The comments were posted by a forum participant identifying himself as "Michael Mills." -- C.M.
(By Michael Mills) -- The German word "Antisemitismus", of which the English "anti-Semitism" is merely a translation, was coined for the purpose of defining a political movement, which had as its goal putting an end to the spread of Jewish influence ("Semitismus") in Germany, and its eradication from German political, economic and cultural life.
Any use of the word in any sense other than to denote an anti-Jewish political movement, such as for example National Socialism was, is strictly speaking an improper and misleading use. If the intention is to denote an anti-Jewish attitude or emotion, the term "judeophobia" is more exact.
The word "Semitismus" was coined by Wilhelm Marr, a former German revolutionary, to denote the quality of Jewishness, or the Jewish spirit or influence, which he saw as alien to the German spirit, nature or character. He chose the word "Semitismus" rather than a term denoting Judaism in order to express the idea that what made Jews alien to the Germanic spirit was not their religion, but rather their ethnic or "racial" origin.
It was in the 19th Century that the concept of "race", in the biological sense of a group of related individuals having common characteristics, both physical and mental, determined by their "blood". It was in that century that the terms "Aryan" and "Semitic", which hitherto had denoted language groups and the peoples who spoke those languages, began to be used to denote supposed "races". Thus, it was theorised that there existed a Semitic "race", whose spiritual and mental characteristics were quite different to those of a putative Aryan "race", with the result that the two races were alien to each other and could never blend. It was held that Jews, because of their origin, belonged to the Semitic "race", and therefore they were eternally alien to the Germanic peoples and could never become part of them.
Thus, "anti-Semitism" in the true sense of the word, began in the 1880s in Germany, where the "anti-Semitic" political movement first emerged.
Earlier uses of the word "anti-Semitic" are purely descriptive, and do not denote a political movement or an ideology. They denote simply a negative attitude to "Semitic" culture or civilisation.
Of course, conflict between Jews and other peoples, and hence judeophobia, a negative attitude toward Jews, have existed for a very long time. Judeophobia is in essence simply the mirror image of Jewish hostility toward gentiles, which is a core element of the Judaic religion; it has throughout history been a natural reaction of gentile peoples who have come in contact with Jews and have become aware of the hostility and contempt preached toward them by the Judaic religion. Thus Judeophobia, was found among Egyptians at least as early as the 4th century BC...
As I wrote, judeophobia existed in Egypt from at least the 4th Century BC. In that century, the first Greek ruler of Egypt, Ptolemy I, commissioned an Egyptian priest called Manetho (a name with which I dare say Paolosilv is totally unfamiliar) to write for him a history of Egypt from the earliest times up until the conquest by Alexander. Manetho's history is not preserved, but a lot of its material is preserved in other ancient sources, and our knowledge of Ancient Egyptian history is based largely on Maetho's original history. For example, the traditional division of the Egyptian rulers into dynasties was an invention by Manetho.
At the time Manetho was writing, there was already a considerable Jewish population in Egypt, particularly concentrated in Alexandria, and Manetho shows a large degree of antipathy towards Jews. His history included an Egyptian version of the Exodus story, according to which the ruler of Egypt expelled a number of lepers and other "unclean" people who fled to Jerusalem and founded the Israelite kingdom.
It is quite obvious that Manetho's version of the Exodus story does not represent an independent Egyptian tradition, but is simply the Biblical story turned on its head. In the account contained in the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrews are the heroes and the Egyptians the villains; Manetho simply turned the Hebrews into leprous villains, and justified the actions of the Egyptian rulers.
No doubt Egyptians had become aware of the Exodus story from the Jews who had settled in Egypt after the babylonian destruction of the Judean kingdom in the 6th century BC, and were deeply offended by it, since it shows enormous contempt for the Egyptian people and their culture.
Manetho's judeophobia reflects the communal conflict that had arisen between native Egyptians and the Jews who had settled in their country. The cause of the conflict was Jewish ethnocentrism and religious intolerance, their lack of respect for the culture and religion of the people among whom they had settled.
A similar process occurred in the relationship of Jews with Greeks and Romans. When the Ancient Greeks first came in contact with Jews, they had a very favourable initial impression, regarding them as a "nation of philosophers". However, their attitude soon changed as they became aware of Jewish religious fanaticism and racial intolerance. The aim of the Greeks was to achieve a synthesis between their religion and culture and those of the peoples of the former Persian Empire, now under Greek rule, for the purpose of creating a universal hellenistic civilisation that would unite all those peoples. The Jews were the only people who rejected hellenism, because it was incompatible with their belief that they were the "Chosen People", superior to all others, and that their God, Yahveh, was the only god, incomparable with any others.
Eventually, relations between greeks and Jews became very bad, and Jews were seen as the complete antithesis of the greek culture and way of life. In that development, it is unquestionable that the greeks were the more tolerant people and the Jews the more intolerant.
The same thing happened with the Romans. Initially they tried to cultivate friendly relations with the Jews and entered into alliances with them, bending over backwards to accommodate the peculiar requirements of the Judaic Law. But eventually the Romans came up against jewish intolerance and religious fanaticism; the immediate cause of the Jewish uprising in Judea in 66 AD was the refusal of Jewish zealots to tolerate the presence in their country of a large gentile population, referred to as "Greeks" by Josephus.
Eventually, the Romans accused the Jews of "odio gentis humanae" = hatred of the human race.
The important historical fact is that the conflict between Jews and the Hellenistic WEorld of the Greeks and Romans had nothing whatever ot do with the teachings of Christianity, indeed it preceded the emergence of the Christian religion by several centuries. Thus judeophobia was not created by anything in Christianity. Given the essentially tolerant nature of Greek and Roman civilisation in regard to religious belief, the appearance of judeophobic attitudes among Ancient Greeks and Romans must have been a reaction on their part to the radical intolerance of the Judaic religion and culture...
This sort of thing perhaps:
Although New Jersey is more famous for a history of Italian Mafia families, it was Jewish clergy who allegedly played a central role in the crime network.http://www.smh.com.au/world/outrageous-corruption-mayors-and-rabbis-held-20090724-dv4x.html
Authorities raided several synagogues and among those arrested was the chief rabbi of Syrian Jews in the United States.
One rabbi, Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, was charged with conspiring to broker the sale of a human kidney for transplant.
Marra said Rosenbaum's "business was to entice vulnerable people to give up a kidney for $US10,000 ($12,300), which he would turn around and sell for 160,000 dollars".
He'd allegedly been peddling kidneys for a decade.
I recall reading some years ago about some backpackers who were killed by local villagers in the wilds of Guatemala; it appears that the villagers believed that the white strangers had come to steal body parts for sale to hospitals back in the US or Europe. Perhaps a similar sort of fear gripped primitive villagers in the wilds of early medieval Europe...
Earlier on this thread I expressed the opinion that judeophobia was a reaction to Jewish anti-gentilism; first Jews rejected the gentile nations, and in response the gentile nations rejected the Jews.
I have now found evidence that precisely this explanation for the origin of "sin'at yisrael", the hatred of the Jewish people, was given by the ancient Jewish sages in the Talmud. The evidence is found in the article by Joshua Cohen, "The Remebrance of Amalek: Tainted Greatness and the Bible", in the book "Tainted greatness; Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes" (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1994).
In his essay, Cohen deals with the Jewish mythological concept of "Amalek", the eternal enemy of the Jewish people, a people whom Jews are commanded to exterminate in Deuteronomy 25:17-19. As Cohen says:
Although the actual nation disappeared many centuries ago, the name of Amalek has taken on a symbolic meaning in Jewish tradition. All the great persecutors of Jews across the ages are regarded as children of Amalek: Haman, Antiochus, Titus, Girolamo Savonarola, Bogdan Chmelnitzki, and Hitler. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Israeli bakeries sold hamantaschen ("Haman's Ears", a special pastry eaten on Purim) that were decorated to look like Saddam Hussein. To most Jews, Amalek represents the malign genius of antisemitism.Cohen goes on to investigate how the Talmud explains the origin of Amalek, that is of the eternal enemy of the Jews, the personification of Judeophobia:
The basis for the third midrash is two verses from Genesis concerning the mother of the Amalekites, a woman of the nation of Seir named Timna: "And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son; she bore Amalek……And Lotan’s sister was Timna” (Gen. 36: 12,22). From these verses, we learn something important about the first Amalekite: he was the grandson of Esau and therefore the grandnephew of Jacob, last of the three Jewish fathers and the first man to bear the name of Israel. This is all that the Torah has to say about the lineage of Amalek or about Timna. The Ta;mudic sages, however, were intrigued by this shadowy matriarch of a condemned nation; so in tractate Sanhedrin a midrash is introduced to complete her story:There we have it. In their wisdom, the ancient Jewish sages, or at least some of them, realised that they themselves, by claiming to be a chosen people and rejecting the gentile nations as people hateful to god, had created the monster of judeophobia that would later destroy so many of their people...
‘A propos, what is the purpose of [writing], and Lotan’s sister was Timna? – Timna was a royal princess, as it is written, alluf [duke] Lotan, alluf [duke] Timna; and by ‘alluf’ an uncrowned ruler is meant. Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they did not accept her. So she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying, “I had rather be a servant of this people than a mistress to another nation”. From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? - Because they should not have repulsed her.’ (Sanhedrin 99b)
Let us scan this. From what Genesis tells us of Amalek’s descent from Esau, we might infer that the blood feud between the nations of Amalek and Israel began with the fraternal rivalry between Jacob and Esau. That, however, is not the explanation given by the Talmudic sages. They tell us that the Jewish fathers – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - rejected Timna’s offer to convert and that her rejection resulted in Amalek’s hatred of Israel. The Amalekites, we will recall, were the very first enemies of the Jews after their emergence from Egypt as a full-fledged nation. In a way, then, this midrash tells the origin of the prejudice that Western tradition would later call “antisemitism” [my emphasis}. The sages do not, however, blame antisemitism on Timna, whom they portray as an undaunted philosemite. Instead of resenting her rejection by the Jewish fathers, she barters for her chosen faith with her body, renouncing royalty and freedom by giving herself as concubine to Abraham’s great-grandson, Eliphaz.
Timna is no bigot herself, but she becomes bigotry’s womb. She is doubly inseminated. By Eliphaz, son of Esau, she is inseminated with the actual seed of Amalek – seed that links the Amalekite nation to Esau’s father, Isaac, and to Isaac’s father, Abraham. But another seed, the seed of bigotry, has already been implanted into Timna’s womb by the Jewish Fathers; for by spurning Timna’s appeal to become a proselyte, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob engendered Amalek’s eternal hatred of the Jews. The bigotry of the Jewish Fathers fathered Amalekite bigotry;[my emphasis] “From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? – Because they should not have repulsed her”.
The Torah reminds us of the seminal bond between Israel and Amalek: both are the seed of Abraham and Isaac. Midrashic commentary ties this bond into a double knot by revealing that the seed of bigotry was implanted into Timna’s womb by the fathers of the Jewish people, a people later dedicated to the annihilation of Amalek and the annulment of bigotry. Not only do Jews and Amalekites share a common ancestry: Jewish humanity and Amalekite bigotry were encoded in the same seed.
Of course the story of Timna and the birth of Amalek, as recounted in Genesis and then in tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud, is mythology, not history. The purpose of mythology is to explain something; in this case the Jewish sages who produced the story recounted in tractate Sanhedrin were trying to explain why there existed, in their own time, namely the first few centuries of the Common Era, such hostility and conflict between Jews (the people of Israel) and the nations among whom they lived, personified as "Amalek", the eternal enmey of Israel. And the crucial fact is that those sages realised that the origin of the conflict lay in the rejectionist attitude of Judaic ideology toward surrounding peoples who were initially friendly. That showed a commendably self-critical insight on the part of those sages.
Judeophobia is a feeling, not an action, although it may result in action.
It is a feeling of dislike of Jews, and it may remain purely a feeling. As a feeling, it is engendered by the experience of what Judaism traditionally taught about the gentile nations. Thus, we know from the preserved writings of ancient Greeks and Romans that they were aware that the Jews considered gentiles "unclean", and for that reason refused to have any social intercourse with the latter.
The knowledge that ancient Greeks and Romans gained of Jewish customs and teachings, in particular of the anti-gentile teachings and the rejection of gentile religious beliefs, led them to dislike Jews intensely, ie it engendered judeophobic feelings.
Although Greeks and Romans disliked Jews intensely, they only undertook anti-Jewish actions, such as expelling Jews, or engaging in violence against them, in cases where Jews had acted in an anti-social way, such as invading temples and destroying the images of the gods, or rising up in rebellion against the state.
There were indeed cases where Jews put the anti-gentile ideology of their religion into violent practice, including the commandment to exterminate peoples they regarded as 'enemies of God", personified as Amalek. One such case was the rebellion of the Jews of Cyrenaica and Cyprus during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, between 115 and 117 CE. According to the "Historia Ecclesiastica" of Eusebius, the revolt began with attacks by the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyrene on their Greek neighbours. Jewish guerillas ravaged the countryside of Egypt, and it took the Roman forces a long time to suppress the revolt.
According to the Roman historian Cassius Dio, during this revolt Jews acted in an extremely barbaric way; he claims that Jewish rebels massacred Romans and Greeks, ate the flesh of their victims, made belts of their intestines, smeared themselves with their blood, etc etc., killing 220,000 gentiles in Cyrneaica and 240,000 in Cyprus. Those details and statistics are probably exaggerated, but are indicative of the ferocity of Jewish rebels whipped up into a fanatic fury by ideological fervour.
But it is historically correct that through most of history, Jews have not been in a position of power over gentile peoples, and hence were not able to show open hostility toward their gentile neighbours. While the Talmud contains many passages expressing contempt and hatred of gentiles, there are also many passages commanding Jews not to act in a hostile way toward them, so as not to give cause for any offence that might result in harm to the Jewish community.
But by the same token, throughout history Jews and gentiles have usually lived side by side in a state of fairly peaceful symbiosis, albeit with mutual dislike and suspicion. There were at various times outbreaks of gentile violence against Jews, but that was in times of great socio-economic stress, particularly during uprisings of the lower classes against their rulers...
What the concept of "Amalek" means is that the ideology of Judaism teaches that it is permitted, even commanded, to destroy persons or groups considered by Jews to be their enemy. Note the reference above to Hamantaschen decorated to look like Saddam Hussein; that means that a lot of Israelis considered Saddam to be a manifestation of "Amalek", a sworn enemy of the Jewish people, even though in actual fact Saddam was not really a persecutor of Jews, his numerous victims being almost entirely other Arabs, Kurds or Iranians...
So in summary, I am saying that the hostility between Jews and gentiles was started by the Jews, through their rejection of the gentile nations as unclean and cursed by god. It was not that the gentile nations banded together to draw a line between themselves and the Jewish people and expel the latter from society; rather, it was the Jewish priestly caste which drew the line between the Jewish people and all other nations, and commanded Jews to separate themselves out from other nations and have nothing to do with them.
Judaic tradition, as I previously wrote, personified the hostility of gentiles toward Jews in the concept of Amalek, the eternal enemy of Israel, who is always plotting against the Jewish people and trying to harm it. But as is shown by the Talmudic passage about Timna, the mythological mother of Amalek, in tractate Sanhedrin, the Jewish sages themselves realised that the hostility of gentiles, as expressed in the mythological enmity of Amalek, had been engendered by the Jews themselves through their rejection of the gentiles, expressed poetically as the rejection by the Jewish fathers of Timna, the would-be convert...
Chris Moore comments:
What this post demonstrates is that the Judeofascists have been in nearly constant conflict with Western Civilization, and prior to that, the Ancient Near East, since they formed their ethno-religous ideology.
Yet these racist, warmongering, perpetually subversive and troublesome people, who have declared war on Christendom and Western Civilization time and again, are who the corrupt American Establishment has unilaterally decided the country should cast its lot with?
Sorry, but that's a perfect storm for failure and utter ruin.
And even if this America alliance with the Judeofascists could attain some sort of Pyrrhic vicotry in the Middle East, they would stab us in the back at first convenience anyway as their bigoted, self-serving history demonstrates; indeed, as this article suggests, their ethno-religous ideology demands such action in order to sustain itself.
The U.S. is increasingly reaching the tilting point wherein those who compel alliances with the Judeofascists must be declared the treasonous mortal enemy of America, Western Civilization, and Christianity that they are, and treated as such.