Welcome And A Good ------ ------ There Are Enjoying Hardcore News! ------ Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News Web Site! ------ The Most Comprehensive Global News On The Internet! ------ Your , Area's Most Updated News In The , AND THE WORLD! ------ PLEASE NOTE: Hardcore News Is Best If Used With Firefox Or Google Chrome Gecko Type Browser: ------ Hardcore News Web Site Is Best Using A Screen Setting Of 1024 X 768 Or Higher... ------ Your Current IP Address Is From Internet Provider ... This is All We Know About You, Ever Wonder What Kind Of Information Other Web Sites Could Get From Your Computer?... PLEASE BE CAREFUL Who You Share Information With Online! ------ By submitting personal information to any U.S. website, you are consenting that your information is being maintained and or being used here in the United States, is subjected to applicable U.S. laws. Thus... U.S. law may be different than the laws of your home country. ------ Hardcore News IS SAFE! We Never Track Your Moves Or Sell Your Information. ------ The Only Bull-Sh-t On This Site Is The Propaganda! ------ Stay Informed With The Hardcore News ------ All News is AUTO-UPDATED - AUTO-GENERATED Via Keyword Search Terms And Use Of RSS Based News Feeds And Tabbed Headlines On One Page ------ News From Over 40 Reliable News Sources, Even The News Your Not Supposed To Know! ------ PROVIDING UP TO THE MINUTE NEWS With LIVE Video Feeds FROM AROUND THE WORLD! ------ OUR NEWS IS ALWAYS FRESH DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE! ------ Again Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News ------ If You Like This Project And Would Like To See & Help It Grow, Please Consider Donating What Ever You Can By Secure PayPal CLICK HERE ------ Please make a gift to Hardcore News today. Your continued support will ensure that Hardcore News is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure. And Thank You, ------ Only YOU Can Make This Project Worth While! ------ Again Thank You For Visiting The Hardcore News ------
Hardcore Main Stream
Top Stories

Mid East Watch


Tech News


Sports News

Thursday, April 26, 2012

TOWER OF BABEL: The History Of Zionism

The Roman Catholic, Christians-Jews And The Zionism You Wasn't Told.

ACTS: 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 
ACTS: 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Fraud Exposed

Listen to this riveting 1986 speech given by now deceased Priest John O'Conner exposing Benjamin Creme, Maitreya, Freemasonry, Global elite, Antichrist communist movement, new age occult practices, church infiltration of the homosexual movement, the Federal Reserve and more. After this speech O'Conner was ORDERED to under go a psychological evaluation and then later dismissed from the church!

NWO: A Message To Americans. The Jesuits Are The Enemy 

The Jewish secret laws are based on the fundamental principle which states: Only the Jew is human. In contrast all non-Jews are animals, they are beasts in human form. Anything is permitted against them. The Jew may lie to, cheat and steal from them. He may rape and murder them. There are hundreds of passages in the Talmud which the non-jews are described as animals. Some of them are as follows:

1). "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." (Talmud: Baba Mezia 114b)

2). "The Akum (Negro) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the dog more than the Akum." (Ereget Raschi Erod. 22

3). "Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an
animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form." (Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855)

4). "A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." (Coschen Hamischpat 405)

5). "The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called pigs." (Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b)

6). "Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." (Schene
Luchoth Haberith, p. 250b)

So that the Jew will never forget that he is dealing with animals, he is reminded by eating, by death, and even by sexual intercourse constantly. For The Talmud teaches:

1). "If you eat with a non-Jew, it is the same as eating with a dog." (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)

2). "If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant of maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell to the Jew:
?God will replace ?your loss,' just as if one of his oxen or asses had died." (Jore Dea 377, 1)

3). "Sexual intercoms between non-Jews is like intercourse between animals." (Sanhedrin 74b)

It is written in the Talmud about the murder of the non-Jew:

1). "It is permitted to take the body and the life of a non-Jew." (Sepher Ikkarim IIIc, 25)

2). "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah (Talmud - Sanhedrin 59b). The Christians
belong to the denying ones of the Torah (Talmud)." (Coschen Hamischpat 425, Hagah 425, 5)

3). "Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jew), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." (Bammidber Raba, c 21 & Jalkut 772)

These laws of the Talmud were given to the Jews over 3000 years ago. They are just as valid today as they were back then. This is how the Jews are taught from childhood. The results of this stands before us. It is Jewish Ritual Murder.


A LAND without people for a people without land was one of the early propaganda slogans of the Israeli state. Its claim was that the land of Palestine was empty of people, and this was the promised land of the tribe of Israel, the Jewish people.
This land is empty they said. It’s the land we were promised by God they said. It’s ours. They said. It was a lie.
But a world shocked, shamed — as it should have been — by the Holocaust, a declared attempt at the genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazi state, a known atrocity that had not only been denied but ignored… the world chose to ignore the lie.
Palestine was not empty. It was full of a people who had lived there for generations in hundreds of villages and towns… the Palestinians lived in this land.
As well as lies, Israel also born out of terrorism. Jewish terrorism. The Irgun Zvei Leumi, Haganah, Lehi, the Stern gang. There were repeated massacres in the decade following 1946… at the village Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, Friday 9 April 1948, the Irgun, Haganah and Stern gangs’ systematic massacre of at least 100+ Palestinians, mostly women and children, was a defining atrocity on which the Israeli state was founded. Following the killings the village was looted and the dead desecrated.


via: Ken O'Toole 
Works at School of Franchising (Dean)
Studied Psychology at University of Missouri - Kansas City.

Zionism and the totally FALSE STATE OF ISRAEL is a DIABOLICAL joke... NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with the Bible, Torah, Talmud, any scripture, and in fact they all warn against this totally 'false jew' movement. All true Jewish people know this and are fighting for truth, but are totally shut out by their absolute control of every fiber of world media. 

WE MUST START WAKING UP HERE!!.. The whole false movement and their rancid totally false state corruptly and wrongly called "Israel" is nothing more than Global Banking "elites" schemes to keep creating wars and divisions, and once and for all rid the earth (within their Golbal Governace objectives) of ALL true Jewish people. The actual controllers of this false state called "Israel" are the EXACT same FED Global banking controllers and creators of the Holocaust... WE MUST WAKE UP! 

Theodore Herzl the founder of this IDIOT false and rancid "Zionist movement" was a total G-dless shill for the Global banking families, all in the lying guise of saving the Jewish people, while committing horrific acts in their name, as they commit horrific acts all over the world in the name of Americans today.. 


You'll Read More About Theodore Herzl Below

Albert Einstein Quotations Opposing a Jewish State in 1938, 1946 & 1952 
Labeling Future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin a Fascist in 1948.

After the death of the first president of Israel in 1952, the Israeli government offered the post of second president to Einstein. He declined the offer.
A detailed discussion of Einstein's views on Zionism is here

John Spritzler October 7, 2006 [newdemocracyworld.org]

 Albert Einstein, on April 17, 1938, in a speech at the Commodore Hotel in New York City, said:
"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state." [1]

In January, 1946, in a reply to the question of whether refugee settlement in Palestine demanded a Jewish state, Einstein told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,

"The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against it." [2]

Letter to the New York Times, December 4, 1948, from Albert Einstein and other prominent Jews, denouncing Menachem Begin, a future prime minister of Israel who is highly regarded by the current ruling Likud Party, as a fascist. After the death of the first president of Israel in 1952, the Israeli government offered the post of president to Einstein. He declined the offer.

[Note: the bolding is not in the original]

New Palestine Party 
Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the ""Freedom Party"" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin’’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants —— 240 men, women, and children —— and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a ""Leader State"" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.


Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe

New York, Dec. 2, 1948

Alfred M. Lilienthal, in What Price Israel? , recounts that on April 1, 1952, in a message to the Children of Palestine, Inc., Einstein "spoke of the necessity to curb 'a kind of nationalism' which has arisen in Israel 'if only to permit a friendly and fruitful co-existence with the Arabs.'" Lilienthal also relates a personal conversation with Einstein: "Dr Einstein told me that, strangely enough, he had never been a Zionist and had never favored the creation of the State of Israel. Also, he told me of a significant conversation with [Chaim] Weizmann [leader of the World Zionist Organization.] Einstein had asked him: 'What about the Arabs if Palestine were given to the Jews?' And Weizman said: 'What Arabs? They are hardly of any consequence.'" [3]

1. Albert Einstein, in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, New York, 1954, p. 190
2. Alfred M. Lilienthal, What Price Israel?, 50th Anniversary edition, 2003, pg. 130
3. Lilienthal, pg. 131

via: Free Your Mind and Think... 
Prior to the creation of the State of Israel, two Jewish terrorist groups were working to cleanse Palestine of its Arab inhabitants and its British occupiers. The more brutal of these groups was Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) also known as the LEHI or the Stern Gang after its founder Avraham Stern. Much of the financial support for these Jewish terrorists came from the United States. The Stern Gang received money collected under the more perfidious name, American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel. Mr. Shepard Rifkin was the executive director after the UN Partition of Palestine and prior to the creation of Israel in May 1948. Against his better judgment Rifkin solicited Albert Einstein to help the Stern Gang raise American money for arms to drive out the Arabs and help create a Jewish state. On April 10th, the day after the infamous massacre of Arabs at Deir Yassin, Einstein replied calling the Stern Gang terrorists and misled criminals. Einstein's single-page letter on his embossed stationery (see below) was auctioned at Sotheby's on June 21, 2007. It was purchased by Daniel McGowan, executive director of Deir Yassin Remembered, for $8,500 plus $1,700 commission and $175 shipping. It will become a part of the Deir Yassin Remembered Archives, which includes documents, photographs, and audio accounts of the massacre.

Einstein on Zionism and Israel: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East
By Fred Jerome
St. Martin’s Press, May 2009

Countless books and articles have been written about the life of the great physicist and thinker Albert Einstein, and since his death in 1955, a near consensus has existed that Einstein was a staunch supporter of the state of Israel.

Veteran journalist Fred Jerome uses hundreds of pages of Einstein’s own letters, articles and interviews — many published for the first time — to refute this thesis.

It is well known that Einstein, a German Jew, witnessed European anti-Semitism firsthand and spoke out against both prejudice and Nazism. These experiences convinced Einstein to support Zionism and a Jewish homeland. After gaining immense fame for his scientific breakthroughs, he was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 after the death of the country’s first president, Chaim Weizmann.

In reality, while Einstein was sympathetic to the Zionist cause, he repeatedly warned that a “narrow nationalism” may arise if a Jewish-only state was founded and peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians was not achieved. Instead, Einstein advocated Cultural Zionism — the creation of Jewish cultural and educational centers within a bi-national state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jews.

When Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion stated, “I’ve had to offer him the post because it was impossible not to, but if he accepts we are in for trouble.” In a letter written in the same year, Einstein compared the Zionists’ project with that of the Pilgrims, noting, “how tyrannical, intolerant and aggressive [they] became after a short while.” And in Einstein’s last media interview, which ran in the New York Post a month before his death, he stated “We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better.” 
http://www.indypendent.org/2009/05/14/reclaiming-einstein/ .

"As many Christians who have heard the lies of the Zionists this teaching has permeated the Body of Christ and can only be fought to the death through Spiritual Warfare. I will NOT support Israel in its present form... "Shamless Ongoing Identity Theft with Impunity" 

via: Fitzpatrick This is a video that coincidentally came across my page last night. It's about Herzl . הסרט הסודי שצונזר ע"י כל ערוצי הטלוויזיה Translates to: Secret movie censored by all TV channels.

UN a tool of international Zionist power: activist
Kourosh Ziabari - Tehran Times - 06 January 2012

The United Nations is a tool of international Zionist power and by extension, so is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says an Iraqi-U.S. activist.

Jonathan Azaziah made the remarks during an email interview with the Tehran Times during the last week of December.

He also commented on the latest rounds of Western sanctions against Iran, U.S. war threats against the Islamic Republic and the role of Zionism in international politics.

Following are the excerpts of the interview:

Zionist mindset

The nucleus of the Zionist mindset, the energy source that drives those who think in this manner to behave like the inhuman monsters that they are is Jewish supremacism; the need to destroy all that it is not Jewish, the goyim, in order for "the Jewish people" to survive.

The developer of the neutron bomb, Samuel T. Cohen, was a Zionist with a strong Talmudic-Jewish upbringing, as was Robert J. Oppenheimer, the creator of the atom bomb. The supremacist need to destroy all non-Jewish peoples and cultures was close to the blackened hearts of the early leaders of the usurping Zionist entity, hence why Ben-Gurion, Dayan, Eshkol and Peres collectively came up with the "Samson Option," the military plan to unleash 'Israeli' nukes upon the world if any nation or every nation attempted to confront Zionist power.

The polar opposite of this thuggish outlook on existence, is the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran, a nation whose Persian history is rooted in the very essence of creation. The finest poets, artists, mathematicians, scientists and theologians that the world has ever known originate from this great land.

The Zionist entity, in its twisted collective mind, must destroy Iran because the Islamic Republic represents everything that it is not: tolerant, beautiful, non-destructive, non-aggressive and most importantly, God fearing. Iran does not bow down to the feet of the Zionists and their rabbinical overlords, it only bows before Almighty God and for this, it has drawn the ire of the Zionists and their imperial conduit puppets. From the geopolitical perspective, the Zionist entity must not allow any Islamic nation to acquire nuclear weapons because that would neutralize its domination of the region; the annihilation of Iraq, the demolition of Libya and constant assault on nuclear-armed Pakistan are prime examples of this.

Zionism far worse than apartheid system

The term "apartheid" is an attempt to make international Zionism seem like it is innocuous or closely related with previous colonial endeavors when in reality, it is something far worse and far uglier. Apartheid is simply one facet of the Zionist regime that it is criminally and disgustingly occupying holy al-Quds and the rest of historic Palestine, as is colonization, and most importantly, they are only temporary.

The true goal of Zionism is to wipe out all non-Jewish peoples in vast parts of Egypt, including most of its north, all of Sinai and Cairo, all of Jordan, all of Kuwait, a gargantuan portion of Saudi Arabia, all of Lebanon, all of Syria, all of Cyprus, an elephantine part of Turkey up to Lake Van and finally, part of Iraq south of the Euphrates River. The expulsion and/or mass murder of these peoples would lead to the creation of the Zionist dream known as Greater Israel. So branding this usurping dragon of an entity simply as an "apartheid state" is not only incomplete, it is deceptive. And this disingenuous injection of language into the vocabularies of Palestine's supporters is also meant to deflect the attention from the root cause of this 63-year occupation: the Talmudic ideology that gave birth to Zionism, which is an amalgamation of terrorism, racism, barbarism, supremacism, expansionism and imperialism.

After all of the massacres committed against our brothers and sisters, all of the babies murdered, women raped, mosques and churches destroyed and land stolen, the least we can do is label this extremist enclave what it actually is: a fabricated entity that has no right to exist. Finally, all persons who represent this entity, all of its occupiers and squatters, must be thrown out immediately so the 8 million Palestinian refugees worldwide can finally return to their homes. We will not make peace with this usurping Jewish supremacist beast. We will never recognize this filthy entity. We will not share our lands with thieves and thugs, killers and degenerates. There will not be 'equal rights' for oppressed and oppressed. There will only be equal rights for Palestinians, the true owners of the land, and whoever that they decide will live with them, chiefly those who respect their dignity and who have fought alongside them from Nakba to Naksa to now, not those who killed them and maimed them; they will be delivered into the clutches of justice for a century of inhumanity and malevolence.

Saudi assassination plot – a Mossad false flag

The ludicrous, ridiculous "Saudi assassination plot" has already been debunked as another Mossad false flag and I must say, it was one of the most pathetic that the Zionist regime's international intelligence directorate had concocted in quite some time.
The allegations of "human rights violations" in the Islamic Republic are nothing but atrocious attempts by the Zionist-occupied U.S. government (of) -- regime change. We know this to be massively farcical.

Additionally, there is no larger violator and destroyer of human rights than the United States, which under Zionist direction, has initiated one war after another in the last 100 years and murdered tens of millions of innocents. How dare these hooligans and monsters criticize Iran for "human rights abuses" after their fire bombing of Tokyo, their nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, their decimation of Dresden, Frankfurt, Hamburg, their concentration camps set up after WW2 that murdered over 1 million innocent Germans, their rape of Vietnam and Cambodia for the expansion of Jewish mob boss Meyer Lansky's criminal narcotics syndicate, their eradication of Iraq over the last 20 years, their crushing of Afghanistan, their ruining of Libya and incessant drone bombing of Pakistan, Yemen and occupied Somalia, along with their assistance in the ongoing six-decade-long brutalization of Palestine. Their hypocrisy is legendary and sickening. And the IAEA report is such a joke, such a steaming mound of rubbish that it is not even worth analyzing. It is clear that the reason for this 'trilateral attack' that you speak of is desperation.

The Iranian leadership is cool, calculated and undeterred. They have not taken the Zionist bait in responding to the multiple transgressions that the occupier of Palestine has committed against them and this display of sabr (patience) has infuriated the monsters greatly.

New round of Western sanctions against Iran

I do not believe for a second that the sanctions will bring the Islamic Revolution to its knees; not even a single second. The Persian people, first and foremost, kneel only before ALLAH (SWT) and this was proven by their triumph over the Shah and the CIA-Mossad-run counter-revolution in 1979. The would-be-invaders and 'arrogant powers' that (Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution) Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei constantly refers to know that the only way Iran will break is through all-out aggression and as described already, they are not ready for this kind of war at this juncture.

This is why we see increased cooperation between the (P)GCC countries, America and the Zionist entity, mainly the excessively large weapons deals between the House of Saud, America and Germany as well as the increased 'defense' relations between the House of Khalifa in Bahrain and the Zionist-occupied U.S. government. International Zionism loves nothing more than Muslims killing Muslims and nothing would satisfy its bloodlust quite like a 'Sunni-Shi'a, Persian-Arab' war, in which its Israeli occupation forces would not have to lift a single weapon; the goyim would do all the work for them, eliminating the usurping Jewish supremacist state's greatest enemy. The Zionists and the real power behind them, their racist genocidal rabbis, according to their satanic Talmud, view the Arab and Persian peoples as "Ishmaelites" and "Amalekites" who must be destroyed in order to erect a "Jewish Utopia" on earth, in which Jews rule over non-Jews in a sort of supremacist paradise. It is a religious duty for Zionists to murder us, steal our lands and desecrate what it is holy to us and they have the authority in their Talmud to use any and all means to do it, including using our own people against us. Therefore, the sanctions are only a precursor to what the globe holders really have in store for Iran.

Why Iran will be victorious

For 22 years, South Lebanon was savagely occupied by the monstrous Zionist entity. The righteous Islamic Resistance of Lebanon, Hezbollah, liberated its land, conquering the fourth (some say third) mightiest military in the world and rightfully humiliating it. In 2006, the Zionist entity launched a criminal war against Lebanon to avenge its defeat 6 years earlier. Unleashing cluster bombs, white phosphorus and depleted uranium on the dignified and innocent Lebanese people, the usurping regime murdered nearly 1,500 Lebanese and the unexploded cluster bombs continue killing to this very moment.

Defiantly and inspired by the steadfastness of the Lebanese people, Hezbollah defeated the Jewish supremacist entity again, crushing their plots to reoccupy Lebanon and upholding their Resistance to global Zionism. How was this small fighting force able to best such a monolithic military power? Because the faith of a people cannot be pierced with bullets or devastated by bombs. Because the dignity of a people cannot be occupied or colonized. The Zionists have no faith; they are godless, satanic supremacists. The Zionists have no dignity, they are the swindlers of humanity. Comparatively, the Palestinian people have been occupied for 63 years. Still, the Zionists have not been able to expel them to exalt their 'Greater Israel' dream. The Kashmiri people have been occupied for 64 years. Still, the Hindutvadis have been able to crush them to initiate their first phase of 'Greater Hindutva.' Why? Because like Hezbollah and the exceptional Lebanese people, the Palestinians' and Kashmiris' faith and dignity are a weapon that cannot be defeated by their occupiers. And the revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran, like Hezbollah, the Palestinians and Kashmiris is on a greater scale, with more weaponry at its disposal. It will not give up its nuclear program nor will it bow before hollow military threats because it doesn't take orders from Zionism; Iran does not recognize Zionism or the Jewish supremacists that govern it as legitimate authorities.

Iran only takes orders from Al-Hakam (SWT), the supreme Judge of this universe. For us, Allah (SWT) is Al-Mu'izz, because He has honored us with Resistance and martyrdom if we die in our path of Resistance, giving hope to our brothers and sisters still struggling because as the Holy Qur'an says, we are alive though we are not seen. For the monsters, the enemies and the 'arrogant powers' though, Allah (SWT) is Al-Moumit, and the day of the Zionists' doom at His hands is much nearer than they think. Iran and all those who support it will be victorious.

U.S. a leader in international terrorism

There is no doubt that the United States, the 'golem' of the international Zionist Power Configuration and Jewish banking interests, is the world leader in terrorism. The US is in no moral position to condemn any government or group in the world until it fesses up to its own blood-soaked history. 100 million Native Americans exterminated. 150 million Africans, many of them Muslims, murdered in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which was dominated by Spanish Jews like Aaron Lopez who had an entire fleet of slaveships and financing from the Rothschild family; these Jews, who were of the extremist and now dominant Talmudic-Kabbalistic school of thought, also introduced to the Curse of Ham to their Gentile slave-trading brothers, a horrific, racist story concocted and developed by the rabbis in their Talmud which lowered the rank of our brothers and sisters of beautiful black skin to animals. This Talmudic drivel was used to justify the dehumanization of millions of others and in the greater geopolitical sense, it is now being exercised to justify more Zionist aggression on the African continent. These two historical atrocities alone show the true face of America, and its support of brutish dictators and monarchical maniacs across the globe is well-known. And while Iran's millennial history is one of peace and diplomacy with its neighbors, the U.S. has launched hundreds of wars, covert and overt over its short two-century history. There is an old Kufan saying that my uncle once shared with me, which has been around since Al-Mukhtar (RA) launched his rebellion against the Umayyads to defend the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (AS) more than 1,300 years ago, that perfectly sums up the United States' glorious fraudulence. Loosely translated from Arabic, it goes, "He who spills the most blood, talks of the most peace." I cannot think of truer words that have been spoken.

IAEA not an independent outfit

First and foremost, the IAEA is not an independent outfit like its public relations stooges would like the world to believe. The IAEA reports directly to the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council and coordinates all of its actions with these two institutions of Zionist power. Therefore, without question, it can be said that the IAEA is nothing but a tool of the UN. The same UN hasn't done a damn thing to stop Zionist tyranny in Palestine, scripting hundreds of resolutions against this racist usurping entity but enforcing none of them. The same UN has done nothing to stop Hindutvadi tyranny in Kashmir, which is intimately aided by the Zionist entity with arms and intelligence, scripting dozens of other resolutions and enforcing none of them. The same UN that introduced Resolution 661 to Iraq, the treacherous 'sanctions resolution,' which crippled Iraq, prepared it for the Zionist invasion of 2003 and murdered over 2 million people by starvation including 800,000 Iraqi children. The same UN paved the way for the mutilation of Libya, in which at least 100,000 have been mass murdered. The same UN that now seeks to turn Syria into another Iraq or Libya 2.0. And besides, what is the UN really? As is the case with all matters of history and the revisionism that follows, we must return to the beginning; the origins. The origins of the UN can be found in the financing of the same Zionist banking families, the Rothschilds, Schiffs, Warbugs, Lazards and Oppenheimers, who have financed strife on this earth for centuries. The UN was created to justify the existence of the Zionist entity as a legitimate nation-state, to put a shroud on its hideous supremacist character. Despite the illegal Jewish colonization of Palestine financed by the Rothschild family since the 1880s and the horrible Zionist atrocities of the Nakba in 1948, still the UN recognized this fabricated regime, still gave it a name and a seat. Why? Because its godfathers, the Zionist bankers, wanted it that way. The UN is a tool of international Zionist power and by extension, so is the IAEA. And if the evidence isn't clear enough, one simply needs to look at the previous IAEA head, Mohamed ElBaradei, who is hailed as a great humanitarian and even a hero, when he is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing, a snake in the grass, a two-faced Zionist hypocrite who has condemned the Islamic Resistance of illegally besieged Gaza, who supports the insane 'right to exist' of the Zionist entity and who shakes hands with Israeli war criminals. While ElBaradei ran the IAEA, he sat on the board of the International Crisis Group, a highly-influential international Zionist think tank, right next to none other than Shimon Peres, George Soros and Morton Abramowitz, three of the most powerful Zionists on this planet. There is your 'IAEA independence,' yet another Zionist fraud.

Jonathan Azaziah is an Iraqi-U.S. Muslim poet, activist, analyst, writer and journalist from Brooklyn, New York. He is currently residing in Florida. His articles, poems and music deal with the subject of international Zionism. He is also a staff writer for Pakistan's premier alternative media outlet, Opinion Maker, a regular contributor to Veterans Today journal and a frequent guest and co-host of the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement's Ugly Truth radio broadcast.


Back In History Starting With Sumerian-Scythian-Hun-Avar-Magyar 

The origins of the Hungarians can be traced back to Ancient Mesopotamia through the Sumerian-Scythian-Hun-Avar-Magyar ethno-linguistic continuity, which, together with the evidence of the archeological artifacts of Sumerian origin found in the Carpathian Basin, indicates that the ancestors of the Hungarians were the first permanent settlers of the Carpathian Basin.

The Hungarians have a saying that their history was written by their enemies.
This is justified given that the official version of Hungarian history which is still being propagated today is in fact the product of centuries of foreign rule during which the occupying powers and their puppet regimes took care to fabricate a "Hungarian history" which suited their objectives: to present a distorted and unfavourable image of the Hungarians, in order to weaken their national identity and self-consciousness.

Within the Carpathian Basin as well as in their other homelands to the East, the preservation of Hungarian independence and culture was a constant struggle against foreign powers and foreign influences which sought to impose themselves upon the Hungarians: over the ages, foreign religions, cultures, languages, political regimes and rulers have been forced upon the Hungarians. In Hungary, the original ancient Hungarian culture, religion and language have been persecuted and suppressed since the forced Christianization of the country which began around 1000 AD.

Since then, Hungary suffered numerous foreign invasions which resulted in the widespread decimation of the Hungarian population and in the partition and dismemberment of Hungary's territory. Foreign occupation and rule brought foreign colonization and exploitation. The Hungarians became a minority and second-class citizens in their own country as the key positions in the state administration, the churches, industry, commerce, finance, media, arts, education and other professions were dominated by foreigners due to the anti-Hungarian policies of the foreign rulers and regimes.

In the past, the Hungarians have repeatedly attempted to liberate themselves from foreign oppression, but the struggle to reassert Hungarian national interests and cultural identity against foreign political, economic and cultural imperialism and colonialism continues to this day. The apparent end of communism in 1990 did not bring the promised and expected national renewal in Hungary. The injustices of the past were not redressed. The former communists and their collaborators are still in power and still serving foreign interests. Millions of Hungarians are still forced to live under oppressive foreign regimes in the territories lost by Hungary after the two World Wars.

After decades of anti-Hungarian policies under various types of dictatorships and under the current post-communist regimes, the Hungarians must face threats to their very existence, identity and self-consciousness as a nation, in Hungary as well as in the neighbouring states. Hungarian culture is threatened with extinction in its native land as a result of the policy of cultural genocide (ethnocide) and ethnic cleansing pursued by the neighbouring states against the indigenous Hungarian populations inhabiting the territories which these states have severed from Hungary. Hungarian national independence and culture are also threatened by corporate globalization and its promoting egotistical and materialistic liberal consumer society ideology which erodes traditional cultural and moral values.

GENESIS 10, 8-13:
Cush was the father of Nimrod, who began to show himself a man of might on earth; and he was a mighty hunter before the Lord, as the saying goes, 'Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord'. His kingdom in the beginning consisted of Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar*. From that land he migrated to Asshur and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen, a great city between Nineveh and Calah. [The New English Bible, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 10]
* Shinar: the land of Sumer in Mesopotamia [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary].

The Hungarians, who call themselves Magyar, have an ancient traditional pre-christian account of their origins according to which they were the descendents of Nimrod (also spelled as Nimrud), son of Cush; Nimrod and Eneth had two sons, Magor and Hunor; Magor was the ancestor of the Magyars, and Hunor was the ancestor of the Huns, thus symbolizing the common origins of the Huns and of the Magyars. Ancient Byzantine sources mention that the Magyars were also known as the Sabirs who originated from Northern Mesopotamia, which was referred to as Subir-ki by the Sumerians who also originated from this land. Numerous other ancient and medieval sources also refer to the Scythians, Huns, Avars and Magyars as identical peoples.

Independently from the various political regimes which have ruled over Hungary and which have imposed the current official version of the origins and history of the Hungarians, modern scientific and scholarly research has confirmed the Sumerian-Scythian-Hun-Avar-Magyar ethno-linguistic relationship and continuity.
Thus, the biblical references, ancient sources and modern independent scientific and scholarly research all concur with the Hungarians's own ancient account of their origins
10 000 years ago (8000 BC)

The Neolithic revolution: the invention of agriculture and animal domestication in the ancient Near East, the "Fertile Crescent" - the region between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Zagros mountains of Western Iran - by the peoples who formed the distinct (non-Semitic and non-Indo-European) ethno-linguistic group from which the Sumerians, the creators of the first civilization, originated.

7500 years ago (5500 BC)
Beginning of the Copper Age: Mesopotamia becomes the culturally dominant region of the Near East: first Northern Mesopotamia (Subir-ki/Subartu), and from 4500 BC, Southern Mesopotamia, the land of Sumer. Due to the demographic and economic growth resulting from the Neolithic revolution, the Near Eastern population begins to expand, settling in the Mediterranean and Danubian basins, Eastern Europe, Iran, India, and Central Asia, laying the foundations of civilization in those regions and exerting a determining cultural influence upon the later formation of the various Eurasian ethno-linguistic groups.

7000 years ago (5000 BC)
The first of several waves of Near Eastern settlers appear in the Carpathian basin, the territory of Historical Hungary.

5200 years ago (3200 BC)
Beginning of the Bronze Age: Height of the Sumerian civilization; development of numerous cultural and technological inventions (writing, the wheel). First Sumerian Empire extends from the Eastern Mediterranean to Western Iran, including all of Mesopotamia.

3000 BC - 2000 BC
Sumerian colonies are established from the Atlantic Ocean through the Mediterranean and Danubian basins to India and Central Asia (Turan), and from the Caucasus to Northeast Africa. The vast belt of Eurasian grasslands stretching from the Carpathian mountains to the Altay range, bordered in the North by the Eurasian forest belt and in the the South by the Caucasus and the Iranian plateau, is gradually settled by Sumerians and Sumerian-related peoples from Mesopotamia, Transcaucasia and Iran. These Near Eastern settlers of the Eurasian grasslands became the peoples which were later referred to as the Scythians, Huns, Avars and Magyars among others, and collectively known as the Turanians. The Turanians were therefore the descendents of the Sumerian-Mesopotamian peoples, and the inheritors of this ancient Near Eastern culture. The Turanian peoples had a profound cultural impact on their Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Finnic, Siberian and East Asian neighbours, which have preserved numerous Turanian ethno-linguistic and cultural elements.

3000 BC - 2455 BC
First appearance of nomadic Semitic tribes in Sumerian Mesopotamia. Semitic peoples begin to settle in increasing numbers in Mesopotamia. The Sumerian civilization exerts a dominant influence upon the development of later Semitic cultures.

2455 BC - 2356 BC
The Semitic Accadians impose their hegemony upon the Sumerian city-states. Mesopotamia is devastated by wars, the population is decimated, oppressed and enslaved by the Accadians. Many Sumerians flee to their colonies.

2356 BC - 1900 BC
The Sumerian city-states and their allies overthrow the Semitic Accadian hegemony, liberating themselves from foreign oppression.

1900 BC - 1733 BC
The Semitic Babylonians impose their hegemony upon Mesopotamia.

1733 BC - 1163 BC
The Kassites, one of the Sumerian-related peoples inhabiting Western Iran, overthrow the Semitic Babylonian hegemony and establish their rule over Northern Mesopotamia. A Sumerian dynasty rules over Southern Mesopotamia from 1860 BC to 1492 BC.

1115 BC - 612 BC
The Semitic Assyrians impose their hegemony over the Near East after centuries of warfare. The ensuing devastation, decimation, deportations and oppression alter the ethnic composition of the Near East, including Mesopotamia, as the Semitic element increases and the Sumerians decrease.

612 BC
The Sumerian-related Medes, Scythians, and Chaldeans annihilate the Assyrian Empire. See Scythian artifacts and images

539 BC - 331 BC
After overthrowing the Median Empire, the Persians conquer Mesopotamia and the rest of the Near East.

256 BC - 226 AD
After the fall of Persia, the Parthian Empire rules over Mesopotamia, Armenia and Iran. The Turanian Parthians, custodians of the ancient Sumerian civilization, resist the Eastern expansion of the Roman Empire. In 226 AD, the Persian Sassanids overthrow the Parthian Empire which experiences a revival between 272 and 326 AD. See Parthian artifacts and images

2nd c. BC
The Hun Empire reaches its greatest extent from the Pacific to the Aral sea, from Siberia to the Parthian Empire and China. The Huns face centuries of struggle against an increasingly offensive and encroaching Chinese imperialism and expansionism.

2nd - 4th c. AD
Facing mounting pressures from China in the East, the Huns begin to expand into Europe.

In the 4th century AD, the Huns begin their Western military campaigns. In 375 AD, the Huns defeat the Goths, setting in motion the great migration of Germanic tribes which also contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire.

5th c.
During the 5th century AD, the Huns continue their crushing military campaigns against the Roman Empire. The Huns expel the Romans from the Carpathian Basin (Pannonia and Dacia were occupied by the Romans after they had perpetrated genocidal warfare against the indigenous inhabitants of these Carpathian regions) and the Hun Empire establishes its centre of power in the Carpathian-Danubian region. Following Atilla's death under suspicious circumstances in 453, the Huns' Germanic allies turn against them and the bulk of the Hunnic tribes regroups to the East of the Carpathians, leaving a rear-guard tribe in the Eastern Carpathians. This Hunnic tribe still inhabits this region today and they are the Hungarian Sz?kely people.

The Byzantine attempt to convert the Huns to the Christian religion fails after the Huns rebel against the destruction of their ancient religious symbols.

The Avar-Huns establish their empire in Central and Eastern Europe, with the Carpathian Basin as the centre of power. The Avars continue their centuries-long struggle against the encroaching German and Byzantine empires. See Avar Empire map

9th c.
Following the settlement of Jewish refugees from the Near East in the Khazar Empire, the ruling dynasty of the Khazars, another Turanian people, is converted to Judaism and seeks to impose this religion upon all its subjects. This precipitates a civil war which leads to the collapse of the Khazar Empire. Several rebel Khazar tribes join the Hungarian tribal federation which was led by the Magyar tribe. At that time the Hungarians were established in their own independent state of Dentumagyaria, between the Avar and Khazar empires.

After the collapse of the Khazar Empire, the Magyars and the other Hungarian tribes move West into the Etelkoz region, where the Covenant of Blood takes place. This Covenant effectively creates the Magyar (Hungarian) nation which proceeds with the reconquest of the Carpathian Basin and its surrounding regions. After expelling foreign encroaching powers from the Carpathian region and uniting with their previously settled Hun-Avar ethnic kin, the Magyars establish the Hungarian State in 896 as the successor state to the Hun and Avar empires.

10th c.
Following their victory over the invading Germans in 907, the Hungarians launch a series of punitive and pre-emptive military campaigns in Europe with the objective of preventing the formation of a large powerful united empire in the West, which would represent a serious threat to the security of the Hungarian State, and of recovering the Avar gold treasures pillaged by the invading Germans during the previous century. The Hungarians thus secure their state's position as a great power.

Following the reign of the Hungarian ruler Geza, during which foreign interests gain increasing influence under the guise of Christianization, Geza's son Istvan (Stephen) is installed as king of Hungary with the assistance of foreign armed intervention, in violation of ancient Hungarian traditions and of the sacred Covenant of Blood. Koppany, the rightful heir to the throne and leader of the national resistance is captured and quartered. Under the rule of Istvan, feudalism and Christianity are imposed by force. The ancient Hungarian runic scriptures are burned and the traditionalist leaders and priests persecuted and exterminated. The Westernization of Hungary results in the enslavement of the Hungarian population under an increasingly foreign feudal ruling class and church where foreign influences and foreign interests become predominant.

Medieval Hungary 997-1526
With the exception of a few periods of relative peace and prosperity under the reign of Hungarian kings, medieval Hungary was characterized by an almost continuous political instability due to the constant struggle for power between various ruling factions. "Pagan" and "peasant" rebellions demonstrated the Hungarian people's resentment against the foreign Christian feudal regime. Hungary was increasingly forced into the sacrificial role of "Easternmost bastion of Western Christianity", which caused incalculable losses to the Hungarian nation as it was maneuvered by foreign interests into conflicts with the Mongols (13th c.) and the Turks (14th-17th c.).

Partitioned Hungary 1526-1699
As a result of the previous centuries of feudal regime, a weakened and internally divided Hungary was unable to withstand external pressures. The foreign-influenced ruling feudal class failed to defend the national interests and this led to the 1526 military defeat at Mohacs against the Ottoman army and to the subsequent partition of Hungary (See map). Thus, Hungary was occupied and partitioned by the Habsburgs and the Ottomans, with the Principality of Transylvania remaining as an autonomous entity. These events proved to be catastrophic for the future historical development of Hungary as the Hungarian population suffered great losses due to centuries of warfare and foreign occupation.

Hungary under Habsburg rule 1699-1918
After the Ottoman Empire's withdrawal, the Austrian Habsburg take-over of Hungary was met with Hungarian resistance in the 1701-11 War of Independence, but Hungary remained under Habsburg control. Hungary thus became an oppressed, exploited and colonized land as a result of which the Hungarian nation became politically, economically, socially, culturally and demographically marginalized in its own country.
Another Hungarian War of Independence took place in 1848-49, which was defeated with Russian intervention. However, Austria was unable to obstruct the Hungarian national will to reassert its historical rights, and in 1867 the Austro-Hungarian Compromise took place, granting Hungary domestic self-rule, but the ministries of finance, foreign affairs and war remained under Habsburg imperial control. As the Habsburgs continued their policy of divide and rule, they incited the foreign ethnic groups settled in Hungary against the Hungarians, and this policy led to the First World War. For further reference see Origins of the Hungarian Question

After the armistice ending WWI, a liberal government took over in Hungary as the country was occupied by enemy forces, paving the way for a Communist coup carried out by mostly non-Hungarians in 1919. This led to the territorial dismemberment of Hungary at the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, whereby Hungary lost nearly 3/4 of its territory and millions of Hungarians were forced under the oppressive foreign rule of the neighbouring states newly created and enlarged at Hungary's expense. The treaties ending WWI were responsible for WWII, and once again, Hungary was forced to participate in a war against its will. Between 1938 and 1941, Hungary recovered some of its lost territories . Hungary entered the war following an unprovoked attack by foreign (supposedly Soviet) forces in 1940. After attempting peace negotiations with the Allies, Hungary was invaded by the Nazis in 1944, and later that same year by the Soviets.
Hungary under Soviet occupation 1944-1990

At the Paris Treaty of 1947, the Trianon borders of 1920 are reimposed upon Hungary. In 1948, a Communist regime is imposed in Hungary. Once again, the hard core of the Hungarian Communist Party is formed by non-Hungarians imported from the Soviet Union. In 1956 the Hungarian National Uprising against the Soviet Communist regime takes place but is crushed by yet another Soviet military intervention. The Hungarian Communist regime continues its anti-Hungarian policies aiming to destroy Hungarian national consciousness and traditional cultural values. In the 1980's the Hungarian Communist regime was financed by huge loans from Western financial institutions.
The "post-communist" era 1990-

After decades of totalitarian dictatorship, the Hungarian Communist party successfully consolidated and entrenched itself, and was able to stage what appeared to be a peaceful transition to a freely elected democratic political regime. However, the Communists remain in control of all the key positions in the state apparatus, including the media, the legal system and the academic institutions, and in the newly expanding private sector of the economy.

As a result, the marginalization and exclusion of Hungarian national interests continues to this day. Hungary is still burdened by the increasing foreign debt for which the Communist regime was responsible, while the issue of compensation for Hungary's losses resulting from foreign occupations following the two world wars has still not been dealt with. The compensation program for the losses suffered by the Hungarian people under the Communist regime has been inadequate and the crimes committed by the Communist regime against the Hungarian people have not yet been brought to justice. 

The privatization of Hungarian State assets by the former Communist elite in collaboration with foreign corporate interests has been fraudulent and has resulted in the illegal acquisition of most of Hungary's economy by foreign interests with the intentional exclusion of Hungarian ownership. Hungary has been pressured to sign disadvantageous treaties with several neighbouring countries whereby, in exchange for the Hungarian recognition of the current state borders and the renounciation of any future territorial claim, the neighbouring countries in question promise to respect the rights of the Hungarian ethnic populations living under their rule. However, far from respecting these treaties, Hungary's neighbours continue to implement their policies of anti-Hungarian discrimination and ethnic cleansing which they have pursued since 1920. For further reference see The Hungarian Question

Thus, as a result of these trends and policies, the entire Hungarian nation is facing threats to its existence on multiple fronts, politically, economically, socially, culturally, and demographically. Realizing the seriousness of this situation, various movements and political parties have begun to mobilize and lobby for the protection of the Hungarian national interests.

Copyright Charles Dombi


From the books "The Children of Mu", "Lost Continent of Mu" by James Churchward:
Great Uyghur Empire was the largest and most important colonial empire embodying the whole of Central Asia from the Pacific Ocean to the Ural Mountains with colonies and outposts throughout the central parts of Europe. The last western outposts were Ireland, Breton in France and Basque in Spain. The southern boundary was along the northern boundaries of Cochin China, Burma, India, and Persia,this was before the Himalayas and the other Asiatic mountains were raised. Their northern boundary extended into Siberia, but how far there is no record to tell. Remains of their cities have been found in the southern parts of Siberia.

Legendary history states that the Uyghurs made their first settlement in Asia, from there they extended themselves inland. Their first exodus was to the current Gobi - Teklimakan desert. At the time the the mountains had not been raised and what is now the Gobi desert was a rich well-watered plain. Here the capital city of the Uyghurs was situated, almost due south from Lake Baikal. After this records are found of them all through Central Asia to the Caspian Sea. Then through Central Europe to the Atlantic Ocean. Written records tell us that the Uyghurs had many large cities. Today these are either washed away or buried under the sands of the Gobi and surrounding lands.

After the Magnetic Cataclysm, the Biblical "Flood" and the subsequent mountain raising, small companies of Uyghurs, called Aryans today, drifted into Eastern Europe from the mountains of Central and Western Asia. The Hindu Aryans were the descendants of a company of Uyghurs who were marooned in the mountains of Afghanistan near the Hindu Kush when the mountains were raised. Its unquestionable that the early settlers in eastern Europe were remnants of Uyghurs that found their way out from the inhospitable mountains. This seems verified by Max Muller, who wrote: "The first Caucasians were a small
company from the mountains of Central Asia." 

The history of the Uyghurs is the history of the Aryan races, for all of the true Aryan races descended from Uyghur forefathers. The Uyghurs formed chains of settlements across the central parts of Europe back in Tertiary Times. After the Empire was destroyed by the great magnetic cataclysm and mountain raising, the surviving remnants of humanity or their descendants again formed settlements in Europe. 

It is popularly believed that the Chinese themselves developed their civilization but they did not. The Chinese actually inherited the civilization of white Aryans or Uyghurs in ancient central China. Truth of Tarim mummies and their pyramids were hidden by the Chinese government because they can reveal all the lies of Chinese civilization.

The Uyghurs had reached a high state of civilization and culture.They knew astrology, mining, the textile industries,architecture, mathematics, agriculture, writing, reading, medicine, ect. They were experts in decorative art or silk, metals, and wood, and they made statues of gold, silver, bronze, and clay and this was before the history of Egypt commenced.


Hungarian Tourist Authority
Magyar Turisztikai Hivatal

Knights Malta History

Malta's central position in the Mediterranean has involved it, often unwillingly, in conflicts happening in the area, therefor giving it a depth of history and cultural heritage relatively too large for its size. Its history is one of the main attractions for tourists who visit this small, central and historic island. This extraordinary history, that goes back 7000 years, possesses the largest number of monuments and historic sites in the world. These are unique not just for Malta but for the world heritage as a whole, and should be preserved, as they form part of the remarkable Maltese identity.

Malta 's Prehistory - The Neolithic & Temple Period (5200BC - 2500BC)
The first settlers in Malta came from Sicily by boat around 5000BC. These early inhabitants were farmers and lived in caves for five or six centuries, later on building mud brick huts and starting off the village life.
Not much information can be gathered about these people but it is known that they traded honey and textiles with their northern neighbors for things not found in Malta . Most knowledge is assembled from tombs and temples, where pottery figurines, tools and art from those times is found. By 4000BC rituals and elaborate burials had been introduced, and many inhabitants started to build temples, several of them surviving to this very day and known as the oldest buildings in the world.
These temples consist of connecting rooms or chambers and may have imitated caves. There are distinct types of decoration in them, which had several uses to them. Cult or religion seemed to have involved fertility goddesses, animal sacrifices and ritual burials. A Dark Age surrounds the next 200 years.
Hagar Qim and Mnajdra are two of the erect stone megalithic temples situated on the south side of the island. The main complex has two entrances and many chambers, which include an 'Oracle room', and alters. This supports that a fertility goddess was worshipped. These sites are recognized all over the world as examples of the earliest evidence of man's civilization. Ggantija in Gozo, The Hypogeum and Tarxien are other examples of the Maltese temples.

The Phoenician Period (800BC - 218BC)
The Phoenicians came originally from the Levant , which is the area around modern Lebanon . They had a great tradition as sailors and traders. Between 1000BC and 900BC they colonized the coast of North Africa and later headed into the central and western Mediterranean.
Around 800BC, Phoenician culture and influence shows in Malta , typically in burials. 'Malet' was a word they used meaning ' refuge' and is a suggestion for the origin of the name ' Malta '. Malta was then known for its textiles. Because of its position in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea , it was on the busy trade routes. Later, around 600BC, Malta came under the direct control of Carthage , a Phoenician colony in what is now Tunisia . Carthage established itself as the powerful regional capital with trade routes and satellite colonies in Spain , Sicily and Southern France . Their language has left a permanent impression on the Maltese language and some place names have their roots from this time, for example 'Marsa' is derive from their word for harbor.
Not much remains of our Phoenician heritage, except for graves and tombs, which have, sadly, nearly all been robbed of their contents. There are the foundations of some Punic temples, but their towns and villages are hidden as they probably lie under what was built later. 
The Roman and Byzantine Period (218BC - 870BC)
The Romans took over Carthage quickly and extended their influence south beyond Malta . Therefor, Malta became a quite place remote from the center of activity, prospering under Roman control and protection. The Romans were usually tolerant and understanding as long as their subdue subjects' loyalty was to Rome .
New influences still emerged, thus we see more contact with the Greek cities, mainly in Sicily . Malta produced cloth, olives, oil and honey. Meli is the Greek word for honey and Melita is another suggestion for the origin of the island's name. Life in Malta was prosperous in the roman period, and there was wealth on the island. We now know that the Romans built the bases of many of the round towers that can be seen around the island. Towards the end of the 4 th century AD, the Roman Empire was split into two and Malta formed part of the eastern empire with Constantinople as its capital. Little evidence of Byzantine contact remains apart from small items such as coins.
Villa in Rabat
The Roman Villa in Rabat probably belonged to a rich Roman merchant or senior civil servant. It is beautifully sited, looking west over the valley towards Mtarfa. The ruins were discovered in 1881. The small museum was added in 1923. Here we can see various Roman remains, such as amphorae (clay pots) statuettes, pottery and glassware. Some of these were found on the site of this Roman villa, while others were found at other Roman sites in Malta - such as a Roman Tower near Safi and at Marsaxlokk.
The Roman villa in Malta contains various examples of Roman mosaics, these are pictures or patterns produced by an arrangement of small variously colored pieces of glass or stone. Work of this kind is art in itself. Mosaics originated around 500BC in Greece and were originally made from pebbles. Mosaics were usually imitations of paintings. They were extremely popular and extremely valued by Romans.
Publius was the Roman Governor of Malta when St. Paul landed on our island after being shipwrecked while on his way to stand trial in Rome . The story goes that St. Paul cured Publius' father of an illness. The Roman site of 'San Pawl Milqhi' is the traditional site of St. Paul 's first meeting with the Governor around 58AD.
The site was certainly an agricultural center founded in the 2 nd century BC. A fire destroyed it in 5 th century AD, but it flourished again in the 3 rd and 4 th centuries AD. The site had become a place of pilgrimage from the 7 th century Ad.
Publius Villa
St.Agatha's Catacombs In Rabat
Early Christians across the Mediterranean , used catacombs as a place of refuge and where meetings could be held. They were also used to bury the dead. It is said that St. Agatha has hidden there to escape persecution in Sicily during the 3 rd century AD.
In St Agatha's, there are over 500 graves of several types, the majority of children. There are sections for pagans and Jews, as well as for Christians. The walls are decorated with frescoes and paintings from the early Christian and Byzantine periods. Around the seventh Century, the catacombs ceased to be used.
The Arab Period (870AD - 1090AD)
In 870, Malta fell to Arabs, with Sicily falling shortly afterwards. Arab conquest and influence had spread westwards in the Mediterranean in the 7th and 8th Centuries AD, and already extended to Spain , Southern France , parts of Italy and Sicily . Their occupation of Malta was to last for the next 220 years.
During this period, Christianity was sometimes tolerated, but more often suppressed. Malta lost its independence. Our inheritance from this period is mainly cultural, as little of the art and buildings of the time have survived. The basis for the modern Maltese language was laid, thus replacing one Semitic language (Phoenician from the Punic period) with another. New crops were introduced, notably cotton and citrus fruits, as were new farming and irrigation methods. And the origin of many of our place names can be traced.
The Norman & Early Medieval Periods (1090AD - 1530AD)
In 1090, Count Roger the Norman drove out the Arabs in a short battle won with the help of the Maltese, to whom he gave the red and white colors of our present flag. He restored the Catholic Church in Malta and joined Malta with Sicily , which he recovered in 1091.
Malta re-established its trade links. Control passed in the later Norman period to an overlord who added piracy and slave trading to the island's occupations. Then in 1194, Malta came under Swabian rule, a change again in 1266, when Angevin rule dominated - at this time the language adopted a Latin script - and then in 1292, Aragon took over. But they soon passed control to a corrupt Sicilian aristocrat and thus began the rule of the so-called Counts of Malta.
They maintained their hold until 1397, when finally, and at the request of the long-suffering Maltese, the Aragonese took more interest in the island. The Aragonese formed the Universita`, thus giving the island a measure of self-determination.
By 1530, when Emperor Charles V gave the island to the displaced Knights of St John , Malta had for 50 years been part of the united empire of Aragon and Castille. It was on the front line facing the growing menace of the Ottoman (or Turkish) Empire in the East.
There remains little which is intact from this period. But the cores of several houses in Mdina and Victoria in Gozo date from this period. It was the Swabian King Frederick II who introduced falconry to the island.
Norman House In Mdina
Bir Miftuh Chapel
This is a fine example of a late medieval town house. Called the Palazzo Falzon, it is built in the 'siculo-norman' (meaning Sicilian/Norman style) but probably not before 1495. It was originally the property of the Aragonese Vice Admiral Falzon. It survived until the Knights arrived in 1530 from Rhodes . For a short time it was the home of Grand Master de l'Isle Adam. It is a two storey house built around a courtyard and has very lovely '2 light' windows. It is now a museum and contains some good 18th and 19th Century paintings, a collection of armour, tools, and a kitchen display from the 16th and 17th Centuries.
Lying between Luqa and Gudja is the Church of Santa Marija ta' Bir Miftuh, one of the best preserved from the late medieval period. Built by 1436, this was the Church for one of the ten main parishes on Malta . There was a Church here from early in the mediaeval time. The present Church was originally bigger and existed side by side with two or three other chapels which are now gone. In it are some fine early 17th Century murals and a painting, only recently uncovered when repairs and restoration were made. There are tales of buried treasure and intrigue. Near to the site is a Bronze Age water cistern system. Mdina is the old Capital city of Malta and has been occupied since ancient times. During the Arab stay on our island this great city was reduced to its present size, walls and moat were built around it and it was re-named Mdina.
Mdina remained the capital of Malta throughout the mediaeval period. Here the rich nobles built their palaces. Mdina has a number of mediaeval remains. Palazzo Santa Sofia in Villegaigon Street is the oldest building there and is thought to be 13th Century.
The Period Of The Knights (1530AD - 1798AD)
The proper name of the Knights of St John is the Sovereign and Military Order of the Knights Hospitaler of St John of Jerusalem - the Knights of St John, the Knights of Rhodes, the Knights of Malta, and the Knights Hospitalers. The Knights originate from the time of the Christian Crusades in the 11th and 12th Centuries AD when, as a religious order, combining the roles of soldiers and monks, they ran hospitals and provided accommodation and protection for pilgrims to the Holy Land.
In 1291, Islamic forces took the Holy Land , and the Knights were thrown out. They went first to Cyprus , and then to Rhodes . There they stayed for more than 200 years, building extensively, and developing a strong navy. The forces of Islam, lead by the Turks, continued to push westwards and Christendom and Islam were often at war. The Knights were in the forefront and their command of the sea routes was vital.
By the time they came to Rhodes , and later to Malta , the military order was organized into 8 groups or langues, representing the countries from which the aristocrats who became Knights came. Each had its own lodging house or auberge. They elected a Grand Master as their head. The eight pointed cross represented the eight virtues or the eight langues. Each langue had a different duty - for example the English were responsible for cavalry training. Each defended a stretch of the fortifications.
But in 1523, the Knights were defeated by the Turks in a siege on Rhodes and were evicted, lucky to leave with their lives. Charles V thought that Malta was an ideal base from which to defend the Central Mediterranean from Turkish raids. He ordered the Knights to move here and they arrived in Malta in late 1530.
The Knights chose to settle in Birgu where they built their auberges and a Conventual church, on similar lines to their previous base in Rhodes . And they set about improving the island's defenses against the common enemy in the East. Arab forces were becoming increasingly aggressive and moving west. Christians captured in these raids were being sold for ransom or as slaves. Short of funds, the Knights and Maltese become corsairs - a kind of pirate - attacking towns in North Africa and Turkish shipping.
In revenge, in 1551, Suleyman the Magnificent raided Gozo and sold all 5000 inhabitants into slavery. Eventually, in May 1565, the Turks, under Suleyman's generals, attacked Malta with 180 ships and 30,000 men. Facing them on Malta were no more than 8000, of whom 700 were Knights and the rest were Maltese or mercenaries. They took refuge in Mdina and Birgu. The First Great Siege of Malta had begun.
The story of the Great Siege is heroic - the brave defense of Fort St. Elmo, the resistance in Birgu, the suffering of attacker and defender alike through casualties, disease, and the heat of summer and finally, the eventual reinforcement from Sicily and the defeat of an increasingly demoralized enemy. The result was a newfound respect for the Knights and people of Malta , which earned financial support from Europe for their position as a bulwark against Islam, and confirmation of the Knights dominant position in Malta.
The Knights moved to Valletta , which became the capital, and built its magnificent fortifications. And with Turkish power in decline, the Knights re-established themselves as a naval power, revived their corsairing and slave trading activities, and established the Grand Harbor as a safe port for friendly, mainly Christian, visitors. When added to the funds that came from Europe and the property owned by the Order, the next 200 years were rich and powerful times, though two outbreaks of plague took a toll in life.
Eventually, serious problems undermined the Knights' position; tensions grew between the Church and the Knights. The poorer Maltese became resentful. For their part, the Knights became complacent and insular. When Muslim shipping targets became harder to find, and when revolution broke out in France removing a valuable source of income by the confiscation of the Order's property, funds became a problem. Defenses were weak and in 1798, they were ill prepared to resist Emperor Napoleon of France when he arrived on his way to Egypt . Fearing invasion, the Knights refused him port facilities, so Napoleon gave them three days to leave. With 500 ships and 30,000 men facing them, after half-hearted resistance, they did, somewhat to the relief of the Maltese inhabitants.
The Presidents Palace
The President's Palace was once the Grand Master's Palace. It was built between 1571 and 1574. Today it is The President's office and the seat of Malta 's parliament. It is open to the public.
The palace is a treasure trove of art. In the Tapestry Chamber hangs a unique collection of Gobelin tapestries. Frescoes depicting the Great Siege of 1565, by Perez d' Aleccio, adorn the Hall of St Michael and St George, formerly the Order's Supreme Council Hall. The decorations on the ceiling of the corridors are by Nicolo Nasini. Many of the State Apartments are embellished with friezes describing episodes of the Order's history. In the various State Apartments are outstanding works of art by famous painters.
Here also is housed the Armory of the Knights. This collection consists of almost 6000 pieces of armour from all over Europe . They cover the period from about the 16th Century to the middle of the 18th Century. Here is Grand Master Wignacourt's gold inlaid suit of armour made in about 1615. There are also the suits of armour worn by Grand Masters La Vallette and Garges. The steps leading up to the State Apartments are low to allow knights in armour to climb them.
St.John's Cathedral
The Church of St. John the Baptist was built between 1573 and 1577 by a Maltese engineer, Girolamo Cassar. The Cathedral, once the church of the Order, is historically and artistically one of the most important monuments on our islands.
The rich interior of the cathedral shows the love of the Knights for the arts. The great rounded vault of the nave leads you to look towards the high altar. The nave has six bays on either side, with one allocated to each langue or nationality of the Knights. The interior is a mass of color and intricate carvings. Mattia Preti painted the rounded ceiling between 1622 and 1666. The paintings show eighteen scenes from the life of St. John.
The mosaic floor of the nave and side chapels is composed of multi-colored, inlaid, marble tombstones showing he coats-of-arms of the nobles who lived in Malta at this time.
In the Oratory is the magnificent painting of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist by Caravaggio, one of the most important paintings in Malta .
In the Church Museum are the Cathedral's priceless collection of Flemish tapestries and another beautiful painting by Caravaggio of St. Jerome.
Casa Rocca Piccola
Auberge De Castile
Casa Rocca Piccola
This small 16th Century palace is in Republic Street, Valletta . It was built when Valletta was first being developed after the move from Vittoriosa following the First Great Siege in 1565. It has a garden, which is unusual as it was forbidden to have one then because of the shortage of water. Many things of interest from earlier days are laid out in the period style, and show how privileged people then lived. It is possible to visit the private chapel, library, bedrooms and reception rooms that contain paintings, furniture, costumes and other family treasures. There are two bomb shelters under the palace - one, using the mediaeval well, was for the public in the Second World War, the other was made in 1935 for the family then occupying the house.
Near the remains of the nineteenth century opera house, bombed in the Second World War, is the most impressive of the four surviving auberges in Valletta . There were eight in all. The Auberge de Castile belonged to the Spanish and Portuguese Langue and is an example of Maltese baroque. In 1741, the original building was remodeled in this style for Grand Master Pinto, a man always keen to display his wealth and importance. His statue and coat of arms are above the main entrance to emphasize his prestige. The wide staircase leading to the entrance is impressive. Castile , as it is called, is now the Prime Minister's office, so the building is closed to the public.
The Valletta Bastions
When they first arrived, the Knights were slow to fortify their base because they hoped their stay was temporary. And when the urgency became obvious, there was neither the time nor money to fortify the strategic peninsula of what is now Valletta . So they concentrated instead on Birgu, and a hasty improvement of Fort St Elmo. Despite limitations, they served the Knights well in the Great Siege. But when it ended, the fortifications of Birgu were badly damaged. With support from Europe , it was decided to fortify Valletta . There had been several earlier plans. Finally, those of the Italian engineer Laparelli were adopted. These consisted of four bastions stretching from Marsamxett harbour to the Grand Harbor . In between, a number of smaller bastions were to line the irregular front.

In 1571, just five years after the start of the construction work, the Knights moved to Valletta .
Nine cavaliers, or key strongpoints, were planned, but only two were eventually built. These guard the main gate and are higher than the ramparts of the bastions. They were substantially rebuilt when Floriana was fortified. One, St. John's , is the Knights' present embassy in Malta . Further modifications continued - deeper ditches and higher ramparts, the Vendome bastion adjoining Fort St. Elmo built in 1614. Under Grand Master Verdala, the series of bastions, curtains, ramparts and cavaliers were finally completed and fifty guns were placed in position.
By the 17th century, warfare technology and continued concern about the Turks prompted a review of the fortifications. In 1635, the Pope sent an engineer, Paolo Floriani, who proposed a new line of defense based on the peninsula outside Valletta . Work started in 1636 and was completed 9 years later. Floriana, as it is now called, is named after him.
Gradually, a ring of fortifications was built to protect the capital. At the end of the century, three new bastions were built in front of Fort St Elmo. Further forts and redoubts protected the flanks. There are also the substantial fortifications that enclose the three cities, adding further protection to the Grand Harbor - the Margharita Lines protect Cospicua and the Cottonera Lines provide an outer wall. Of nearly 50km of fortifications built by the Knights, those in and around Valletta are some of the finest in the world.
The French Period (1798AD - 1800AD)  
Napoleon himself only stayed for 6 days, time enough to load his flagship, L'Orient with as much booty as he could. Much of it was sunk at the Battle of the Nile and lost forever. He left military garrisons in Mdina and Valletta . He abolished the Inquisition and slavery. Rapid administrative and legislative change followed some of which, to Malta 's credit, survives to the present day. The French needed funds to support their European war and further looting and confiscation of property became commonplace. After 3 months, relief at the departure of the Knights had turned to anger, and the Maltese rose up in Mdina when Church property was stolen. They killed the French garrison, and laid siege to the French in Valletta . Help was sought from the British who had just won the Battle of The Nile under Lord Nelson. Their reinforcements blockaded the harbour and the French, many of whom had already died from starvation and disease, surrendered in 1800.

THE BRITISH PERIOD (AD1800 to 1964 AD)  
When the French surrendered, Malta effectively came under British control. The British could have returned Malta to the Knights. But a petition from the Maltese asked the British to stay. Under the Treaty of Paris, Malta became a Crown colony. As Britain 's interests extended during the 19th century with the growth of its Empire, so did the strategic and geographic importance of Malta .
By the middle of the century, the Crimean War, the advent of steam ships and the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, made necessary substantial investment in the military infrastructure of the island and the dockyard.
During the Second World War, Malta fought shoulder to shoulder with the British against Hitler's Nazi Germany. Such was Maltese heroism during the Second Great Siege that they were awarded the George Cross on 15 April 1942 . The George Cross appears on our Flag and the medal itself is in The President's palace.
Over time, the Maltese were given a measure of autonomy on local matters and domestic affairs. This lasted until 21st September 1964 when Malta at last achieved independence as a sovereign nation.
The Victoria Lines
 A natural fault runs roughly east to west across Malta . The Knights had planned a line of defense to run along it to protect the island from attack from the North. But it was the British who between 1870 and 1900 built a series of four forts with intervening walls, gun emplacements and redoubts along the 12 km of the ridge. This was to protect the strategically vital Grand Harbour from invasion from the northern beaches. This is an outstanding example of Victorian military architecture.
Fort Madliena (1875) is the most northerly. Further along is the most impressive, Fort Mosta , built over some 7th Century catacombs. The other forts are Fort Pembroke and, further along the Dwejra lines, Fort Bingemma .
Fort Rinella
 Msida Bastions Cemetery
This is one of our many fine examples of British Victorian military architecture. It was built in 1870 to guard the Grand Harbour , together with the Cambridge Battery at Sliema. Here there is one of only two surviving examples of the world's largest gun, the 100 tonne Armstrong. The other is in Gibraltar . Built in England , getting it here in 1882 was quite a feat. It required a special road and railway. It could hurl a 2000lb projectile accurately over 6 km. We can still see some of the complex system of hydraulics and engines required to fire it, including its own coal power station.  
This garden on the bastion is the site of a cemetery. It is one of four burial grounds located close to the bastions at Floriana. The other three cemeteries, Quarantine, Greek Orthodox and Cholera are no longer in existence as they have been built over. These bastions were built in the 17th Century and saw action briefly when Napoleon's French troops arrived in June 1798. Soon after the British and Maltese defeated the French in September 1800, Protestant burials began in this bastion area. The earliest memorial discovered intact is dated 1806. The visitor enters the Garden through a high gateway and, in keeping with the Bastion's original defensive purpose, there is a fine pair of George III cannon, each weighing four tonnes.
In this cemetery, we have some knowledge of 530 persons buried there, although the total number of burials would be greater. The principal occupants of the cemetery are British Army and Naval personnel, British civil service officials and merchants, as well as their wives and children.
Malta has been a sovereign, independent since 1964 and joined the EU in the 1st of May 2004.



The majority of Christians, particularly Protestants, hold to doctrines planted by Jesuits during the counter-reformation. This was for the purpose of undermining the reformation and for bringing nations and men back under papal yoke by altering their view of salvation and of the pope.
Please do not dismiss this video quickly; listen to the things the Lord has shown me and examine them in light of the scriptures and ask God for guidance.

For materials presenting the true gospel and sound doctrine, I strongly recommend this bookshop: http://theparsonspages.co.uk/Bookshop.aspx 

The visionary of Zionism

Theodor (Binyamin Ze’ev) Herzl, the visionary of Zionism, was born in Budapest in 1860. He was educated in the spirit of the German­Jewish Enlightenment of the period, learning to appreciate secular culture. In 1878 the family moved to Vienna, and in 1884 Herzl was awarded a doctorate of law from the University of Vienna. He became a writer, a playwright and a journalist. The Paris correspondent of the influential liberal Vienna newspaper Neue Freie Presse was none other than Theodor Herzl.

Herzl first encountered the anti-Semitism that would shape his life and the fate of the Jews in the twentieth century while studying at the University of Vienna (1882). Later, during his stay in Paris as a journalist, he was brought face-to-face with the problem. At the time, he regarded the Jewish problem as a social issue and wrote a drama, The Ghetto (1894), in which assimilation and conversion are rejected as solutions. He hoped that The Ghetto would lead to debate and ultimately to a solution, based on mutual tolerance and respect between Christians and Jews.

The Dreyfus Affair

In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was unjustly accused of treason, mainly because of the prevailing anti-Semitic atmosphere. Herzl witnessed mobs shouting “Death to the Jews” in France, the home of the French Revolution, and resolved that there was only one solution: the mass immigration of Jews to a land that they could call their own. Thus, the Dreyfus Case became one of the determinants in the genesis of Political Zionism.
Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve. He mulled over the idea of Jewish sovereignty, and, despite ridicule from Jewish leaders, published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896). Herzl argued that the essence of the Jewish problem was not individual but national. He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly. The Jews are one people, he said, and their plight could be transformed into a positive force by the establishment of a Jewish state with the consent of the great powers. He saw the Jewish question as an international political question to be dealt with in the arena of international politics.
Herzl proposed a practical program for collecting funds from Jews around the world by a company to be owned by stockholders, which would work toward the practical realization of this goal. (This organization, when it was eventually formed, was called the Zionist Organization.) He saw the future state as a model social state, basing his ideas on the European model of the time, of a modern enlightened society. It would be neutral and peace-seeking, and of a secular nature.
In his Zionist novel, Altneuland (Old New Land, 1902), Herzl pictured the future Jewish state as a socialist utopia. He envisioned a new society that was to rise in the Land of Israel on a cooperative basis utilizing science and technology in the development of the Land.
He included detailed ideas about how he saw the future state’s political structure, immigration, fund­raising, diplomatic relations, social laws and relations between religion and the state. In Altneuland, the Jewish state was foreseen as a pluralist, advanced society, a “light unto the nations.” This book had a great impact on the Jews of the time and became a symbol of the Zionist vision in the Land of Israel.

A Movement Is Started

Herzl's ideas were met with enthusiasm by the Jewish masses in Eastern Europe, although Jewish leaders were less ardent. Herzl appealed to wealthy Jews such as Baron Hirsch and Baron Rothschild, to join the national Zionist movement, but in vain. He then appealed to the people, and the result was the convening of the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, on August 29­31, 1897.
The Congress was the first interterritorial gathering of Jews on a national and secular basis. Here the delegates adopted the Basle Program, the program of the Zionist movement, and declared, “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.” At the Congress the World Zionist Organization was established as the political arm of the Jewish people, and Herzl was elected its first president.
Herzl convened six Zionist Congresses between 1897 and 1902. It was here that the tools for Zionist activism were forged: Otzar Hityashvut Hayehudim, the Jewish National Fund and the movement’s newspaper Die Welt.
After the First Zionist Congress, the movement met yearly at an international Zionist Congress. In 1936, the center of the Zionist movement was transferred to Jerusalem.

Uganda Isn’t Zion

Herzl saw the need for encouragement by the great powers of the aims of the Jewish people in the Land. Thus, he traveled to the Land of Israel and Istanbul in 1898 to meet with Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. The meeting with Wilhelm was a failure - the monarch dismissed Herzl’s political entreaties with snide anti-Semitic remarks. When these efforts proved fruitless, he turned to Great Britain, and met with Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary and others. The only concrete offer he received from the British was the proposal of a Jewish autonomous region in east Africa, in Uganda.
In 1899, in an essay entitled “The Family Affliction” written for The American Hebrew, Herzl wrote, “Anyone who wants to work in behalf of the Jews needs - to use a popular phrase - a strong stomach.”
The 1903 Kishinev pogrom and the difficult state of Russian Jewry, witnessed firsthand by Herzl during a visit to Russia, had a profound effect on him. He requested that the Russian government assist the Zionist Movement to transfer Jews from Russia to Eretz Yisrael.
At the Sixth Zionist Congress (1903), Herzl proposed the British Uganda Program as a temporary refuge for Jews in Russia in immediate danger. While Herzl made it clear that this program would not affect the ultimate aim of Zionism, a Jewish entity in the Land of Israel, the proposal aroused a storm at the Congress and nearly led to a split in the Zionist movement. The Uganda Program was finally rejected by the Zionist movement at the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905.
Herzl died in Vienna in 1904, of pneumonia and a weak heart overworked by his incessant efforts on behalf of Zionism. By then the movement had found its place on the world political map. In 1949, Herzl’s remains were brought to Israel and reinterred on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem.
Herzl’s books Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”) and Altneuland (“Old New Land”), his plays and articles have been published frequently and translated into many languages. His name has been commemorated in the Herzl Forests at Ben Shemen and Hulda, the world's first Hebrew gymnasium — “Herzliya” — which was established in Tel Aviv, the town of Herzliya in the Sharon and neighborhoods and streets in many Israeli towns and cities.
Herzl coined the phrase “If you will, it is no fairytale,” which became the motto of the Zionist movement. Although at the time no one could have imagined it, Zionism led, only fifty years later, to the establishment of the independent State of Israel.

Herzl’s Family

Herzl and his wife Julia, who was prone to mental instability, had three children, each of whom met a terrible end. His eldest daughter Pauline was a drug addict who died in a French hospital. His son Hans, who shot himself upon learning of his sister’s death, had left Judaism for a series of Christian churches. Herzl had failed to have his son circumcised, and the Zionist leadership, following Herzl’s death, saw to it that the oversight be remedied when the boy was 15 years old. His youngest daughter Trude perished in the Nazi concentration camp of Theresienstadt. Her son, Stephen Theodore Norman (born Stephen Neumann), had been sent to safety in England. On November 20, 1946, after learning of the death of his parents, he jumped to his death from the Massachusetts Avenue bridge in Washington, D.C. at the age of 27.
Herzl himself was 44-years-old when he died in the summer of 1904, on the 20th of Tammuz in the Jewish calendar.

Source: Family information taken from: The Jerusalem Report, July 12, 2004. “Israel: 100 Years Since Herzl’s Death.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/maor.html . 

Map of Pre-1948 Palestine gives lie to Israeli myths

Posted in by pifactory on January 9, 2009 

A LAND without people for a people without land was one of the early propaganda slogans of the Israeli state. Its claim was that the land of Palestine was empty of people, and this was the promised land of the tribe of Israel, the Jewish people.
This land is empty they said. It’s the land we were promised by God they said. It’s ours. They said.
It was a lie.

But a world shocked, shamed — as it should have been — by the Holocaust, a declared attempt at the genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazi state, a known atrocity that had not only been denied but ignored… the world chose to ignore the lie.
Palestine was not empty. It was full of a people who had lived there for generations in hundreds of villages and towns… the Palestinians lived in this land.

As well as lies, Israel also born out of terrorism. Jewish terrorism. The Irgun Zvei Leumi, Haganah, Lehi, the Stern gang. There were repeated massacres in the decade following 1946… at the village Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, Friday 9 April 1948, the Irgun, Haganah and Stern gangs’ systematic massacre of at least 100+ Palestinians, mostly women and children, was a defining atrocity on which the Israeli state was founded. Following the killings the village was looted and the dead desecrated.

Homes were dynamited. The cemetery was bulldozed and Deir Yassin was wiped off the map. More than 50 orphans were found huddled by the walls of old Jerusalem.
Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, said: “Without Deir Yassin there would be no Israel”.
The massacre caused panic among the Palestinian population, with many fleeing in fear of further atrocities in the villages around Jerusalem.

The ultra-militant Irgun attack on Deir Yassin was headed by Menachem Begin. He was a refugee from Russian labour camps and later the sixth prime minister of Israel and Nobel peace prize winner.

On the night of the massacre the Irgun held the equivalent of a press conference at a nearby Jewish settlement. The website Deir Yassin Remembered reports the Irgun claimed Deir Yassin had become “a concentration point for Arabs, including Syrians and Iraqis, planning to attack the western suburbs of Jerusalem.” They said that 25 members of the Haganah militia had reinforced the attack and claimed that an Arabic-speaking Jew had warned the villagers over a loudspeaker from an armored car. This was duly reported in The New York Times on April 10.

The Irgun committed hundreds of acts of terrorism, including the bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, killing 91, and the hanging of British soldiers.

You won’t find Deir Yassin on maps of Israel today. If you visit Isreal you won’t find the village of Deir Yassin. There are no memorials. No plaques. Deir Yassin has long gone, except in the memories of the Palestinians.

Within months of the massacre Deir Yassin had been settled by Jewish immigrants from Poland, Romania and Slovakia. It was renamed in Hebrew Givat Shaul Bet. Today the site of Deir Yassin is in the grounds of a mental hospital, hidden in the trees within sight of the Yad Vashem memorial to the victims of the holocaust. Yad Vashem rightly honors the Jews who were victims of the Holocaust by attempting to record all the names of .

There is no memorial to those killed at Deir Yassin — though the organization Deir Yassin Remembered is raising funds for a memorial.

Deir Yassin was but one village of at least 400 that were obliterated in the early years of the Israeli state. More than 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed from the new land of Israel — many of their descendants became trapped behind the barbed wire fences and closed checkpoints of the giant refugee camp that is now Gaza.

The Israelis went to great pains to cover up, deny and obliterate any record that the land they forcibly occupied was a land of people, the Palestinians. Not only were the people forcibly removed — ethnically cleansed — to create the diaspora, evidence of their existence and culture has been systematically destroyed.
History has been re-written.
Except… as the history of other oppressive assaults on peoples has revealed, it is not possible to obliterate a people, their history and their culture. It survives, albeit under great pain, sacrifice and suffering. But it survives. One day to be honored.

In 1982 I, along with a colleague, visited this crowded, troubled land. We visited refugee camps in Jordan, villages and towns in the occupied West Bank and lived with dear Emile in Ramallah and visited the house that had been his in Jerusalem. We went to cities in Israel. We saw the Israeli concrete forts (from where Palestinian children and peace activists have since been shot to death) looking down on the refugee camps of Gaza, Khan Younis, Jabaliyah.

In Israel we talked with Palestinians and Israelis. We visited the Palestinians in Hebron whose homes had been attacked by settlers demolishing the joint-walls with axes and picks. We visited the old woman whose small dwelling was all but surrounded by the barbed wire of the settlement of Kiryat Arba and who had survived the repeated grenade attacks on her home.
We met with the elected mayor of Bethlehem, who had lost both his legs in an Israeli assassination attempt. We walked with Israelis calling for Peace Now in demonstrations in Tel Aviv.

We became tourists to Canada Park and watched Israeli families and children relax and cook BBQs on what was once a vibrant Palestinian town, of which there was no surviving sign whatsoever.

We took photographs of the child survivors of the Israeli-backed Falangist massacres in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in Beirut.

Weeks after we returned home we watched on TV as Israeli troops and planes invaded and obliterated apartment blocks in Beirut and villages in southern Lebanon… and shelled the refugee camp of Rashidieh south of the ancient city of Tyre where weeks before we had walked along the roads of sand.

But wherever we went we were implored to publish the map: the map that showed that Palestinians had lived throughout what was to be called Israel before 1948. That what had become Israel had been before home to a plethora of tiny Palestinian villlages, that there had been a land with people. Proof that the Israelis had deliberately set out to cleanse the land of Palestinians.

As we returned to London the map of Palestine before 1948 became our most treasured possession.

Print the map. And again and again. They said.
On our return we published the map as the centre-page spread of our humble report. We said there should be two states, Israel and Palestine.

When we sent copies of our report back to occupied Palestine with its pictures of Palestinian children in hospital beds recovering from gun-shot wounds, of barbed wire, of bulldozed Palestinian homes… in all the copies it was the map which had been removed by the Israeli authorities. It was the map that offended the idea of Israel.

Judaism and Evolution

Jewish views on evolution includes a continuum of views about evolution, creationism, and the origin of life. Some Jewish denominations accept evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution).

Classical Rabbinic Teachings

The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrashSeder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is considered to have been written by the Tanna Yose ben Halafta, and cover history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. This chronology is widely accepted among most of Orthodox Judaism today.
A small minority of classical rabbis believed that the world is older, and that life as we know it today did not always exist. Rabbis who had this view based their conclusions on verses in the Talmud the midrash. For example:
  • Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.
  • Some midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 9.

Medieval Rabbinic Teachings

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torahin a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th-century student of Maimonides, agreed with this view.
Even Nahmanides, often critical of the rationalist views of Maimonides, pointed out (in his commentary to Genesis) several non-sequiters stemming from a literal translation of the Bible's account of Creation, and stated that the account actually symbolically refers to spiritual concepts. He quoted the Mishnah in Tractate Chagigah which states that the actual meaning of the Creation account, mystical in nature, was traditionally transmitted from teachers to advanced scholars in a private setting.
A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among classic rabbinic commentators is uncommon (yet there is universal agreement regarding the literal understanding of the time of the creation of Adam). One of several notable exceptions may be the Tosafist commentary on Tractate Rosh Hashanah, where there seems to be an allusion to the age of creation according to a literal reading of Genesis. The non-literal approach is accepted by many as a possible approach within Modern Orthodox Judaism and some segments of Haredi Judaism.

Jewish Views in Reaction to Darwin

With the advent of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory, the Jewish community found itself engaged in a discussion of Jewish principles of faith and modern scientific findings.

Post-1800 Kabbalistic Views of Compatibility

In his commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Bahya ben Asher (11th century, Spain) concludes that there were many time systems occurring in the universe long before the spans of history that man is familiar with. Based on the Kabbalah he calculates that the Earth is billions of years old.
Rabbi Israel Lipschitz of Danzig (1800s) gave a famous lecture on Torah and paleontology, which is printed in the Yachin u-Boaz edition of the Mishnah, after Massechet Sanhedrin. He writes that Kabbalistic texts teach that the world has gone through many cycles of history, each lasting for many tens of thousands of years. He links these teachings to findings about geology from European, American and Asian geologists, and from findings from paleontologists. He discusses the wooly mammoth discovered in 1807 Siberia, Russia, and the remains of several then-famous dinosaur skeletons recently unearthed. Finding no contradiction between this and Jewish teachings, he states "From all this, we can see that all the Kabbalists have told us for so many centuries about the fourfold destruction and renewal of the Earth has found its clearest possible confirmation in our time."
When scientists first developed the theory of evolution, this idea was seized upon by rabbis such as Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, known as the Netziv, who saw Kabbalah as a way to resolve the differences between traditional readings of the Bible and modern day scientific findings. He proposed that the ancient fossils of dinosaurs were the remains of beings that perished in the previous "worlds" described in some Kabbalistic texts. This today is the view of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan.

Late 1800s Orthodox View of Evolution

In the late 1880s, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, an influential leader in the early opposition to non-Orthodox forms of Judaism, wrote that he while he did not endorse the idea of common descent (that all life developed from one common , even if science ever did prove the factuality of Evolution, it would not pose a threat to Orthodox Judaism's beliefs. He posited that belief in Evolution could instead cause one to be more reverent of God by understanding His wonders (a master plan for theuniverse).

This will never change, not even if the latest scientific notion that the genesis of all the multitudes of organic forms on earth can be traced back to one single, most primitive, primeval form of life should ever appear to be anything more than what it is today, a vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact. Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that notion, would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of "adaptation and heredity" in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures. (Collected Writings, vol. 7 pp. 263-264).
By the early to mid 1900s, the majority of Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism came to accept the existence of evolution as a scientific fact. They interpreted Genesis and related Jewish teachings in light of this fact.

Modern Day Orthodox Jewish Views

The RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
One can find an array of Orthodox views on the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and views on evolution, in Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Its Problems edited by Aryeh Carmell and Cyril Domb, and in Gerald Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang. These works attempt to reconcile traditional Jewish texts with modern scientific findings concerning evolution, the age of the earth and the age of the Universe.
Prominent Orthodox rabbis who affirm that the world is older, and that life has evolved over time, include Aryeh Kaplan, Israel Lipschitz, Sholom Mordechai Schwadron (the MaHaRSHaM), Zvi Hirsch Chajes. To be sure, these rabbis do not accept the views of atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, who hold that evolution has no room at all for God. Rather, each rabbi taking this position proposes their own understanding of theistic evolution, in which the world is older, and that life does evolve over time in accord with natural law, yet also holding that God has a role in this process.
One of the most prominent writers on this subject in the Orthodox Jewish community is Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist. He has written a number of articles and popular books attempting to reconcile Jewish theology with modern scientific findings that the world is billions of years old and that life has evolved over time. (Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible) His work has received approbations from a number of Orthodox rabbinic authorities.
Some of Orthodox Judaism offers significant resistance to the idea of evolution, with many Orthodox rabbis developing rejections of evolution that exactly paralleled the rejections in the Christian community. Orthodox Jews who reject evolution held that the scientists were mistaken, were heretics, or were being deliberately misled by God.
As recently as 2005, Rabbi Natan Slifkin, popularly known as the "zoo rabbi", for his writings about animals in Jewish thought, had his books about animals and evolution banned.

Modern Day Conservative Jewish Views

Conservative Judaism embraces science as a way to learn about God's creation, and like Orthodox and Reform Judaism, has found the theory of evolution a challenge to traditional Jewish theology. The Conservative Jewish movement has not yet developed one official response to the subject, but a broad array of views has converged. Conservative Jews teach that God created the universe and is responsible for the creation of life within it, but proclaims no mandatory teachings about how this occurs at any level.
Many Conservative rabbis embrace the term theistic evolution, and most reject the term intelligent design. Conservative rabbis who use the term intelligent design in their sermons often distinguish their views from the Christian fundamentalist use of this term. Like most in the scientific community, they understand "intelligent design" to be a technique by fundamentalist Christians to insert religion into public schools and to attack science, as admitted in the Intelligent Design movement's wedge strategy position papers.
In contrast to fundamentalist views, Conservative Judaism strongly supports the use of science as the proper way to learn about the physical world in which we live, and thus encourages its adherents to find a way to understand evolution in a way that does not contradict the findings of peer-reviewed scientific research. The tension between accepting God's role in the world and the findings of science, however, is not resolved, and a wide array of views exists. Some mainstream examples of Conservative Jewish thought are as follows:
Professor Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes that:

The Torah's story of creation is not intended as a scientific treatise, worthy of equal time with Darwin's theory of evolution in the curriculum of our public schools. The notes it strikes in its sparse and majestic narrative offer us an orientation to the Torah's entire religious worldview and value system. Creation is taken up first not because the subject has chronological priority but rather to ground basic religious beliefs in the very nature of things. And I would argue that their power is quite independent of the scientific context in which they were first enunciated.
Rabbi David J. Fine, who has authorized official responsa for the Conservative movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, expresses a common Conservative Jewish view on the subject:

Conservative Judaism has always been premised on the total embrace of critical inquiry and science. More than being compatible with Conservative Judaism, I would say that it is a mitzvah to learn about the world and the way it works to the best of our abilities, since that is to marvel with awe at God's handiwork. To not do so is sinful.
But here's where the real question lies. Did God create the world, or not? Is it God's handiwork? Many of the people who accept evolution, even many scientists, believe in what is called "theistic evolution," that is, that behind the billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution, there is room for belief in a creator, God, who set everything into motion, and who stands outside the universe as the cause and reason for life. The difference between that and "intelligent design" is subtle yet significant. Believing scientists claim that belief in God is not incompatible with studying evolution since science looks only for the natural explanations for phenomena. The proponents of intelligent design, on the other hand, deny the ability to explain life on earth through solely natural explanations. That difference, while subtle, is determinative.
David J. Fine, Intelligent Design
Rabbi Michael Schwab writes:

...the Jewish view on the first set of questions is much closer to the picture painted by adherents to intelligent design than to those who are strict Darwinians. Judaism, as a religion, and certainly Conservative Judaism, sees creation as a purposeful process directed by God, however each individual defines the Divine. This is clearly in consonance with the theory of Intelligent Design. What Darwin sees as random, we see as the miraculous and natural unfolding of God’s subtle and beautiful plan.
...However, as unlikely as it may seem, this does not mean for one moment that Judaism’s view rejects wholesale the veracity of Darwin’s theory. In fact, I believe that it is easy to incorporate Darwin and Intelligent design into a meaningful conception of how we humans came into being...
We have frameworks built into our system to integrate the findings of science into our religious and theological beliefs. That is because we believe that the natural world, and the way it works, was created by God and therefore its workings must be consistent with our religious beliefs.
...One of the most well known ways our tradition has been able to hold onto both the scientific theory of evolution as well as the concept of a purposeful creation was by reading the creation story in Genesis in a more allegorical sense. One famous medieval commentary proclaims that the days of creation, as outlined in the book of Bereshit, could be seen as representative of the stages of creation and not literal 24 hour periods. Thus each Biblical day could have accounted for thousands or even millions of years. In that way the progression according to both evolution and the Torah remains essentially the same: first the elements were created, then the waters, the plants, the animals, and finally us. Therefore, Genesis and Darwin can both be right in a factual analysis even while we acknowledge that our attitudes towards these shared facts are shaped much more strongly by the Torah – we agree how the process unfolded but disagree that it was random.
Parshat Noah -- November 4, 2005, How Did We Get Here? Michael Schwab
Denying that evolution is totally random is a denial of modern day evolutionary theory. The precise way in which God inserts design is not specified by Schwab or other rabbis.
Rabbi Larry Troster is a critic of positions such as this; he holds that much of Judaism (and other religions) have not successfully created a theology which allows for the role of God in the world and yet is also fully compatible with modern day evolutionary theory. Troster holds that the solution to resolving the tension between classical theology and modern science can be found in process theology, such as in the writings of Hans Jonas, whose view of an evolving God within process philosophy contains no inherent contradictions between theism and scientific naturalism.

Lecture God after Darwin: Evolution and the Order of Creation October 21, 2004, Lishmah, New York City, Larry Troster
In a paper on Judaism and enviromentalism, Troster writes:

Jonas is the only Jewish philosopher who has fully integrated philosophy, science, theology and environmental ethics. He maintained that humans have a special place in Creation, manifest in the concept that humans are created in the image of God. His philosophy is very similar to that of Alfred North Whitehead, who believed that God is not static but dynamic, in a continual process of becoming as the universe evolves.
From Apologetics to New Spirituality: Trends in Jewish Environmental Theology, Lawrence Troster

How did the Zionists acquire land in Palestine?

Redemption of land in Eretz Israel, much of which had fallen into neglect under foreign rule, began in the mid-1850s with the first attempts to enable Jews to live productively in Ottoman Palestine without reliance on the “old yishuv” model of overseas support. Sir Moses Montefiore (1784-1885) made the first known land purchase by someone from outside the region in 1855: 10 hectares (250 acres) of orange groves in Jaffa, under a newly-made arrangement with the Sultan allowing these first-ever purchases. Other private acquisitions followed, and by 1882, some 2,200 hectares had been purchased by Jews. Although several of the first Zionist villages (moshavot) were built on this land, the areas were not contiguous and the idea of using land purchase to prepare for Jewish sovereignty was far in the future. Each purchase entailed a cumbersome bureaucratic procedure vis-à-vis the local Turkish authorities, which, in the final declining phase of the Ottoman Empire, were either hostile to or uninterested in Jewish holdings in the sparsely populated backwater province that Palestine had become. Nearly all land was owned by the state (and was passed on to subsequent sovereigns) or by private and public entities through title or leasing arrangements. This state of affairs, coupled with the frequent need to resort to bribery in official dealings, gave the Jewish purchases a clandestine complexion that would recur in subsequent years.
Although the creation of the Jewish National Fund was originally proposed by Judah Alkalai in 1847 it had to wait until the Fifth Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1901 to become a reality. The Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth LeYisrael) was established to buy land in Palestine for reclamation and Jewish settlement. In its first decade, the JNF built a worldwide fundraising organization based on sale of stamps, collection “Blue Boxes” in homes and schools and solicitation of donations. In the spring of 1903, JNF acquired its first parcel of land: 800 acres in Hadera. Other modest purchases were made in 1904 and 1908 in Lower Galilee, Judea, and the Lake Kinneret region, and two forms of settlement that would prove crucial in the land-acquisition enterprise were pioneered there: the cooperative (moshav) and the collective (kevutsa, later kibbutz).
From the start, the organization focused on greening the land through the planting of trees. JNF got involved in tree planting for many reasons, including as a way to fulfill the Biblical commandment. In order to solidify ownership of land purchased by JNF on behalf of the Jewish community, and in accordance with prevailing laws of the day, trees were planted whenever a new piece of land was purchased. In 1908, the first JNF trees were planted at Hulda: olive trees in memory of Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism. In 1920, JNF expanded its role to help reclaim the swamps of Palestine. There quickly followed afforestation efforts. Since 1920, millions of trees have been planted in Israel by the Jewish National Fund.
Baron Benjamin (Edmond James) de Rothschild (1845-1934) enlisted in this cause after being petitioned by the leaders of Rishon Lezion, one of the First Aliya villages. His patronage embraced 12 settlements at all three levels of land redemption: purchase, reclamation and economically viable settlement. To make these possible, he established an administration that, although staffed in part by condescending officials who evoked the independent-minded settlers’ resentment, institutionalized all three aspects of land redemption. The best-known settlements sponsored by Rothschild are Metulla, Zikhron Ya’akov, Rishon Lezion, and Rosh Pina. Metulla (est. 1896) is an example of a purchase that had the further advantages of controlling water sources and establishing the northern limit of Jewish settlement. In 1900, Rothschild transferred the settlements, their agricultural enterprises, and 25,000 hectares of land to the Jewish Colonization Association (ICA, est. 1891), which he continued to support in various ways.
In a military biography of Moshe Dayan, the early Zionist activity is described this way:
  • “Using Rothschild’s money, these Jews purchased land from absentee Turkish landlords. To the Arab tenant farmers, the transfer of land from Turkish to Jewish ownership was of little consequence since the Jews rehired them as agricultural workers.”
By the time Israel became a state in 1948, JNF owned 12.5 percent of all the land of Israel on which 80 percent of Israel’s population now lives. With this ownership came the responsibility of transforming the land into a beautiful and fertile area that would be a suitable home for the new state.
Personal experiences with the difficulties and triumphs of land acquisition in the Emek Jezreel valley of Israel in the period from 1891 to the 1920s are documented in great detail in this memoir published in 1929. Interesting passages include:
  • “It was not only the fertility of these plains [Emek Jezreel] that attracted the [sic], but also the fact that these were the only regions where it was possible to purchase a large stretch of land from a single owner, while the remainder of Palestine was broken up into small parcels belonging to many individuals…”
  • “[It was not easy for Hankin] to reach this agreement to a low price, for even then [1891] speculators of all kinds were surrounding the land owners and attempting to frustrate his efforts by offering a higher price. But Hankin enjoyed the confidence of the Arabs, so that he succeeded in overcoming the competition of the speculators.”
  • “…The Turkish Government refused to authorize the sale, even though official permission was applied for … by a Jew, Efraim Krause, who was a Turkish citizen.”
  • “In 1921 it was impossible to find a Jewish purchaser for one of the finest and best situated orange plantations in Palestine (although it was offered at an exceedingly low price), so that it had to be sold to an Arab.”
Shlomo Gravetz of the Jewish National Fund says: “Throughout the history of land reclamation by Jews in Eretz Yisrael, the Arabs have always claimed that the Jews were throwing them off their land. In 1932 the High Commissioner appointed the Bentwich Committee to investigate these claims, and out of 700 purchases of Arab property, the committee did not find one case in which the Jews had acted immorally.”
Note: Land in Israel is often measured in hectares (1 acre = approx. 0.4 hectare, 1 hectare = approx. 2.5 acres) or dunams (dunam = approx. .25 acre, acre = approx. 4 dunams). There are 640 acres in a square mile.

What Happened at the Zionist Biltmore Conference in May 1942

Before World War II, American Zionists were involved mainly in practical tasks of the development of Jewish Palestine and on gaining support from non-Jews. Political programs were left to the Zionist leadership in Europe. But as Germany tightened its grip on the old centers of Zionism, the world’s democracies were effectively paralyzed and European Jews were abandoned to the Holocaust. American Zionists became radicalized, trying to save Europe’s Jews by any possible means. The frustration gradually focused on a single point: where in the past American Zionists were willing to work for a Jewish place of refuge under the British Mandate for Palestine, opinion now demanded that a Jewish state be the end result of policy.

A change of this magnitude in Zionist policy required the approval of the World Zionist Congress, which last met in its 21st Congress in Geneva in 1939, a few days before the start of World War II. Under wartime conditions it was impossible to convene another meeting. Stepping into the breach, an American Emergency Committee of Zionist Affairs was formed and they decided to hold an Extraordinary Zionist Conference in New York City for the purpose of debating:
  • the future of Palestine
  • possibilities of cooperation with non-Zionist groups
  • methods for obtaining a united representation of Jewry at the eventual peace conference
This was the first joint meeting of all American Zionist parties since World War I, with the four major organizations – the Zionist Organization of America, Hadassah, Mizrahi, and Poale Zion – participating. Zionism was at its lowest point, with the British restricting immigration to Palestine under the 1939 White Paper, with European Jews disappearing, and American Zionism lacking support from Jews or other groups.
The conference was held at the Biltmore Hotel on May 9-11, 1942. Among the nearly 600 delegates, there were Zionist leaders from the US and 17 other countries. The international representation and the presence of World Zionist figures such as Chaim Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion, and Nahum Goldmann, gave the conference credibility as a substitute World Zionist Congress. Among the American organizers was Reform Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver.
The conference adopted a series of eight resolutions that came to be known as the Biltmore Program. After approval by the Zionist General Council in Palestine, the Biltmore Program became the platform of the World Zionist Organization.
Two of the adopted items were most significant:
  • 6. The Conference calls for the fulfilment of the original purpose of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate which ‘recognizing the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine’ was to afford them the opportunity, as stated by President Wilson, to found there a Jewish Commonwealth. The Conference affirms its unalterable rejection of the White Paper of May 1939 and denies its moral or legal validity. The White Paper seeks to limit, and in fact to nullify Jewish rights to immigration and settlement in Palestine, and, as stated by Mr. Winston Churchill in the House of Commons in May 1939, constitutes ‘a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration.’ The policy of the White Paper is cruel and indefensible in its denial of sanctuary to Jews fleeing from Nazi persecution; and at a time when Palestine has become a focal point in the war front of the United Nations, and Palestine Jewry must provide all available manpower for farm and factory and camp, it is in direct conflict with the interests of the allied war effort.
  • 8. The Conference declares that the new world order that will follow victory cannot be established on foundations of peace, justice and equality, unless the problem of Jewish homelessness is finally solved. The Conference urges that the gates of Palestine be opened; that the Jewish Agency be vested with control of immigration into Palestine and with the necessary authority for upbuilding the country, including the development of its unoccupied and uncultivated lands; and that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world. Then and only then will the age-old wrong to the Jewish people be righted.
This statement was the first in which non-Zionist organizations joined with the Zionists to advocate the establishment of an independent Jewish state.
The program was not universally approved when first introduced. Those who advocated a bi-national Jewish-Arab state objected to the call for a “Jewish Commonwealth”. Some non-Zionists thought it made unreasonable requests from the British. However, virtually all Jewish organizations in America quickly came to support the Biltmore Program and it served as the unifying force for all those advocating a Jewish State. After the war, at the hearings of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, almost all Jewish representatives presenting to the Committee, based their arguements on the Biltmore Program.

When was the modern State of Israel Founded?

On Friday May 14, 1948 (the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired) the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was signed by members of the National Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, representing the Jewish community in the country and the Zionist movement abroad. It went into effect at midnight, Tel Aviv time.
  • Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
  • Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland… they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community, controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself…
  • The State of Israel … will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
  • We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land.
Eliahu Epstein of The Jewish Agency sent a letter to President Truman, dated May 14, 1948 announcing the event. Truman responded with recognition of Israel by the United States only 11 minutes after the declaration in Tel Aviv. 

Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (ca. 1922) 
by Marshall J. Gauvin
Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins today with the question: "Did Jesus Christ really live?" Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, of whose life and teachings we have a correct account in the New Testament? The orthodox idea that Christ was the son of God—God himself in human form—that he was the creator of the countless millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew the infinite expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the servants of his will and changed their courses at his command—such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world—by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith—by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales.
Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth. The question is one of tremendous importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of the weightiest significance. The Christian religion has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has stayed the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men and women of the race: and it is today the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is—what does history say? And that question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.
What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.
But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence showing any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels—the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ—were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of today to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic—the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek—every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts—such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.
But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.
There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.
Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How do they agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to give the genealogy of Joseph, and both count the generations! Nor is this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but two names between David and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much the New Testament writers knew about the ancestors of their hero.
If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these two rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it—one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!
Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another.
Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called "Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew's application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, where his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious.
His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question—Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question!
After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. The account of his being found discussing with the doctors in the Temple at Jerusalem when he was but twelve years old, is told by Luke alone. The other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this discussion; and, this single incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence? If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the life of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty years of that life? What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world? If Christ was the incarnation of God, if he was the greatest teacher the world has known, if he came to save mankind from everlasting pain—was there nothing worth remembering in the first thirty years of his existence among men? The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing of the life of Jesus, before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their purpose.
Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence long enough to write the Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the Temple is proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround it. The statement that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing that he was with them; that they went a day's journey before discovering that he was not in their company; and that after searching for three days, they found him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous improbabilities. Add to this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke, surrounded by a period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none of the other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear.
The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ's life. What do they know of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the public career of Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John's Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years. The Synoptics teach that Christ's public work was confined almost entirely to Galilee, and that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long before his death. John is in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as to the scene of Christ's labors. He maintains that most of the public life of Christ was spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. Now, between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but the last few weeks of Christ's ministry was carried on in his native province of Galilee, it is certain that the greater part of that ministry was not spent in Judea, two provinces away.
John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple occurred at the beginning of Christ's ministry; and nothing is said of any serious consequences following it. But Matthew, Mark and Luke declare that the purification of the Temple took place at the close of his career, and that this act brought upon him the wrath of the priests, who sought to destroy him. Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia Biblica assures us that the order of events in the life of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and untrustworthy; that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and that the facts "show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the Evangelists write." In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined.
Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.
Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him, crucify him!" and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history.
On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol—a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands—the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form—the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?
And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again—why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people—for the Jews of that age were civilized—were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead—that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask—is this history, or is it fiction?
From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false.
The accounts of the virgin birth of Christ, of his feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, of his cleansing the leprous, of his walking on the water, of his raising the dead, and of his own resurrection after his life had been destroyed, are as untrue as any stories that were ever told in this world. The miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the imagination? Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells us in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; and Professor Arthur Drews, Germany's greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, analyzes these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily have been invented. That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never lived.

Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New Testament itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ of the Gospels was not a real character. The testimony of the Epistles of Paul demonstrates that the life story of Jesus is an invention. Of course, there is no certainty that Paul really lived. Let me quote a passage from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, relative to Paul: "It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians." Thus Christian authority admits that invention has done its work in manufacturing at least in part, the life of Paul. In truth, the ablest Christian scholars reject all but four of the Pauline Epistles as spurious. Some maintain that Paul was not the author of any of them. The very existence of Paul is questionable.
But for the purpose of my argument, I am going to admit that Paul really lived; that he was a zealous apostle; and, that all the Epistles are from his pen. There are thirteen of these Epistles. Some of them are lengthy and they are acknowledged to be the oldest Christian writings. They were written long before the Gospels. If Paul really wrote them, they were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.
In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ's virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvelous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation—the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ—that he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even raised the dead—is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them? Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul's Epistles were written.
Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus. The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain; Paul knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the Christian world; Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables; Paul is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world—that is, if the Epistles may be trusted—is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus.
Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of today continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And do not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer: The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!
The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he saw in a vision while on his way to Damascus—an apparition, a phantom, and not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterward brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament—first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue.
A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ's physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean Milman writes: "The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died," and Mosheim, Germany's great ecclesiastical historian, says: "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality—a myth.
Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common, Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of Christ—the human element as well as the divine—is without valid claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a myth. Said Dean Farrar: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false." Bishop Westcott wrote: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous." Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the miraculous Christ cannot remain.
If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified—how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus. Great writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but not one of them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared on earth—a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who fed five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word defied the grave and gave life to the dead.
John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time of Christ and not one of whom ever mentioned him.
Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.
In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed Josephus had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."
Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew—a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ—that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."
In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians—a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century—six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time—so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.
The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."
The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.
These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs."
"But," says the Christian, "Christ is so perfect a character that he could not have been invented." This is a mistake. The Gospels do not portray a perfect character. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and teachings. He was in favor of the sword, and he was not; he told men to love their enemies, and advised them to hate their friends; he preached the doctrine of forgiveness, and called men a generation of vipers; he announced himself as the judge of the world, and declared that he would judge no man; he taught that he was possessed of all power, but was unable to work miracles where the people did not believe; he was represented as God and did not shrink from avowing, "I and my Father are one," but in the pain and gloom of the cross, he is made to cry out in his anguish: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" And how singular it is that these words, reputed as the dying utterance of the disillusioned Christ, should be not only contradicted by two Evangelists, but should be a quotation from the twenty-second Psalm!
If there is a moment when a man's speech is original, it is when, amid agony and despair, while his heart is breaking beneath its burden of defeat and disappointment, he utters a cry of grief from the depth of his wounded soul with the last breath that remains before the chill waves of death engulf his wasted life forever. But on the lips of the expiring Christ are placed, not the heart-felt words of a dying man, but a quotation from the literature of his race!
A being with these contradictions, these transparent unrealities in his character, could scarcely have been real.
And if Christ, with all that is miraculous and impossible in his nature, could not have been in vented, what shall we say of Othello, of Hamlet, of Romeo? Do not Shakespeare's wondrous characters live upon the stage? Does not their naturalness, their consistency, their human grandeur, challenge our admiration? And is it not with difficulty that we believe them to be children of the imagination? Laying aside the miraculous, in the story of the Jewish hero, is not the character of Jean Valjean as deep, as lofty, as broad, as rich in its humanity, as tender in its pathos, as sublime in its heroism, and as touchingly resigned to the cruelties of fate as the character of Jesus? Who has read the story of that marvelous man without being thrilled? And who has followed him through his last days with dry eyes? And yet Jean Valjean never lived and never died; he was not a real man, but the personification of suffering virtue born in the effulgent brain of Victor Hugo. Have you not wept when you have seen Sydney Carton disguise himself and lay his neck beneath the blood-stained knife of the guillotine, to save the life of Evremonde? But Sydney Carton was not an actual human being; he is the heroic, self-sacrificing spirit of humanity clothed in human form by the genius of Charles Dickens.
Yes, the character of Christ could have been invented! The literature of the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew. The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.
The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of today knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and, if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of today, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.

In the Middle Ages, a secret society was 'The Knights Templars.'

In the Middle Ages, a secret society lay behind many events which shaped the course of history.
The first name of that society was 'The Knights Templars.'
Initially founded as a Crusader order which vowed to fight for Christianity, they gradually became caught up in perverted teachings and became entirely divorced from Christianity. 
The members of the order became consumed by their worldly interests and ambitions and forgot God and His religion. 
Using their military strength and political connections they acquired vast fortunes.
To such an extent, in fact, that in the Middle Ages they achieved greater material power and wealth than the Church and the states of Europe.
Thanks to that great power, the Templars became capable of imposing their will on rulers and the Church authorities.
They acquired a great many privileges and immunities.
They were behind all forms of corruption and wickedness.
They performed perverted and degenerate ceremonies and rituals.
For all these reasons, they were eventually arrested, tried and banned.
Yet they still continued to organise underground. A while later, they re-emerged under a different name: the Freemasons.
In this film we shall be examining the true origin of Freemasonry, in other words the Knights Templars, which had been kept secret for hundreds of years.
To date, a great deal has been said about the Knights Templars, and a great many books written about their activities.
Who were these Templars? Where did they come from? What were their aims?
How did they turn into Freemasonry?
How did they manage to continue their activities, carried out so silently and secretly, right up to the present day?
We need to seek the answers to all these questions in the pages of history.
And that history goes back a long, long way, right back to the time of the Crusades.

When the Muslims entered Jerusalem in 637 AD, they brought with them peace and plenty.
That peaceful environment, however, was destroyed by the invaders who entered the region at the end of the 11th century. 
These were the Crusaders.
The wealth and prosperity of the East had for long attracted Christians.
Heading these was the Pope, Urban II. The Pope made an announcement at the Council of Clermont, which convened under his leadership.
He claimed that holy sites in the east had been disrespected and that Christian pilgrims had been assaulted. He called all of Europe to wage war under a single banner.
The fact is however, that these claims were a complete violation of the truth. The Christians of the Middle East were living in freedom and toleration, and were fully able to practice their beliefs.
In fact, the pretext for war was merely an excuse. Both the Pope and those who heeded his call actually had very different expectations from the war.
The historian Donald Queller describes this in these terms: 
The French knights wanted more land. Italian merchants hoped to expand trade in Middle Eastern ports. . . Large numbers of poor people joined the expeditions simply to escape the hardships of their normal lives. (World Book Encyclopedia, "Crusades," Contributor: Donald E. Queller, 1998.)
In order to increase the effect of his words, the Pope also told the lie that the sins of all those who joined in the war would be forgiven.
His words served their purpose. Caught up in a wave of fervour, his listeners emblazoned their garments with the fabric crosses distributed to them. 
Within a very short space of time, that call had an extraordinary effect all over Europe.
A large army was formed.
These people, who called themselves the Crusaders, looted a great many places on their journey and finally met up in Constantinople.
The Crusaders then began moving through Anatolia. After putting the Muslims whose gold and jewels they dreamed of finding to the sword and pillaging their cities they reached Jerusalem, where the Crusaders' savagery continued. 
They slaughtered all the Muslims and Jews in the city, sparing neither women nor children.
In his book The Monks of War, the researcher Desmond Seward describes that savagery thus: 
Jerusalem was stormed in July 1099. ... The entire population of the Holy City was put to the sword, Jews as well as Moslems, 70,000 men, women and children perished in a holocaust, which raged for three days. In places men waded in blood up to their ankles and horsemen were splashed by it as they rode through the streets. (Desmond Seward, The Monks of War, Penguin Books, London, 1972.)
After capturing Jerusalem, the Crusaders made it their own capital, establishing a Latin Empire the borders of which stretched from Palestine to Antioch. 
They needed to organise if the state they had founded were to survive. 
To that end they set up military orders.
The members of these orders lived a monastic life on the one hand, and were trained to wage war against Muslims on the other.
One of these orders were the Templars.


BABEL, TOWER OF, the edifice whose building is portrayed in Genesis 11:1–9 as the direct cause of the diversity of languages in the world and the dispersion of mankind over all the earth. According to the preceding narrative, mankind after the flood was descended from one common ancestor, *Noah. The story of Babel thus explains how the descendants of this one man came to be so widely scattered and divided into separate nations speaking so many different languages.
The story relates how, at the time when all men still spoke one language, there was a migration from the East to the plain of *Shinar (Babylonia). At this site it was decided to build a "city and a tower with its top in the sky," so that the builders would be able to make a name for themselves and avoid being scattered over the entire world. However, their building project was frustrated by the Lord who confounded their language. As a result, mankind was distributed over the face of the earth. The unfinished tower was called Babel, a name which was explained by its resemblance to the Hebrew verb bll ("to confuse"), since here the Lord "confounded the speech of the whole earth."
Scholars agree that the edifice referred to in Genesis 11 is clearly a ziqqurat, or Mesopotamian temple tower. The ziqqurat (from Akk. zaqāru, "to raise up," "elevate") was the central feature of the great temples which were built in all important Mesopotamian cities. Rising in progressively smaller, steplike levels from a massive base, these towers ranged from three or four stories to as many as seven and were ordinarily constructed of crude sun-dried bricks covered with kiln-fired bricks. Clearly, the writer of the account in Genesis 11 was familiar with the building techniques of Mesopotamia, since he is at pains to point out that bricks and bitumen were used in the construction; that is in contrast to the stone and clay which were the common building materials in Canaan.
The particular ziqqurat described here was formerly identified with the tower of Ezida, the temple of the god Nebo (Nabû) in Borsippa, a city southwest of Babylon. However, the discovery at the end of the 19th century of Esagila, the great temple of *Marduk in *Babylon, has led most scholars to agree that it is the tower of this temple which inspired the writer of Genesis 11. This ziqqurat, which was called E-temen-anki, "house of the foundations of heaven and earth," rose to a height of about 300 feet, and contained two sanctuaries: one at its base, which was 300 feet square, and one at its summit. The tower was probably constructed at the time of*Hammurapi, but was damaged or destroyed several times and repaired by Esarhaddon (seventh century B.C.E.) and Nebuchadnezzar II (sixth century B.C.E.), among others. It is interesting to note that the Babylonians believed that Esagila was built by the gods, thus making the statement in Genesis 11:5 "… which the sons of men had built," particularly meaningful, since it may be understood as a polemic against this belief. This tower, which was the object of such pride among the Babylonians, was the product of strictly human endeavor which can be quickly and easily destroyed in accordance with the Divine Will. In fact, it is quite likely that it was the sight of the ruins of Esagila (which was destroyed in the mid-16th century B.C.E with the destruction of Babylon by the Hittites) which inspired the creator of the Tower of Babel narrative.
Although it is clear from the story that the work on the city and tower displeased the Lord, the specific sin of the builders is nowhere mentioned. Many scholars believe that it was the presumption of these men in thinking that they could build a tower with "its top in the sky," and their conceit in wanting "to make a name" for themselves, which incurred the wrath of the Lord. Others believe that their goal was to storm the heavens and that it was for this sin that mankind was punished.
Modern scholars (already anticipated by R. *Samuel ben Meir) have pointed out that the desire to remain together in one place was in direct conflict with the divine purpose as is expressed to Noah and his sons after the flood: "Be fertile and increase and fill up the earth" (Gen. 9:7) and was, therefore, an affront to God and so necessarily doomed to failure. It is hardly likely that the expressed wish to "make a name for ourselves" could be construed as sinful, since a similar phrase is used in connection with the divine promises to Abraham (Gen. 12:2). Further, Babylonian temple inscriptions frequently refer to the "making great" of the name of the king under whom the particular temple was built or repaired, thereby demonstrating that this formula was commonly used in such instances and need not be understood as expressing an inordinate desire for fame. As for the phrase "with its top in the sky," it has been noted that there are several examples of Babylonian temple inscriptions which describe buildings as reaching to heaven so that the phrase should be understood not as an expression of the presumption of these people or of their desire to ascend to heaven, but rather as a borrowing by the biblical writer from the technical terminology of Mesopotamian temple inscriptions with which he was evidently familiar. According to this interpretation the sin of these people was, therefore, not presumption or a desire to reach heaven and gain fame, but rather an attempt to change the divinely ordained plan for mankind.
A new link to an ultimate cuneiform background of the Tower of Babel narrative has been provided by a Sumerian literary work, no doubt composed during the third Dynasty of Ur, which states that originally mankind spoke the same language, until Enki, the Sumerian god of wisdom, confounded their speech. Though the reason for the confusion of tongues is not stated, Kramer has suggested that it may have been inspired by Enki's jealousy of another god, Enlil. Hence, in the Sumerian version it was a case of the rivalry between two gods, whereas in the Bible the rivalry was between God and man (see below, "The Meaning of the Story").
The etymology of the name Babel given in this narrative is a contrived one, used ironically. The Babylonians understood it to mean "the gate of the god" (bāb-ilim), thereby endowing the city with additional honor and importance. By a play on words, the Bible has given it a pejorative sense, making the pride in this city seem almost ludicrous.
The Tower of Babel narrative is a turning point in history, as understood by the Bible, in that it signals the end of the era of universal monotheism which had existed since the beginning of time. Since the divine election of Abraham and his descendants immediately follows, it must be tacitly assumed that the incident led to the introduction of idolatry into the world.
[Myra J. Siff]

The Meaning of the Story

The bridge which some modern writers have constructed between the single short clause "and fill the earth" in Genesis 1:28 (or 9:7) and the account of the vain attempt of an early generation of men to avoid dispersal in Genesis 11:1–9, is superior homiletics but (quite apart from the finding of source analysis that the one belongs to document P and the other to document J) unsound exegesis. Genesis 1:28 reads as follows: "God blessed them [namely, the human beings, male and female, whose creation has just been narrated in the preceding verse] and God said to them, 'Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that move about on earth.'" This purports to be, and is, not a command but a blessing; moreover "and fill the earth" is preceded by "be fertile and increase." It is absurd to read into it a wish of God that the human species shall spread over the earth otherwise than as, with increasing numbers, its own interests may dictate. And in 11:1–9 there is nothing to suggest that the human population has already attained such a figure that there is a need for a migration of colonists to realms beyond the confines of the plain of Shinar; and neither is there a word in 11:1–9 about that being the Deity's motive in bringing about the dispersal. Instead, there is an explicit declaration of an entirely different motive by no less an authority than the Lord himself, who explains to the divine beings, verses 6–7; "If this is what, as one people with one language common to all, they have been able to do as a beginning, nothing they may propose to do will be beyond their reach. Come, let us go down, etc." It takes a willful shutting of the mind to avoid hearing the same anxiety lest man should wrest complete equality with the divine beings (or worse) in these words as in the Lord's earlier explanation to the same audience, in 3:22, of his motive in driving man out of the Garden of Eden: "Now that man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad [i.e., in being intellectually mature, the first evidence of which was his newfound modesty], what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!" Once, to obviate the danger of further baleful results from cooperation between man and snake, the Lord set up a barrier of enmity between them (3:15); now, in order to eliminate the threat of disastrous consequences from the cooperation of men with each other, he is erecting among them barriers of language and distance.
[Harold Louis Ginsberg]

In the Aggadah

The biblical account of the Tower of Babel is singularly brief and vague (Gen. R. 38). The prevailing opinion of the rabbis is that it was designed to serve the purposes of idolatry and constituted an act of rebellion against God (Sanh. 109a; Gen. R. 38:6; et al.), for which reason they also associated Nimrod ("the rebel") with its building (Ḥul. 89a). Many additional reasons are also suggested, among them the fear of a recurrence of the flood and the need to guard against such a recurrence by supporting the heavens or by splitting them so that waters would drain away slowly from the earth's surface (Ma'asim al Aseret ha-Dibberot; cf. Sanh. 109a). According to Josephus they were trying to dwell higher than the water level of the flood (Ant., I, IV). In this way the builders thought they would be spared, believing as they did that God had power over water alone (PdRE 24). At the same time the rabbis laud the unity and love of peace that prevailed among them (Gen. R. 38), as a result of which they were given an opportunity to repent, but they failed, however, to seize it (ibid.). Various opinions are expressed as to the punishment which the builders incurred (Tanḥ. B., 23). According to the Mishnah (Sanh. 10:3), they were excluded from a share in the world to come. In the view of one amora, their punishment varied with the differing aims that inspired them; those who thought to dwell in heaven being dispersed throughout the world, those who sought to wage war against God being transformed into apes and demons, and those bent on idol worship being caught up in a confusion of tongues (Sanh. 109a). One-third of the tower was destroyed by fire, one-third subsided into the earth, and one-third is still standing. It is so high that to anyone ascending and looking down from the top, palm trees look like locusts (ibid.). This aggadah testifies to the existence of ruins at that time, which were popularly believed as being of the Tower of Babel. Aggadot about the tower are also to be found in Josephus and in the apocrypha (cf. Jub. 10:18–28), while several of its motifs are much discussed in Hellenistic Jewish literature.
[Israel Moses Ta-Shma]

In the Arts

The biblical story of the tower of Babel appears repeatedly in medieval and Renaissance literature, treated as an historical incident with strong moral overtones. Some examples are the Chronicon of Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636 C.E.), the Weltchronik of Rudolf von Ems (1200–1254), and the Speculum humanae salvationis (c. 1324), a Dominican manual of devotion which was frequently copied. Giovanni *Boccaccio wrote on the subject in his De casibus virorum illustrium (1355–60), as did an anonymous poet of Lyons in Le Triumphe de Haulte Folie (c. 1550). Two 17th-century Spanish works were entitled Torre de Babilonia: one was an auto sacramentale by the eminent dramatist Pedro Calderón de la Barca, the other by the Marrano author Antonio Enríquez *Gómez. Modern treatments include Tower of Babel (1874) by the English poet Alfred Austin and Babel (1952), an apocalyptic work by the French poet Pierre Emmanuel (1916–1984).
The subject appealed to medieval artists, appearing in 12th-century mosaics at Palermo and Monreale in Sicily and in the 13th-century Cathedral of St. Mark, Venice. There are representations in illuminated manuscripts from the 12th to the 14th centuries, including the German Hortus Deliciarum (Garden of Delights) and the SarajevoHaggadah. Two 15th-century painters who used the theme were the Frenchman Jean Fouquet and the Italian Benozzo Gozzoli, who painted the fresco of Campo Santo, Pisa, now destroyed. With its landscape setting and the opportunities it offered for fantasy and close observation of the daily scene, the Tower was of considerable interest to the early Flemish painters. It was generally depicted either as a multistory structure, diminishing in size as it rose or, more often, as a square or circular building surrounded by a ramp. Some artists illustrated contemporary building methods, a fine example occurring in the Book of Hours of the Duke of Bedford (Paris, c. 1423), where the construction of the Tower proceeds at night under the stars. In Pieter Brueghel's Tower of Babel (1563), the building – leaning slightly – is shown in a vast landscape near the banks of a river, with a king arriving to inspect the progress of the work.
Although the Babel story might appear to be a temptation to composers, since the confusion of tongues can be expressed most effectively in music, very few works have in fact been written on the theme. These are mainly oratorios including César Franck's La Tour de Babel (1865) and Anton Rubinstein's markedly unsuccessful Der Turm zu Babel (1858; revised as an opera, 1872). Two 20th-century works are La Tour de Babel (1932) by René Barbier and Igor Stravinsky's Babel, a cantata for narrator, men's chorus, and orchestra (1944, published in 1952).



Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary to Gen. 11:1–9; M.D. Cassuto, Mi-No'aḥ ad Avraham (19593), 154–69; S.R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (19042), 132–7; Kaufmann Y., Toledot, 2 (1960), 412–5; N.M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (1967), 63–80 (incl. bibl.); J. Skinner, The Book of Genesis (ICC, 1930), 223–31; S.N. Kramer, in: JAOS, 88 (1968), 108–11. IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, index; U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2 (1964), 225–49; J. Gutmann, in: Oz le-David [Ben Gurion] (1964), 584–94. IN THE ARTS: H. Minkowski, Aus dem Nebel der Vergangenheit steigt der Turm zu Babel: Bilder aus 1000 Jahren (1960); LL. Réau, Iconographie de l'art chrétien, 2 pt. 1 (1957), 120–3, incl. bibl.; T. Ehrenstein, Das Alte Testament im Bilde (1923), 125–32; H. Gressmann, Tower of Babel (1928), 1–19.

Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.


NEW TESTAMENT (Gr. ὴ καινὴ διαθήκη), the Christian Holy Scriptures (other than the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha).


"The New Testament" (NT) is the usual name for a collection of 27 ancient Greek books concerning Jesus of Nazareth and his earliest followers. It forms the second part of Christian Bibles following "the Old Testament," which in Protestant Bibles contains the same books as Jewish Bibles but in a different order. Catholic and Orthodox Christian Bibles have their own orders of "the Old Testament" in which other ancient books are interspersed. Such additional books are sometimes found in Protestant Bibles in a separate section titled "Apocrypha" and placed between the two "Testaments." Thus, whereas the extra books are authoritative for Catholics and Orthodox, for Protestants they have the lower status of informative and edifying material that bridges between the "Old" and the "New."
The NT begins with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, four accounts of the activities of Jesus. The authors do not write under those names; the ascriptions come from early Christian traditions. Thus the fourth gospel's anonymous writer claims to be recording the testimony of a source figure identified only as "the beloved disciple" of Jesus. In broad terms, these gospels present similar versions of Jesus' arrest, condemnation, death, and resurrection, but the Gospel of John has a markedly different account of earlier events and of the content of Jesus' teaching. Consequently, the first three are commonly termed the "Synoptic Gospels" because of the ease with which they can be printed in parallel columns as a "synopsis." Matthew and Luke contain versions of the virgin birth of Jesus to Mary (Matthew: shortly before the death of Herod, i.e., 4 B.C.E.) and Luke includes his visit to Jerusalem at age 12; otherwise only the last period of his adult life is featured (Luke: from age "about 30" on).
Next comes the Acts of the Apostles, which introduces itself as the continuation of the third gospel. In it, "apostles" mostly refers strictly to 12 early close disciples of Jesus. Acts begins with the last instructions of Jesus to his followers (after his resurrection), his ascent to heaven from the Mount of Olives, and their subsequent reception of the Holy Spirit. Their attempts to win over other Jews lead to clashes with the authorities and to the dispersal of most of them elsewhere. But then the appearance of Jesus himself in a vision to a certain Saul, who was their chief persecutor, turns Saul into an ardent follower. The latter, now called Paul, makes a series of journeys to the Jewish Diaspora, where his preaching about Jesus causes divisions among Jews but has remarkable success among non-Jews, especially those previously close to Judaism. He eventually returns to Jerusalem, where the followers of Jesus are again living peacefully among other Jews, but his eager style creates new clashes and leads to his arrest. After years of detention by the Romans in Caesarea, he is sent to Rome for two more years, awaiting trial, where the book ends rather abruptly (c. 60 C.E.).
The next 21 books are epistles of various early Christians. Nine epistles to Christian communities and four to individuals announce themselves as from Paul. A 14th, the Epistle to the Hebrews, lacks that announcement, but its concluding statement is in Pauline style. Others come from "James" (1), "Peter" (2), and "Jude" (1), who calls himself "brother of James." Traditionally, Peter is identified with the initial leader of the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, and James, as "brother of Jesus," with their subsequent leader after Peter set out on his own missionary journeys. The other three epistles are traditionally ascribed to "John," who is identified with the source figure of the fourth gospel and with the author of the last book of the NT, Revelation, in which a certain John records a series of heavenly visions. These include messages to seven Christian communities and prophecies about coming persecutions (mostly Roman) and the eventual end of history, in which a new Jerusalem descends from heaven to inaugurate the universal rule of Jesus with God.

Language and Style

It is frequently, but wrongly, said that the NT books are written in popular Hellenistic Greek as opposed to the literary Attic Greek of the period. In fact, Hellenistic Greek was the language not merely of the populace but of learned scholars and officials in the Greek-speaking world created by the conquests of Alexander of Macedon. This scholarly language modified Attic by replacing its more idiosyncratic features with forms and words current in the wider world. The attempts of purists to impose the exact dialect of ancient Athens began around 200 B.C.E., gained ground slowly, and triumphed completely only in the later second century C.E.
There is indeed great variation in the language of the NT, reflecting the origins and genres of the various books. Thus in Matthew and Luke (to a lesser extent in Mark) and in the early chapters of Acts, much of the language has affinities to the "translation Greek" characteristic of the Septuagint as well as containing Hebraisms recognizable from rabbinic literature. By contrast, the introductions to Luke and Acts, the later chapters of Acts, and the Epistle to the Hebrews consist of elegant Hellenistic prose. Paul's writings addressed to communities are composed in a brilliant epistolary style that evoked the admiration of Wilamowitz, the leading 20th-century authority on Greek literature. Only one book, Revelation, contains plain grammatical errors. The anonymous writer of the Gospel of John, however, writes in a Hellenistic Greek that is both very simple and very correct.

Origins, Acceptance, and Canonization

There is little firm evidence on which to date the precise composition of the NT books, except that the few Christian writings surviving from the early second century indicate knowledge of those four gospels and of collections of Pauline epistles. The NT books give almost no clear dates for Jesus himself (Matthew and Luke, as above). Thus their dating mostly reflects scholarly fashion. Whereas earlier fashion dated many of them to the period 100–140 C.E., current fashion puts almost all of them within 50–100 C.E. One leading scholar, John A.T. Robinson, dated them all before 70 C.E., above all because it is difficult to identify any NT author who is clearly aware of the Jewish catastrophe of that year.
At the beginning of the second century, only the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint counted as inspired Scripture for Christians. By the end of that century, almost all the 27books had widely acquired that status and Christian writers were speaking of Scripture as "the writings of the Old Covenant and of the New Covenant." The contrast is derived from the expression "new covenant" (berit ḥadashah) of Jeremiah 31:31 (30), which receives various interpretations (as kainê diathêkê) in the NT books. The English names "Old Testament" and "New Testament" reflect the translation of that expression (as novum testamentum) in Latin versions of the NT.
The final list, the "canon," was established only through the convocation of bishops from all over the Christian world in Ecumenical Councils, beginning in the fourth century. Only in some cases can a doctrinal reason be identified for the exclusion of what are called "New Testament Apocrypha," such as other gospels and the acts of apostles not recorded in the canonical Acts. An interesting case is an ancient account of the childhood of Mary the mother of Jesus, currently called "the Protevangelium of James." Although never canonized, it provides the source for many Christian holy sites in Israel and its story features in well-known traditional icons.

History of Scholarship

Scholarly studies of the NT fall into two main areas: edition of the text and analysis of the content. The widely used early edition of Erasmus (1517) was based on a handful of later manuscripts, among other defects. Later editors have employed hundreds of Greek manuscripts as well as translations into other ancient languages and quotations in early Christian writers. Today's critical texts follow the lead of Westcott and Hort (1882), as updated in the many editions of Eberhard Nestlé and Kurt Aland.
Through his long residence in the Netherlands (1628–49), the philosopher Descartes provoked probably the earliest harsh questioning of the content of the Bible. The "Cartesian method" prescribes that in order to find secure foundations for science, one must first reject any statement about which the slightest doubt can be raised. Descartes himself explicitly excluded theology from such questioning, but his ardent Dutch disciples had fewer scruples. Especially the writings of Baruch *Spinoza and Balthasar Bekker provoked a massive controversy and scores of polemical publications in Dutch. Only the Latin works of Spinoza, however, had a major impact on the broader European public.
In the early 19th century, the Cartesian approach gained ground in classical philology in Germany. Under the influence of Friedrich August Wolf (1759–1824) especially, it became fashionable to question the authenticity of works ascribed to ancient authors merely on the basis of inconsistencies in the alleged author's style and viewpoint. For example, major dialogues of Plato and a dozen speeches of Cicero (including the four against Catilina) were declared unauthentic. The Iliad and Odyssey, following Wolf, were seen as loose collections of poems by multiple authors; "Homer" was a fiction.
This skeptical paradigm of research was at its peak in the middle decades of the century, when German scholars began to apply the methods of classical philology to biblical studies. Ready targets were the differences of style and emphasis in the Pauline writings and the very existence of four different gospels, which contain evident minor discrepancies in parallel passages as well as the broader differences noted above. In particular, the studies of David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874) and Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860) provoked first furious rejection, then cautious imitation. Both of them employed various arguments to undermine the testimony of the NTauthors; then they employed Hegelian dialectics to build up reconstructed versions of the life of Jesus, the history of the first Christian communities, and the process whereby the NT books emerged.
By the early 20th century, classical philology had largely retreated from this kind of skepticism. Plato recovered his dialogues and Cicero his speeches. Both the Iliad and the Odyssey were now seen as brilliantly integrated compositions of a poetic genius; the remaining question was whether there was one Homer or two. In NT studies, by contrast, skepticism spread further, such that today its practitioners and classicists have difficulty in finding a basis for a shared discussion. Anything from four to 13 epistles are ascribed to Paul by different scholars, but using arguments of the kind that classicists today treat with great caution.
The result is that NT scholars have amassed an impressive quantity of information about the background of the NT but are deeply divided over questions of the origins and content of the books. As with Strauss and Baur, skepticism creates room for ingenious speculations rather than firm results. Concomitantly, a host of methods borrowed from elsewhere, be it "form criticism" and "redaction criticism" or methods of analysis of modern literature, are employed to find lasting significance in these theologically authoritative texts. An example is the commonly maintained view that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest and that it was used in the composition of Matthew and Luke in various combinations with a lost document designated as "Q." During the later 20th century the main arguments in favor of this view were undermined by criticism. Yet it continues to be taught, less out of conviction than because its critics failed to gain acceptance for any of the proposed alternatives.

Relationships with Judaism

A Jewish reader will readily note in the NT books such resemblances to Jewish tradition as are evidence that they were written by Jews or in a Jewish milieu. A massive commentary on the NT from rabbinic sources was compiled by Paul Billerbeck (1922–28). Yet the significance of such relationships has often been minimized in skeptical scholarship. Many NT scholars have refused to take rabbinic literature into account because its earliest written source, the Mishnah (early third century), is "too late" for any reliable comparison. For classical scholars, of course, the mere "lateness" of a source is irrelevant; thus the main witness to Parmenides is Simplicius, who wrote a thousand years later.
Since no writing by Jesus himself is known, many scholars have advocated a "criterion of double dissimilarity" in order to ascertain the nature of his teaching. Take all his many sayings in the gospels one by one, they say, and set aside any that have parallels in Jewish tradition or later Christian writings, since the authors of the gospels may have projected the latter back upon Jesus. Whatever little is left may stem from him. Overlooked in this Cartesian approach is that it equates our knowledge with our ignorance. For if a new Dead Sea scroll or a lost early Christian work is discovered, it may well contain parallels with whatever the criterion has not yet excluded. Built into the criterion, therefore, is the assumption that ultimately nothing can be known about what Jesus taught, but that whatever he did teach was antipathetic to Judaism.
Particular violence was done to the interpretation of Paul in attempts to distance him from Judaism. 
To this end, early 20th century scholars invented a parody of rabbinic Judaism as a religion that sought salvation in an obsessive preoccupation with the minute details of Torah observance. Paul was proclaimed as the liberator from all that. More recent studies, fortunately, have demonstrated the falsity of that image of Judaism. Also, Paul expected Jews to remain faithful to Torah and rather sought to reformulate Judaism's demands upon faithful non-Jews.
Dissent from the dominance of skepticism has come from two directions. On the one hand, there are NT scholars whose original training was in classics. On the other, the renewal of Jewish existence in the Land of Israel created new realities. Besides Israeli scholars who brought their familiarity with land, language, and tradition, there are Christian scholars who acquired similar familiarities by living in this Jewish society. 
A pioneer among the latter was the Anglican scholar Herbert Danby, whose translation of the Mishnah into English (1933) remains a standard. A pioneer among the former was Joseph *Klausner with his studies of Jesus (1929) and Paul (1946). His major important insight was to see that most characteristic of Jesus is less individual sayings, which have other Jewish parallels, than the ethical vision that suffuses them as a whole.
More recently, the decades-long cooperation at the Hebrew University between David *Flusser and Shmuel Safrai promoted a generation of younger Jewish and Christian scholars whose shared familiarity with both traditions transcends denominational affiliations. One of Flusser's personal contributions was his pioneering use of the Dead Sea scrolls to illuminate a layer of thought that underlies various NT epistles. 
Another was the realization that the normal language of the teaching of Jesus, and especially of his parables, was not Aramaic but Hebrew, enabling a reconstruction of parts of that teaching through careful comparisons of the text of Luke and Matthew with Jewish sources. Flusser also found a novel solution to the paradox of the Gospel of Matthew, which is in some regards the most Judaic of the four, yet it contains the most severe attacks upon the Jewish people. The attacks occur precisely in passages that are less Hebraic, or lack parallels in Luke and Mark, or give an unusual twist to parallels there. This Greek gospel is an adaptation of a Hebrew original by a sect of non-Jews who (like today's "black Hebrews" in Dimona) felt that the Torah should belong to them because they were observing the Torah far more faithfully than the Jews.


The literature on the NT is too vast to be surveyed here. Since 1956 it has been recorded systematically in New Testament Abstracts. Besides book reviews, this journal summarizes articles from many periodicals both under general categories and by NT book, chapter, and verse. The standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament is by F.W. Danker (20003), continuing the work of Walter Bauer. For the main textual issues, see the various books of Bruce M. Metzger. The relevant work of John A.T. Robinson is Redating the New Testament (1976). On the paradigms of scholarship and their history, see Malcolm F. Lowe, "The Critical and the Skeptical Methods in New Testament Research," in: Gregorianum 81 (2000), 693–721. The problematic attitude of early 20th-century scholarship to Judaism was exemplified in Emil Schuerer's The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ; the thoroughly revised edition by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (1973–87) eliminated Schuerer's biases and provides excellent background information for the NT. The Flusser-Safrai approach can be seen in the series Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (many authors). See also the revised version of Flusser's Jesus (1997) and his articles collected as Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (1988), edited by his pupils Steve Notley and Brad Young, respectively. The reevaluation of Paul and his relationship to Judaism is due to W.D. Davies, E.P. Sanders, Krister Stendah and John Gager among others.
[Malcolm F. Lowe (2nd ed.)]



Brotherhood of the Beast 2011 !

There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda. Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by 5.5 Billion people. While the name New World Order is a term frequently used today when referring to this group, it's more useful to identify the principal organizations, institutions, and individuals who make up this vast interlocking spiderweb of elite conspirators.
The Illuminati is the oldest term commonly used to refer to the 13 bloodline families (and their offshoots) that make up a major portion of this controlling elite. Most members of the Illuminati are also members in the highest ranks of numerous secretive and occult societies which in many cases extend straight back into the ancient world. The upper levels of the tightly compartmentalized (need-to-know-basis) Illuminati structural pyramid include planning committees and organizations that the public has little or no knowledge of. The upper levels of the Illuminati pyramid include secretive committees with names such as: the Council of 3, the Council of 5, the Council of 7, the Council of 9, the Council of 13, the Council of 33, theGrand Druid Council, the Committee of 300 (also called the "Olympians") and the Committee of 500 among others.
In 1992, Dr John Coleman published  Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the Illuminati agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows:
  "A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.      There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of  laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."
The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines ) says that most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. "Slides", Springmeier reports, is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand. For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" often solicits a slide response with many people. (Springmeier has co-authored three books on trauma-based programming which detail how the Illuminati employs highly tuned and extrememly sophisticated Mind Control (MC) training programs that begin the programming process while the intended victim is still within the womb. Mind Control is a much greater problem than most people realize. According to Cisco Wheeler, a former Illuminati mind control programmer, there are 10 million people who have been programmed as mind controlled slaves using trauma-based MC programs with names like Monarch and MK Ultra. The newer, non-trauma, electronic means of MC programming that grew out of theMontauk Project, may include millions more. Al Bielek, who played a principle role in the development of the Montauk Project, said that there likely 10 million victims of Montauk style mind control programming worldwide, the majority located in the USA. He also said that there are covert Montauk Programming 'Centers' in every major city in the U.S. )
What most Americans believe to be "Public Opinion" is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public's acceptance of the Illuminati's planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells the Illuminati that the programing is "taking", while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or "tweak" the programming until the desired response is achieved. While the thrust and content of the propaganda is decided at Tavistock, implementation of the propaganda is executed in the United States by well over 200 'think tanks' such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institute which are overseen and directed by the top NWO mind control organization in the United States, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California.
The NWO global conspirators manifest their agenda through the skillful manipulation of human emotions, especially fear. In the past centuries, they have repeatedly utilized a contrivance that NWO researcher and author David Icke has characterized in his latest book, The Biggest Secret, as ProblemReaction, and Solution.
The technique is as follows: Illuminati strategists create the Problem- by funding , assembling, and training an "opposition" group to stimulate turmoil in an established political power (sovereign country, region, continent, etc.) that they wish to impinge upon and thus create opposing factions in a conflict that the Illuminati themselves maneuvered into existence. In recent decades, so called "opposition" groups are usually identified in the media as 'freedom fighters' or 'liberators' (recently the KLA-Kosovo Liberation Army).
At the same time, the leader of the established political power where the conflict is being orchestrated is demonized and, on cue, referred to as 'another Hitler' (take your pick: Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Kadaffi, etc.). The 'freedom fighters' are not infrequently assembled from a local criminal element (i.e. KLA, drug traffickers). In the spirit of true Machiavellian deceit, the same NWO strategists are equally involved in covertly arming and advising the leader of the established power as well (the Illuminati always profits from any armed conflict by loaning money, arming, and supplying all parties involved in a war).
The conflict is drawn to the world stage by the controlled  media outlets with a barrage of photos and video tape reports of horrific and bloody atrocities suffered by innocent civilians. The cry goes up "Something has to be done!" And That is the desired Reaction (note: the  same technique is presently being used to bring about gun control in the United States).
The NWO puppeteers then provide the Solution by sending in UN 'Peace Keepers' (Bosnia) or a UN 'Coalition Force' (Gulf War) or NATO Bombers and then ground troops (Kosovo). Once installed, the 'peace keepers' never leave (Bosnia, Kosovo).  The idea is to have NWO controlled ground troops in all major countries or strategic areas where significant resistance to the New World Order takeover is likely to be encountered.
East Timor, Indosnesia. (9/14/99) Virtually , the same strategy used to occupy Kosovo with UN/NATO troops was applied by the NWO manipulators to take military control of  East Timor. Once again, the same morality play is trotted out for public consumption: the local evil and demonic Indonesian Army trained militias responsible for the slaughter of innocent civilians following the August 30 vote for Independence (from Indonesian control), must be stopped at all costs. This time, Australia (to keep up the appearance of an 'international' humantarian effort) will lead the charge with 'peacekeeping' troops. Of course, it didn't take long for Madeline Albright to announce that US 'support assets' will be part of the "UN Peacekeeping Team". In a  front page story in the LA Times (9/13/99), Mike Jendrzejczyk  of Human Rights Watch (an Illuminati front group) in Washington DC  said that it's "crucial" that "peacekeepers have the authority to disarm militia forces and any Indonesian soldiers actively working with them". ]
The local, sovereign military force is either defeated (i.e. Yugoslavia) or, as in the case of the United States itself, replaced by foreign UN "Partnership For Peace" (PFP) troopswho take over the jobs of  US soldiers who have been sent overseas on  'peacekeeping' missions. In addition to being killed in ground conflicts on foreign soil, US military forces will likely be reduced in the next few years through disease induced attrition (i.e. from mandatory Anthrax Vaccinations required of all US military personnel). These vaccinations will, in all probability, eventually produce the symptoms of the so-called Gulf War Illness, which was acquired by a certain percentage of Gulf War soldiers who were given a "special" anthrax vaccine (intended by the Illuminati/CIA as a test run to ascertain how quickly (and fatally) the disease would progress with a substantial population of healthy young men and women).
The corporate portion of the NWO pyramid seems to be dominated by international bankers and the big pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations. The Royal Family of England, namely Queen Elizabeth II and the House of Windsor, (who are, in fact, descendants of the German arm of European Royalty -the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family-changed the name to Windsor in 1914 ), are high level players, along with the British oligarchy which controls the upper strata of the Illuminati. The decision making Illuminati nerve centers of  this effort are in the London (especially the City of London), Basel Switzerland, and Brussels (NATO headquarters).
The United Nations, along with all the agencies working under the UN umbrella, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), are full time players in this scheme. Similarly, NATOis a military tool of the NWO.
The leaders of all major industrial countries like the United StatesEnglandGermanyItalyAustraliaNew Zealand, etc. (E.g. members of the "G7/G8" ) are active and fully cooperative participants in this conspiracy. In this century, the degree of control exerted by the Illuminati has advanced to the point that only certain hand-picked individuals, who are groomed and selected by the Illuminati are even eligible to become the prime minister or president of countries like England, Germany, or The United States. It didn't matter whether Bill Clinton or Bob Dole won the Presidency  in 1996, the  results would have been the same (except maybe for Zipper Gate ). Both men are playing on the same team for the same ball club. Anyone who isn't a team player is taken outi.e.President Kennedy, Ali Bhutto (Pakistan) and Aldo Moro (Italy)More recently, Admiral Borda and William Colby were also killed because they were either unwilling to go along with the conspiracy to destroy America, weren't cooperating in some capacity, or were attempting to expose/ thwart the Takeover agenda.
Most of the major  wars, political upheavals,  and economic depression/recessions of the past 100 years (and earlier)  were carefully planned and instigated by the machinations of these elites. They include The Spanish-American War (1898), World War I and World War IITheGreat Depression; the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917; the Rise of Nazi Germany; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; the 1989-91"fall" of Soviet Communism, the 1991 Gulf War;  and the recent War in Kosovo. Even the French Revolution was an orchestrated into existence by the Barvaian Illuminati and the House of Rothchild.
FEMAThe Crisis of Democracy In America, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) was created in 1979 under Presidential Memorandum 32 authored for President Carter by Prof. Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard professor and former FEMA Advisory Board chairman. Huntington wrote the Seminal Peace for the Trilateral Commission in the mid 70's, in which he criticized democracy and economic development as outdated ideas. As co-author of another report prepared for the Trilateral Commissiosn, The Crisis of Democracy, Huntington wrote:
"We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy. A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary."
Huntington's ideas were rewritten into National Security Decision Directive #47 (NSDD47), which was enacted in July 1982 by President Reagan. Treated as a passing footnote by the media, this law identified legitimate areas to be upgraded to maintain national defense, but it also laid the groundwork for Emergency Mobilization Preparedness, a plan under which existing socio/economic regulations or other legal constraints would be waived in the event of a national emergency. This plan was further strengthened in Public Law 101-647, signed by President Bush in November 1990.What it boils down to is this: in the event that the President declares a national emergency, for any reason (from major earthquakes to increased international tensions or economic /financial crisis of any stripe), FEMA can then, at their discretion, implement Executive Orders 10995 through 11005. These Executive Orders permit a takeover by FEMA of local, state, and national governments and the suspension of constitutional guarantees. FEMA will have the authority to exert any sort of control that it deems necessary upon the American public. A trained National Police Force, formally referred to by the name of Multi Jurisdictional Task Force (MJTF), wearing black uniforms and composed of:
1. specially selected US military personnel 2. foreign military units carrying United Nations ID cards, and 3. specially trained existing police groups from larger metropolitan American cities.
These members of the MJTF will implement and enforce martial law under the direction and controlof FEMAThe President and Congress are out of the loop.
FEMA is the Trojan Horse by which the New World Order will implement overt, police-state control over the American populace.
War on Drugs The "War on Drugs" is a cruel joke. The US government, specifically the CIA, is the biggest 'drug lord' on the planet. Drug money is used to pay for innumerable 'black projects', including the construction of huge underground cities housing both humans and aliens working with the secret US government.
The instigation of a trumped-up war as a cover for amassing  fortunes can be dated back to at least the 12th Century when only a core group of nine members of an Illuminati group called the Knights Templar, the military arm of an Illuminati secret society known as the Priory of Sion, kicked off the The Crusades that lasted for over a century and a half. A rift later developed between the Templars and the Priory of Sion when Jerusalem was lost to Saracen Turks in 1187. In 1307, the king of France, Philippe the Fair (a Merovingian Illuminati), coveted the wealth and was jealous of the Templars' power. The French king, being a puppet of the Priory of Sion, set out to arrest all the Templars in France on October 13. While many Templars were seized and tortured, including their Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, many other Templars (who had been tipped off) escaped. They eventually resurfaced in Portugal, in Malta (as the Knights of Malta) and later in Scotland as The Scottish Rites of Free Masonry.
The acquisition and consolidation of ever greater wealth, natural resources, total political power, and control over others are the motivating forces which drives the decisions of the Illuminati. The toll in human suffering and the loss of innocent lives are non issues for these individuals, who are aligned with very dark and malevolent 4th dimensional aliens.The dominant group of 4th dimentional malevolent aliens controlling and manipulating the human Iluminati are known as Draconians or Drakos Reptilians. Not all alien reptilians are of a negative spiritual orientation.
Mind Control Recent revelations from deprogrammed Illuminati (government) mind controlled individuals such as Arizona Wilder (The Biggest Secret), Cisco Wheeler The Illuminati Formula to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Control Slave), Cathy O'Brien (Trance Formation of America), and Brice Taylor (Thanks for the Memories) leave NO DOUBT that the upper levels of the  Illuminati engage in Satanic rituals which usually include the killing of young children, the drinking of  human blood and the consuming of flesh and human organs.
The details of the Illuminati conspiracy are brilliantly laid out in the books of David Icke (Tales from the Time LoopChildren of the MatrixAlice in Wonderland and the World Trace Center DisasterThe Biggest SecretThe Truth Shall Set You Free, and I am Me, I am Free; and in three books by Dr. John Coleman (Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of The Committee of 300; One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship; and  Diplomacy by Deception

The Rothschild s claim that they are Jewish, when in fact they are Khazars. They are from a country called Khazaria, which occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which is now predominantly occupied by Georgia. The reason the Rothschilds claim to be Jewish is that the Khazars under the instruction of the King, converted to the Jewish faith in 740 A.D., but of course that did not include converting their Asiatic Mongolian genes to the genes of the Jewish people. You will find that approximately 90of people in the world today who call themselves Jews are actually Khazars, or as they like to be known, Ashkenazi Jews. These people knowingly lie to the world with their claims that the land of Israel is theirs by birthright, when in actual fact their real homeland is over 800 miles away in Georgia. So, next time you hear an Israeli Prime Minister bleating about the so-called persecution of the Jews, consider this, every Prime Minister of Israel has been an Ashkenazi Jew. Therefore when all these Prime Ministers have curried favour with the West for their re-establishment of a Jewish homeland, they have knowingly and deliberately lied to you, as they were never from that region, and they well know it, because it is they who call themselves Ashkenazi Jews.  

The Book of Revelation, Chapter 2, Verse 9, states the following which would appear to be about these Ashkenazi Jews: “I know thy works, and tribulation and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.†1743: Mayer Amschel Bauer, an Ashkenazi Jew, is born in Frankfurt, Germany, the son of Moses Amschel Bauer, a money lender and the proprietor of a counting house. Moses Amschel Bauer places a red sign above the entrance door to his counting house. This sign is a red hexagram (which geometrically and numerically translates into the number 666) which under Rothschild instruction will end up on the Israeli flag some two centuries later. 1753: Gutle Schnaper, an Ashkenazi Jew (future wife of Mayer Amschel Bauer), born to respected merchant, Wolf Salomon Schnaper. 

Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, de Gaulle 
There is a chapter in the second volume of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America that has seldom (if ever) attracted the attention it deserves. It is hardly longer than a page and a half; it
contains not more than forty-eight sentences. It is entitled “Some Characteristics of Historians in Democratic Times.” I have often thought that it ought perhaps be framed and put above every working historian’s and history student’s desk.
For Tocqueville’s sentences tell us that the writing of history in the age of democracy, in the age ruled by sovereign majorities, will be more difficult than and different from the writing of history in ages ruled by aristocratic minorities. And he foresaw, too, that historians in a democratic age will tend to be preoccupied with great general movements of societies and ideas, with the attendant tendency to neglect the motives, acts, and purposes of significant persons.
Yet even in democratic times the course of the histories of entire nations may depend on outstanding personalities. 
This applies to the Second World War more than to almost any great event or period of history during the past two hundred years. Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, de Gaulle (to a lesser extent even Mussolini): without them not only the course of that enormous war but its origins, its outbreak, its turning points, and its outcome would not only have been entirely different: much of it would not have happened at all.
These leaders were living proofs that apart from, or perhaps even contrary to, the idea that history consists of large economic and social movements, to understand the history of that
time we must primarily (but of course not exclusively) concentrate on the acts and the relations of a few great national leaders.
Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt: they won the Second World War. (In one sense, Churchill was the key figure, because in 1940 he was the man who did not lose it—for that was the moment when Hitler could have won the war. After Russia and America became involved, Hitler could no longer win, even though he—and this is still far from being adequately understood—could have forced his adversaries to something like a draw.) Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt—they were very different men: but here my purpose is a description and analysis not of their characters but of  heir relations: and in view not only of the Second World War but also of its enormous consequences. For those consequences not only influenced but determined the history of the world at least for fifty years.  The two world wars were the two great mountain ranges that towered over the landscape of an entire century.  The cold war, from 1947 to 1989, was the direct consequence of the Second World War—that is, something other than the much-touted world struggle between Communism and capitalism, or between Communism and “freedom.” And the origins of the cold war depended on and had issued from the relations of Churchill and Stalin and Roosevelt.
About these triangular relationships much material has accumulated and much has been written during the past sixty years, much about Churchill-Roosevelt, less about Roosevelt Stalin, and less about Churchill-Stalin. Yet that last relationship, including their two summit meetings, may have been the most decisive one, at least for Europe and its then future.
Historical thinking and writing and study are, by their nature, revisionist. The historian, unlike a judge, is permitted to try a case over and over again, often after finding and employing new evidence. Now, despite the disordered trickle of documents seeping out from Russian archives during the past dozen years or so, there seems to be not much reason to believe (or hope) that they could provide evidence to revise not only the essentials but even the details of the Churchill-Stalin relationship. Yet the human mind includes the capacity as well as the inclination to rethink much of the past, over and over— and not necessarily because of new evidence but because of changing perspectives: and perspective is, of course, an inevitable component of the act of seeing.
Much of the written (and, on occasion, spoken) criticism of Churchill has been directed at his treatment of Stalin (and of Soviet Russia) during the Second World War. The personal and political inclinations of his critics may differ, but the essence of their criticism is the same. They accuse Churchill of double standards. He, who fought bitterly and singlemindedly against the appeasement of Germany and of Hitler, went a very long way to appease Stalin and Russia. He had no illusions about Hitler, but nurtured—and expressed—many an unwarranted illusion about Stalin. His hatred of Germany blinded him throughout the war. It also made him an accomplice in allowing Russia and Communism to advance far into the heart of Europe. (Such criticism is often apparent among German historians and certain journalists, including men and women who cannot be accused of nurturing sympathies for Hitler.) He, who had attacked his own government for abandoning Czechoslovakia to Germany, abandoned Poland to Russia. (It is interesting that the latter criticism has been voiced less often by Polish than by non-Polish historians and writers.)
There is some substance in these criticisms, even when they are ideological or national or exaggeratedly one-sided. Yet almost none of Churchill’s critics consider an essential condition, which was the need to keep up the alliance with Soviet Russia, without which Britain and the United States could hardly—or perhaps not at all—have expected to conquer Germany. However: neither the scope nor the purpose of this chapter concern primarily British-Russian relations during the war. They concern the minds and the relationships of the two leaders, Churchill and Stalin.
Churchill’s view of Stalin was not simple. It contained elements of illusion; but also of a supreme (and—if I may so say, old-fashioned) realism. Eventually his view and treatment of
Stalin became entirely separate from his view and treatment of Communism. Even before the war he began to see Russia and its leader as a national, and not an ideological, reality. 
We do not know whether Churchill heard the witticism of the English wag who upon the news of the Nazi-Soviet (and HitlerStalin) Pact in 1939 said that “All the Isms are Wasms,” but
there is at least reason to think that Churchill would have
chuckled at it. He of course abhorred Communism from the
very beginning. His strenuous advocacy of Allied intervention
in the Russian civil war in 1919–1920 was more than yet another  instance of his romantic pugnacity. He believed that the Bolsheviks were weak enough so that a little more Allied help to their White Russian opponents would topple them: but if not,
they would remain and grow into a serious threat to other nations of the world. 
Anti-Communism was one (though only
one) of his reasons to esteem Mussolini and other European
(and Asian) anti-Communist dictators and leaders. His contempt for Communism did not lessen. One example of this was his preference for the Franco side at the beginning of and
for some time during the Spanish civil war, for a number of reasons, among them the presence of Communists in the Leftinclined republican regime in Madrid.
However—and this is important—Hitler’s declared “conservative” anti-Communism, which in the 1930s was extremely successful, bringing and ranging entire classes of people and
nations to the German side, made no impression on Churchill,
who was then a minority among conservatives. He saw through
the propaganda of the Third Reich, including the AntiComintern Pact; he saw the danger of a new Germany, rising and arming. Consequently he began to give some consideration (as had the French government, beginning in 1934) to the possibility of Soviet Russia’s eventually becoming part of an anti-German alliance of states, perhaps in the name of “collective security.” Whether already at that time Churchill saw Stalin as more and more of a national and less and less of an
international revolutionary leader we cannot tell. What we can
tell is that his view of Communism and his view of Russia began to diverge. He, the known right-wing imperialist who fought against granting Dominion status to India, and thereafter for more and more British armament, now found himself supported by more and more people on the “Left.” His circle of acquaintances now also included the Soviet Russian ambassador to London, Ivan Maisky, a sly politic personage who (as we now know from the texts of his dispatches to Moscow) does not deserve the reputation he had acquired but who knew how to say some things that Churchill liked to hear.
Yet Churchill, who saw Hitler and his purposes perhaps better than any other statesman in the world, especially in 1938–1939, was wrong about Russia, and especially about Stalin at that time. 
People did not know it then; we know (or at least ought to know) it now. Before and during the Munich crisis Churchill believed, and argued, that Hitler’s Germany had to be resisted and, if necessary, fought then and there, for many reasons, including Russia’s participation in such a war: after all, Russia had an alliance with France and with Czechoslovakia at that time. Ten years later he repeated his argument, directly and powerfully, in The Gathering Storm, the first volume of his Second World War history. He should have known already then what became more and more evident later: that in
September 1938 Stalin had no more (indeed, even less) intention to honor his alliance with Czechoslovakia than had the French; indeed, that Stalin was pleased to get off the hook (if
indeed hook that was).
I shall have to say something about Churchill around Munich, about his then-compound of realism and illusions, in another chapter; but here my purpose is to reconstruct the
compound of his realism and his illusions about Stalin. Well
Die "Großen Drei" auf der Potsdamer Konferenz 
Winston Churchill, Harry S. Truman, Josef W. Stalin 
Ort und Zeit: Potsdam, Juli 1945
after Munich he continued to believe that a British-French alliance with Russia was absolutely essential to deter Hitler.
After March 1939 he was no longer alone in pushing for this; and in regretting that the Chamberlain government was both dilatory and reluctant in pursuing a serious military alliance with Soviet Russia he was probably right. Yet he was wrong in thinking that Stalin was willing to enter into such an alliance at all. Considerable evidence indicates that in 1939 (as well as later) Stalin preferred to cut a deal with Hitler rather than with the Western capitalist democracies. And so it happened.
There is some reason to believe that, stunned as he was, like almost everyone else, Churchill was less shocked by the StalinHitler Pact than were many others. It was on 1 October 1939—
he was already a member of the Chamberlain cabinet then— that he uttered his later famous sentences: “I cannot forecast
to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” (Chamberlain, whose disgust with the
Soviets was more fundamental than Churchill’s, wrote to him that he entirely agreed.)
Russian national interest—something very different, and
definitely more important, than International Communism— Churchill was right about that then, and ever since.

Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin: Bosom Pals
Churchill's abhorrence of Bolshevism disappeared as rapidly as his reservations about International Jewry as soon as it suited his personal ambitions
Churchill and Stalin in the Kremlin in August 1942
– or is it just another of Stalin's "montages" ?
The realistic portrayal of Stalin's withered arm suggests it is authentic
Winston Churchill was the spoiled son of an aristocratic father and an American mother who doted on him. As a young man he was a dilettante who developed an early taste for expensive clothes, imported cigars and old brandy. At 26 he entered parliament.
As a politician he continued his dilettante ways, serving in a number of minor posts and switching from one party to another whenever he thought it would further his career. Although he displayed only minimal qualities of statesmanship, his family connections and sharp eye for the main chance led to his steady advancement, and in 1908 he was promoted to the cabinet. When World War I broke out Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty, effectively the supervisor of the British Navy.
Churchill's lack of a sense of responsibility and his ineptness as a military strategist led to disaster. He directed the utterly bungled Gallipoli campaign against the Turks in 1915 which led to a total defeat for the British, with more than 100,000 casualties. He was forced to resign his Admiralty post in disgrace.
He returned to his earlier career in journalism and in an article entitled 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' which appeared in theIllustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920 he wrote:

‘This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their beards and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.’
By 1938, when he was 64 years old, Churchill had so lived beyond his means that his creditors prepared to foreclose on him. He was faced with the prospect of the forced sale of his luxurious country estate, Chartwell.
‘At this hour of crisis a dark and mysterious figure entered Churchill's life: he was Henry Strakosch, a multi-millionaire Jew who had acquired a fortune speculating in South African mining ventures after his family had migrated to that country from eastern Austria. Strakosch stepped forward, advanced the ageing demagogue a "loan" of £150,000 just in time to save his estate from the auctioneer, and then quietly slipped into the background again. In the years that followed, Strakosch served as Churchill's adviser and confidant but miraculously managed to avoid the spotlight of publicity which thenceforth illuminated Churchill's again-rising political career.’
† Additional Notes:
‘I have my own theories about Winston's real origins. These are based on the known facts about both his parents.
‘Known Fact 1: Winston's mother, Jenny Churchill (née Jacobson) was a notorious adulteress. Jenny Churchill's promiscuity was so infamous that ZOG Court Historian William Manchester commented on it in detail in Volume 1 of his now to be permanently incomplete Churchill "trilogy," The Last Lion.
‘Known Fact 2: Winston's putative father, Lord Randolph Churchill, treated Winston with distance and disdain. The non-existent father-son "relationship" has been the subject of exhaustive micro-analysis.
‘It seems not to have occurred to anyone that Winston may have been a literal as well as figurative bastard.’ Maguire, FAEM (www.faem.com), 9 February 2002

‘Cunning, no doubt, came to Churchill in the Jewish genes transmitted by his mother Lady Randolph Churchill, née Jenny Jacobson/Jerome.’ Moshe Kohn, Jerusalem Post

Prof. Arthur Butz has cast doubt on whether Henry Strakosch was a Jew. Journal of Historical Review, January/February 200
With acknowledgments to Michael McLaughlin: For Those Who Cannot Speak, Historical Review Press, 1979 and National Vanguard

"Germany is our public enemy No. 1. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her." Bernat Lecache, President of the World Jewish League, 1932. This came to fruition as shown here, being reported on the front page of the Daily Express on March 24, 1933

International Jewry declared war against Germany in 1933 simply because the German government had removed Jews from influential positions and transferred power back to the German people. Such declarations of war as carried in the Daily Express were repeated throughout the world.
‘The Israeli people around the whole world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce, and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people.’ Daily Express, March 24, 1933

Note: Many newspapers publish two or more editions on the same day. Another version of this front page exists, without the crude photo-montage, which is probably the separately printed Manchester edition.

Winston S. Churchill with his friend, the Jewish financier Bernard Baruch. On the right, the unofficial implementor of the ‘Morgenthau Plan’ and later US President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

‘I would like to remind you about the kind of system the foreign relations have been taken up with. Here it is:
It was a system that got into power by armed revolt, that dispersed the constituent assembly;
It was a system that liquidated political opponents without any judicial proceedings, that suppressed the strikes of the working men, that pillaged the villages so insufferably thus driving the peasants to rebellions, which were crushed bloodily;
It was a system that destroyed the church, that drove twenty governments of the country into starvation;
It was the system that was first to introduce concentration camps in the twentieth century, as well as the method of taking hostages, i.e. not by catching the persecuted ones, but rather their families or indiscriminately anyone to shoot them down;
It was the system that deceived the working people with all its decrees: the decree concerning the land-reform, the decree concerning peace, the decree concerning the manufacturing plants, the decree concerning the freedom of the press;
It was the system that liquidated all the other parties. I ask you to get me right: It did not alone destroy the parties as such, it did not just dissolve the parties, but it liquidated their members;
It was the system that introduced genocide of the peasantry: 15 million peasants have been deported for liquidation;
It was the system that introduced serfdom anew;
It was the system that provoked an artificial famine in the Ukraine during peace time, 6 million people died of hunger in the Ukraine at the border of Europe during the years 1932 and 1933.
During the years 1918 and 1919 the Tcheka shot more than a thousand people a month without legal procedure. At the climax of the Stalin-terror, during the years 1937-1938, the number of people shot to death averaged more than 40,000 a month. And with this country, with this Soviet Union, the whole allied democratic world entered a war alliance in 1941.’
Alexander Solschenizyn in his speech on June 30, 1975 at the Washington Hilton Hotel during an invitation of the US-American Union Organization AFL/CIO

Dresden, pictured above, merely the climax: On 10 May 1940 Winston Churchill came to power and put into motion a new "terror bombing" strategy. The next day, on the 11th, 36 British aircraft bombed the centre of the German city of Munchen-Gladbach in Westphalia. The inspiration behind Churchill was Frederick Lindeman, later Lord Cherwell, a half-American, half-German technical adviser.

‘The historical documents, which condemned millions of people to losing their homes and additional millions to forced labor and death, were signed as a little variety during the breaks between the menu courses in an atmosphere reeking of gravy and generous wines.’ 

Admiral Leahy, Roosevelt's Chief Naval Advisor, on the Yalta Conference. Das Ostpreußenblatt, Nov. 5, 1960 p. 3. In Walendy,The Methods of Reeducation

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president 

Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
The Guardian, Saturday 25 September 2004 

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.
The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.
A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".
Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.
In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.
One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.
The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.
August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.
By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.
By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.
Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.
In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.
There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank". UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.
There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.
Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.
May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: "Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."
May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.
By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.
Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.
Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.
The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.
Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.
Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.
The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. "The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight. "After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."
But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.
"SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.
Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.
The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.
Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".
Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: "President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."
Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.
In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.
The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.
The petition to The Hague states: "From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."
The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.
Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."
The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.
In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.
"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.
"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.
"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."
"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."
Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."
What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.
The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor". He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.
In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".
Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".
Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.
Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story. Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.
The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush. Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.
The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz. The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".
In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages. The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents. Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."
The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.
However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".
The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."
However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.
More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business. 

Bush/Nazi Link Confirmed

from The New Hampshire Gazette
Vol. 248, No. 1, October 10, 2003
By John Buchanan
Poppy and George
WASHINGTON – After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his “enemy national” partners.
The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and FBI, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law.
Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush’s maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial baron for nearly eight months after the U.S. entered the war.
No Story?
For six decades these historical facts have gone unreported by the mainstream U.S. media. The essential facts have appeared on the Internet and in relatively obscure books, but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes. This story has also escaped the attention of “official” Bush biographers, Presidential historians and publishers of U.S. history books covering World War II and its aftermath.
The White House did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
The Summer of ’42
The unraveling of the web of Bush-Harriman-Thyssen U.S. enterprises, all of which operated out of the same suite of offices at 39 Broadway under the supervision of Prescott Bush, began with a story that ran in the New York Herald-Tribune on July 30, 1942. By then, the U.S. had been at war with Germany for nearly eight months.
“Hitler’s Angel Has $3 Million in U.S. Bank,” declared the headline. The lead paragraph characterized Fritz Thyssen as “Adolf Hitler’s original patron a decade ago.” In fact, the steel and coal magnate had aggressively supported and funded Hitler since October 1923, according to Thyssen’s autobiography, I Paid Hitler. In that book, Thyssen also acknowledges his direct personal relationships with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Rudolf Hess.
The Herald-Tribune also cited unnamed sources who suggested Thyssen’s U.S. “nest egg” in fact belonged to “Nazi bigwigs” including Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, or even Hitler himself.
Business is Business
The “bank,” founded in 1924 by W. Averell Harriman on behalf of Thyssen and his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. of Holland, was Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York City. According to government documents, it was in reality a clearing house for a number of Thyssen-controlled enterprises and assets, including as many as a dozen individual businesses. UBC also bought and shipped overseas gold, steel, coal, and U.S. Treasury and war bonds. The company’s activities were administered for Thyssen by a Netherlands-born, naturalized U.S. citizen named Cornelis Lievense, who served as president of UBC. Roland Harriman was chairman and Prescott Bush a managing director.
The Herald-Tribune article did not identify Bush or Harriman as executives of UBC, or Brown Brothers Harriman, in which they were partners, as UBC’s private banker. A confidential FBI memo from that period suggested, without naming the Bush and Harriman families, that politically prominent individuals were about to come under official U.S. government scrutiny as Hitler’s plunder of Europe continued unabated.
After the “Hitler’s Angel” article was published Bush and Harriman made no attempts to divest themselves of the controversial Thyssen financial alliance, nor did they challenge the newspaper report that UBC was, in fact, a de facto Nazi front organization in the U.S.
Instead, the government documents show, Bush and his partners increased their subterfuge to try to conceal the true nature and ownership of their various businesses, particularly after the U.S. entered the war. The documents also disclose that Cornelis Lievense, Thyssen’s personal appointee to oversee U.S. matters for his Rotterdam-based Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V., via UBC for nearly two decades, repeatedly denied to U.S. government investigators any knowledge of the ownership of the Netherlands bank or the role of Thyssen in it.
UBC’s original group of business associates included George Herbert Walker, who had a relationship with the Harriman family that began in 1919. In 1922, Walker and W. Averell Harriman traveled to Berlin to set up the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.
The Walker-Harriman-created German industrial alliance also included partnership with another German titan who supported Hitler’s rise, Friedrich Flick, who partnered with Thyssen in the German Steel Trust that forged the Nazi war machine. For his role in using slave labor and his own steel, coal and arms resources to build Hitler’s war effort, Flick was convicted at the Nuremberg trials and sentenced to seven years in prison.
The Family Business
In 1926, after Prescott Bush had married Walker’s daughter, Dorothy, Walker brought Bush in as a vice president of the private banking and investment firm of W.A. Harriman & Co., also located in New York. Bush became a partner in the firm that later became Brown Brothers Harriman and the largest private investment bank in the world. Eventually, Bush became a director of and stockholder in UBC.
However, the government documents note that Bush, Harriman, Lievense and the other UBC stockholders were in fact “nominees,” or phantom shareholders, for Thyssen and his Holland bank, meaning that they acted at the direct behest of their German client.
On October 20, 1942, under authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act, the U.S. Congress seized UBC and liquidated its assets after the war. The seizure is confirmed by Vesting Order No. 248 in the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian and signed by U.S. Alien Property Custodian Leo T. Crowley.
In August, under the same authority, Congress had seized the first of the Bush-Harriman-managed Thyssen entities, Hamburg-American Line, under Vesting Order No. 126, also signed by Crowley. Eight days after the seizure of UBC, Congress invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act again to take control of two more Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses – Holland-American Trading Corp. (Vesting Order No. 261) and Seamless Steel Equipment Corp (Vesting Order No. 259). In November, Congress seized the Nazi interests in Silesian-American Corporation, which allegedly profited from slave labor at Auschwitz via a partnership with I.G. Farben, Hitler’s third major industrial patron and partner in the infrastructure of the Third Reich.
The documents from the Archives also show that the Bushes and Harrimans shipped valuable U.S. assets, including gold, coal, steel and U.S. Treasury and war bonds, to their foreign clients overseas as Hitler geared up for his 1939 invasion of Poland, the event that sparked World War II.
That’s One Way to Put It
Following the Congressional seizures of UBC and the other four Bush-Harriman-Thyssen enterprises, The New York Times reported on December 16, 1944, in a brief story on page 25, that UBC had “received authority to change its principal place of business to 120 Broadway.” The Times story did not report that UBC had been seized by the U.S. government or that the new address was the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian. The story also neglected to mention that the other UBC-related businesses had also been seized by Congress.
Still No Story?
Since then, the information has not appeared in any U.S. news coverage of any Bush political campaign, nor has it been included in any of the major Bush family biographies. It was, however, covered extensively in George H.W. Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin. Chaitkin’s father served as an attorney in the 1940s for some of the victims of the Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.
The book gave a detailed, accurate accounting of the Bush family’s long Nazi affiliation, but no mainstream U.S. media entity reported on or even investigated the allegations, despite careful documentation by the authors. Major booksellers declined to distribute the book, which was dismissed by Bush supporters as biased and untrue. Its authors struggled even to be reviewed in reputable newspapers. That the book was published by a Lyndon LaRouche’s organization undoubtedly made it easier to dismiss, but does not change the facts.
The essence of the story been posted for years on various Internet sites, including BuzzFlash.com and TakeBackTheMedia.com, but no online media seem to have independently confirmed it.
Likewise, the mainstream media have apparently made no attempt since World War II to either verify or disprove the allegations of Nazi collaboration against the Bush family. Instead, they have attempted to dismiss or discredit such Internet sites or “unauthorized” books without any journalistic inquiry or research into their veracity.
Loyal Defenders
The National Review ran an essay on September 1 by their White House correspondent Byron York, entitled “Annals of Bush-Hating.” It begins mockingly: “Are you aware of the murderous history of George W. Bush – indeed, of the entire Bush family? Are you aware of the president’s Nazi sympathies? His crimes against humanity? And do you know, by the way, that George W. Bush is a certifiable moron?” York goes on to discredit the “Bush is a moron” IQ hoax, but fails to disprove the Nazi connection.
The more liberal Boston Globe ran a column September 29 by Reason magazine’s Cathy Young in which she referred to “Bush-o-phobes on the Internet” who “repeat preposterous claims about the Bush family’s alleged Nazi connections.”
Poles Tackle the Topic
Newsweek Polska, the magazine’s Polish edition, published a short piece on the “Bush Nazi past” in its March 5, 2003 edition. The item reported that “the Bush family reaped rewards from the forced-labor prisoners in the Auschwitz concentration camp,” according to a copyrighted English-language translation from Scoop Media (www.scoop.co.nz). The story also reported the seizure of the various Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.
Still Not Interested
Major U.S. media outlets, including ABC News, NBC News, The New York TimesWashington Post,Washington TimesLos Angeles Times and Miami Herald, have repeatedly declined to investigate the story when information regarding discovery of the documents was presented to them beginning Friday, August 29. Newsweek U.S. correspondent Michael Isikoff, famous for his reporting of big scoops during the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual affair of the 1990s, declined twice to accept an exclusive story based on the documents from the archives.
After the seizures of the various businesses they oversaw with Cornelis Lievense and his German partners, the U.S. government quietly settled with Bush, Harriman and others after the war. Bush and Harriman each received $1.5 million in cash as compensation for their seized business assets.
In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past. There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001. 

Bush bank tied to Nazi funding 

The Washington Times 

President Bush’s grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, government documents show.
Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by the Associated Press.
Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) Mr. Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence that Mr. Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Prescott Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.
Reports of Prescott Bush’s involvement with the seized bank have been circulating on the Internet for years and have been reported by some mainstream news media. The newly declassified documents provide additional details about the Union Banking-Thyssen connection.
Trent Duffy, a spokesman for President Bush, declined to comment.
Union Banking was owned by a Dutch bank, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaardt N.V., which was “closely affiliated” with the German conglomerate United Steel Works, according to an Oct. 5, 1942, report from the federal Office of Alien Property Custodian. The Dutch bank and the steel firm were part of the business and financial empire of Mr. Thyssen and his brother, Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the report said.
Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act 

Timewatch - Through Hell for Hitler

A tale of a veteran German Tank driver from the Second world war, taken from his auto-biography. He tells his story in flashbacks from his home in Britain as an old man. A matter-of-fact account of his youth before the war and his trials during his time as a soldier primarily on the Russian front. Combining first-person narration with full-scale drama and vivid archive footage, this film tells the story of Henry Metelmann, an ordinary German soldier swept up in the events of the Second World War. Today Henry is a groundsman at one of England's most prestigious public schools. During the war he was a tank driver on the brutal Russian Front. In this remarkably frank and compelling account, Henry confesses to his involvement in Nazi atrocities, killing innocent civilians and gunning down Soviet prisoners of war. He avoided death himself through a combination of luck and cowardice. From proud Hitler Youth to feral animal fighting for survival, we travel with Henry down a spiral of brutality and see the gradual awakening in his mind to the iniquity of the cause he is fighting for.

Prescott Bush, Joseph P. Kennedy And Hitler's Nazi Party And The Jewish Connection

This Kennedys belonged to the powerful Dál gCais people of Thomond, headed by the O’Briens. They resided in far eastern Clare, northern Limerick, Mayo, and northern Tipperary in an area called Ormond. Originally seated in Glemor, near Killaloe in Co. Clare, they migrated across the river Shannon to Ormond in Co. Tipperary following pressure from other septs in the region (mainly the O'Briens and the McNamaras).

They soon grew in power to become lords in Ormond from the 11th - 16th centuries. The Annals of the Four Masters described them in 1300 to be "the undisputed Lords of Ormond". Placenames such as Coolkennedy and Garrykennedy in Upper Ormond and Killokennedy in Thomond are indicative of their longstanding presence in the region.

The sept split into three branches, the chiefs of which were referred to by their hair colours: don (brown), fionn (blond), and rua (red). St Ruadhan of Lorrha was the special protector of the Kennedys of Ormond. Around 1600, a branch of the sept migrated to Co. Antrim where many Kennedys are still found today.

According to Daithi O'hOgain (Associate Professor at University College Dublin), there is a lineage of Irish Kennedys descended directly from Brian Boru: 'The name Cinneide also continued in the direct O'Brien line. For instance, a branch of the family descended from King Donnchadh, son of Brian Boru, settled in Aherloe in south Tipperary, one section of which had the name Cinneide as a surname. 

Another Cinneide O’Briain, grandson of the same Donnchadh, was a strong opponent of his kinsman, King Toirdhealbhach, and on this account he was assisted by the Connacht king, Aedh O'Ruairc of Breffny, to set up a kingdom of his own on the Meath-Cavan border. This little kingdom was broken up by Toirdhealbhach's army in 1080, and Cinneide O'Briain himself was slain in 1084 at the Battle of Monecronock, near Leixlip in Count Kildare. The connection with the O’Rourkes of Breffny did not end, however, for people bearing the name Cinneide settled in that area of County Leitrim. These were known by the synonym Muimhneach (‘Munster-man’), which is anglicised as the surnames Mimnagh and Minnagh.' (O'hOgain D. (2003) 'Kennedy O'Cinneide', Gill & Macmillan, Dublin pp40–1).

To add to the confusion, there are the Kennedys of nine-county Ulster in the north of Ireland. The Kennedys who settled in Ulster are mostly of Scottish origin from the territories of Galloway and Ayr just across the Irish Sea 20 miles away. Many Scottish Kennedys were planters in Ulster, and many Scots went south to Dublin and mingled with the Irish clan.

Thomond - Tuadh Mumhan, meaning north Munster 
Tuadh Mumhan came into prominence as a separate region within the province of Mumhan (Mumu, Mumhain, et al) in conjunction with a rise in power of the Dál gCais. An ancient origin tradition of the Dál gCais connect them to the Déis Becc (aka Déis Tuaiscirt), a branch of the Déisi who conquered the Thomond region from the Connachta in the 5th century. The Dál gCais initially gained supremacy in the Munster region during the 10th and 11th centuries. Mathghamhain and Brian Boru, both sons of Cinneide (or Cendétigh), were among the first of the the Dál gCais (Dalcassian) who became kings of Munster during this timeframe. The diocese of Killaoe, which was first established at the Synod of Rathbresail in 1111, is often given as "coterminous with the boundaries of the ancient kingdom of Thomond. 

At that time Killaloe was an area held by the Dál gCais and those most closely 'tributary' to them. This included the territory of the Dál gCais, Corco Baiscinn, Aradh, Múscraige Tíre, and much of Uaithne and Éile.

There are frequent references to "Tuadh Mumhan" in the Irish Annals beginning in the latter 11th century, but as a separate entity representing all of northern Munster an entry for the year 1118 seems to mark a milestone event. In that year, a treaty at Gleann Maidhir (Glanmire) divided the Kingdom of Munster into northern (Tuadh Mumhan) and southern (Des Mumhan) halves, a division apparently running near the border of modern counties Limerick and Cork. The entry in the Annals for 1118 reads, " A hosting by Toirdhealbhach Ua Conchobhair, king of Connacht, and by Murchadh O Maelsechlainn, king of Temhair, along with him, and by Aed O'Ruairc, into Mumha, as far as Glenn-Maghair; and he gave Des-Mumha to Mac Carthaigh, and Tuadh-Mumha to the sons of Diarmaid Ua Briain, and carried off the hostages of each."

With this 12th century division of Munster into two parts, Thomond included the area about the diocese of Killaloe, and additionally encompassed the traditional territorites of Úi Fidgeinti, Uí Chonaill Gabra, Eóghanacht Áine, Éile, Corco Mruadh, the tribes of Uaithne (later held by the Síl Cennétich, and much of Eóghanacht Caisel and Ciarraige Luachra.   (reference: Ancient Munster)

By the early 13th century, through the encroachment of the Anglo-Norman Butler family and others into eastern Thomond (north Tipperary, east Limerick and south Offaly), part of which came to be known as Ormond or East Munster, the kingdom of Thomond was greatly reduced. Further encroachment reduced its size to more of the immediate area of modern county Clare. 
In the alternate history novel Fatherland by Robert Harris, set in 1964, Joseph P. Kennedy—not his son John F. Kennedy—is president of the United States and about to arrive in Berlin to conclude a treaty with Adolf Hitler. Joseph Kennedy also plays a significant role as a character in Michael Dobbs's fictionalized account of the rise of Winston Churchill, Winston's War.

Mr. Renehan's most recent book is The Kennedys at War, 1937-1945, published in April 2002 by Doubleday.

Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American. Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism.
"I'm glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally," she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends - G.K. Chesterton among them - with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race. Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.

As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these"world problems" (Nancy's phrase). No member of the so-called"Cliveden Set" (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor's palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just"give a rough time" to"the killers of Christ" before she'd be in favor of launching"Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?" Kennedy replied that he expected the"Jew media" in the United States to become a problem, that"Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles" were already making noises contrived to"set a match to the fuse of the world."

During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of"Jewish influence" and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler's regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was"Germany's best friend" in London.)

Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy's fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from"a number of Jewish publishers and writers. ... Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims." He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with"Jewish columnists" who criticized him with no good reason.

Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler's insight in realizing the German people's"need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous ... the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. ... As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ... ."

Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews."... Isn't there some way," he asked,"to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are filled with such horror." Clearly, Kennedy's chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.

In 1938, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was appointed as the United States Ambassador to Great Britain.  Kennedy had little concern for the British, sympathized somewhat with the America Firsters led by Colonel Charles Lindbergh and others who wanted no war with Hitler, supported a policy of United States isolationism, and had no problem with Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement.  He resigned from office in 1940 as he disagreed with Roosevelt's determination to involve the USA in the Second World War.  

Like his friend Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews' corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics."The Democratic [party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production," Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would"fall" in 1940. But it wasn't Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after FDR's overwhelming triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a bitter, resentful man nurturing religious and racial bigotries that put him out-of-step with his country, and out-of-touch with history.
The race to the "top" began a long time ago for these families. Kennedy's represented a threat to the Bush Klan by the mere fact of the Kennedy's altruistic givings, and their recognition that people are worth dignity, rather than mere tools for enhancing the status of the likes of Prescott Bush.
As the Kennedys entered and became unbeatable competitors in the political realm, this interrupted Bush's obsession for a "new world order", brewing even then.
Prescott Bush's father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, and Walker's partner, Averell Harriman, brought Prescott Bush on as an officer of their investment banking firm, W.A. Harriman and Company in 1926.  When it merged with Brown Brothers Harriman in 1931, he became a partner in the new firm of Brown Brothers Harriman.
As a managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott Bush sat on several corporate boards, including:

Dresser Industries, Columbia Broadcasting System, Union Banking Corporation, Harriman Fifteen Corporation, Hydrocarbon Reserach Company, Vanadium Corporation of America, United States Guaranty Trust, The Simmons Company, The Continental Bank & Trust Company of New York, Commercial Pacific Cable Company, Hamburg-America Line, Prudential Insurance, Pan American Airlines, Massachusetts Investors Second Fund, Rockbestos Products Corporation, Pennsylvania Water & Power Company

Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but who by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler.  Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the U.S., but, six days after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt activated the Trading With the Enemy Act.  On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking opoerations in New York City.

Prescott Bush's business interesrts seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:
Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman)
Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)
Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)
Silesian-American Corporation (with Walker)  

These are the facts of any Prescott Bush directorships or ties he had that had any relationship to the Fritz Thyssen companies. 
In 1960
The Republicans and the Democrats nominate the heads of two of America's wealthy and powerful New England families for President.
The Republicans nominate Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut for President.  Bush has been a Senator since 1953.  He has been a prominent business executive, and was the Connecticut chairman of the United Negro College Fund, and one of it's earliest supporters.

Bush picked respected Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois for Vice President.
The Democrats nominate Joseph P. Kennedy of Massachusetts for President.  Kennedy has been a prominent wall street investor, and made a fortune in liquor importing, movie production, and property investment.  He was appointed in 1933 by President Franklin Roosevelt to be Chairman of the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  From 1938-1940 he served as U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain.  He resigned from this post in 1940, as he disagreed with President Roosevelt's determination to involve the U.S. in World War II.
Kennedy picked respected Missouri Senator Stuart Symington for Vice President.
How would this election of 1960 turn out?
Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. suffered a greatly disabling stroke on December 19, 1961, which made movement and communication extremely difficult and limited until his death.  He died on November 18, 1969.


Hardcore News Is Brought To You By...

Facebook Social & Comments

Hardcore Links