bernard Henry ‘Lévy’ is angling for the overthrow and destruction of another nation in the path of the Greater ‘Israel’ delusion.

Also see:

 Fanatical Judaic Con Man Tells of Insider Role In NATO’s Purim Vengeance Against Libya

Netanyahu’s Messianic Fanaticism Precipitating False-Messiah Catastrophe

September 28, 2011
Pious Bibi taking orders from his Rebbe to speed the coming of “The Messiah:”

Netanyahu’s messianism could launch attack on Iran

Relying on the Lubavitcher Rebbe and his teachings in a speech that was ostensibly in favor of a Palestinian state is like relying on a racist who fervently supports slavery in a speech that is ostensibly in favor of abolition, while also making abolition contingent upon conditions that will never be met.

Sefi Rachlevsky – Haaretz

September 27, 2011

Benjamin Netanyahu promised to tell the truth at the United Nations, and the truth was indeed revealed. The prime minister chose in this speech to quote reverently from his meetings with one person only: the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who viewed himself as the messiah.

Neither the source nor the inflammatory quotation was coincidental. Netanyahu was intimately acquainted with the Rabbi King Messiah, and also with the views he expressed from on high. The rebbe’s followers stood behind Netanyahu’s victorious campaign in the 1996 election, which following the incitement-filled demonstrations and Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, with the slogan “Netanyahu is good for the Jews.” And on Sunday, the prime minister’s entourage was sent to genuflect at the rebbe’s court.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was famous for his vehement opposition to even the tiniest withdrawal from any territory ever held by the Israel Defense Forces, even in the framework of full peace. He even opposed withdrawing from territory on the other side of the Suez Canal. In his view, not one inch of the Holy Land could be given to the Arabs. He based this opposition on both security concerns – that missiles would be deployed on any vacated territory – and religious-historical arguments. Netanyahu reiterated both claims in his speech to the United Nations.

The most prominent emissaries of the Lubavitcher Rebbe – the great rabbi, as Netanyahu termed him at the United Nations – included Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the 1994 Hebron massacre, and Yitzhak Ginsburg, the rabbi of Yitzhar, he of the radical books “Baruch the Man” (which celebrates the massacre ) and “The King’s Torah: The Laws of Killing Gentiles.” Nor was this by chance. The Lubavitcher Rebbe inculcated his followers with the doctrine of “your people are the land’s only nation”: In the land of the messiah, there is no room for Arabs. Thus racism entered Netanyahu’s speech at the United Nations – not “merely” against Islam, but also against Arabs: They, he said, are not like your neighbors in New York.

… [in his speech] Netanyahu relied upon the most radically messianic Jewish theologian of our generation …

… [Netanyahu] is not interested in peace and compromise. [He] opposed peace with Egypt and the first Oslo accord. He led a campaign of incitement against the Oslo-2 agreement and then refused to implement it. Ariel Sharon, Rafael Eitan and then-Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak were stunned by what they interpreted as his willingness to consider arming doomsday weapons in the face of Saddam Hussein’s threats, and they worked to dissuade him. Netanyahu opposed the pullouts from Lebanon and Gaza, and not because he thought they should have been done by agreement. Nor did he respond to Mahmoud Abbas’ moderation by taking advantage of the opportunity: Instead, he waged a campaign of incitement to preempt any chance of a deal and a withdrawal.

After all, he is the emissary of the Chabad messiah, the man who taught that this is the Jews’ land exclusively. He returned from the United States with the feeling that the American government is a rag to wipe his feet on, with no power to stop his most extremist plans.

This is the background to what must become a global understanding of the issue that is now most important of all, which will also be the main topic of U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s visit. Netanyahu is completely serious in his desire, and also in his preparations to circumvent the warnings of the entire defense establishment in order to implement this desire, which many of those in his inner circle have defined as messianic: to attack Iran before winter. Before the clouds come, anyone who can stop him must do so.

Full article:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-messianism-could-launch-attack-on-iran-1.386927

At Auschwitz, Future U.S. Military Leaders Learn to Hate

August 11, 2011

Just thinking out loud … that angry fellow pictured below appears to have strong Breivik potential, not by nature, but by conditioning; through those ‘Holocaust’ headphones for instance. How fortunate for counterfeit Israel that as a military leader he’ll have access to astronomically greater killing resources and kosher-approved human targets to slaughter than Anders Breveik.

Witness the technique and operation of the guilt chambers by which men and women of European, Christian ancestry are transmuted into anti-Christ, Zionist golems.

Military academy students, from left to right, Kelly Laurent, Mollie Hebda and Ian Cameron, learn to hate at Auschwitz.

Also see:

ADL Yeshiva for Law Enforcement Officers


The Police State Will Be Kosher


ADL Programs Connecticut Police at U.S. ‘Holocaust’ Museum

The Death of American Democracy

June 26, 2011

Counterfeit Birthright, Genuine Fanaticism

June 25, 2011

Continuing on with our analysis of Judaic fanaticism and how it’s transmitted:

Feldman: ‘Israel’s out of control downward spiral will help bring about alienation in Birthright alumni’

Also see:

“Fanaticism” vs. Fanaticism

Time for Camp