Zionism Vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology Is Undermining Western Culture

By Jonas E. Alexis

A person can be brought into bondage in two different ways: by force or by his own will. Force is a crude way of bringing a person into submission, but using the persons own free will can be done sophistically and covertly. Under the banner of democracy and freedom, America has been under the bondage of what E. Michael Jones has aptly called sexual liberation and political control for over fifty years.

In the first two volumes of the trilogy, Alexis explored these ideological themes. In this last volume, he expands on some of those pernicious ideas, emphasizing how Zionism, for over sixty years, has shaken the moral, philosophical, and intellectual foundation of much of Western culture. The Iraq War alone will cost America at least six trillion dollars, and as if to prove that America is still in bondage, the oppressors continue to use sophisticated means to seduce Americans so that perpetual wars will never cease to exist in the Middle East and in much of the world.

This book will seek to address these and related issues and, in the process, tell us something about the fundamental nature of reality and how to approach this cosmic conflict, which has dominated the West for over a thousand years.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Apr 3, 2018
• ISBN: 9781546224600

Jonas E. Alexis

Jonas E. Alexis is the author of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism and Zionism vs. the West. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is an editor at Veterans Today and writes or edits a weekly column.

Book preview

© 2018 JONAS E. ALEXIS. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 03/29/2018

ISBN: 978-1-5462-2461-7 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5462-2459-4 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-5462-2460-0 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018900529

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

All Scripture quotations are taken from the Authorized King James Bible.

CONTENTS

Preface &

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1 The Problem of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament

Chapter 2 Between Athens & Jerusalem

Chapter 3 Neoconservative & Zionist Democracy

Chapter 4 The Jewish Century

Chapter 5 Zionism’s Covert Operation Against the West

Chapter 6 The Young Turks Revolution & the

Slaughter of Christians

Chapter 7 The Talmudic License to Destroy the Goyim

Chapter 8 Zionism Declares War on the West

Chapter 9 A Brief History of Israel’s Terrorism

Chapter 10 A Final Fork in the Road

Chapter 11 Puritanism & Zionism

Chapter 12 The Judaizing Spirit in Calvin’s Exegesis

Chapter 13 Ethnic Cleansing in 1948

Appendix I The Synagogue of Satan

Appendix II The Fate of Jews Who Became Christians

Appendix III The Psychological Establishment & Its Priesthood

Appendix IV Ayn Rand’s Objectivism & Sexual Calculus

Appendix V Christian Zionism Revisited

Endnotes

Volume II Bibliography

Volume III Bibliography

PREFACE &

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

T his third volume concludes my examination of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism and their wide-ranging implications in history, politics, and economics. Both worldviews are important to examine in light of serious scholarly studies because they represent the history of histories. I am ever so grateful to my editor Amanda, who patiently and bravely took on this work. This is the fourth book she has edited for me, and I am looking forward to working with her again in the future.

Centuries ago, Augustine argued that the panorama of history is divided into two worlds: the city of God and the city of man. The city of God, says Augustine, is based on the love of God to the extension of man. But the city of man has for its edifice selfish and carnal desires and the exploitation of fellow men, dominated by lust, pride, and envy, among other vices.

Those two cities have been at war since the beginning of time, and although their terminology and ideology may change from one century to the next, the metaphysical substratum remains the same. Moreover, both spheres have their own agendas and purposes. The city of God seeks to uplift that which is true, honest, just, pure, and lovely. The city of man seeks to do the opposite through sophisticated means—be they intellectual, sexual, or completely wicked means—with the end result of the city of man being to deconstruct the city of God and replace it with misery on earth.

The Marquis de Sade is a classic representation of this philosophy, because his lifestyle was a war against existence and essence—two of the metaphysical fibers which hold human beings together and are rooted in a divine moral order. First, Sade attacked the divinely designed order and implemented sexual perversion in its place. If the Frenchman were buried deeper in the darkness of Christianity, Sade tells us in Philosophy in the Boudoir, then we would suffer the arrogance, the tyranny, and the despotism of priests.¹ Before proceeding to abandon himself to his sexual impulses, however, Sade made sure that he dismissed any supernatural force: No, there is no God, Nature sufficeth unto herself; in no wise hath she need of an author.²

With morality and order removed, Sade was free to follow any impluse and encourage others to do the same: You girls who have been tied down by the absurd and dangerous bonds of an imaginary virtue and a disgusting religion: imitate ardent Eugenie. Destroy, trample, as swiftly as she, all the ridiculous precepts inculcated by moronic parents.³ Sade continues, Your body belongs to you, and to you alone. You are the only person in the world who has the right to enjoy your body and to let anyone you wish enjoy it.⁴

Sade further deconstructs the moral order by saying, It’s absurd to say that this mania is unnatural. Can it be censured if nature inspires it in us? Can nature dictate something that degrades it?⁵

Here and elsewhere, Sade was following the logical outworking of Enlightenment philosophy, which promised freedom on the surface but delivered the opposite. As E. Michael Jones puts it, Sexual liberation is a conflation of Enlightenment thought, which is to say, rationalization based on ‘science,’ and masturbation.⁶ This sexual liberation, as we shall see, was the bedrock upon which many of the Enlightenment writers ended up sexualizing France.⁷

Sade does not lack defenders. John Phillips writes that most of Sade’s writings contained neither obscenity nor extreme violence, and many of his works of fiction are considered masterpieces of their genre.⁸ We can ignore Phillips for our discussion here, since he doesn’t seem to have a complete version of Sade’s Philosophy in the Boudoir and 120 Days of Sodom. Did Phillips actually read what Sade formulated?

Feminist scholar and critic Camille Paglia likewise supports him by saying, Not since the Bacchae has there been so direct a transcription of daemonic experience. Sade recreates the agony and ecstasy of ancient mystery religions. His female libertines are high priestesses of savage nature, doing their work day and night…Sade’s libertines freely wallow in filth and find no humiliation in being flogged or sodomized in public.⁹ Yet even Paglia warns,

Even I cannot stand many passages, despite my long study of the chthonian and, possibly more germane, a college summer as ward secretary of a downtown hospital emergency room. Don’t read Sade before lunch! Sade is subjecting the body to Dionysian process, reducing the human to raw matter and feeding it back to rapacious nature…Sadean sex is not democratic, but it always occurs in groups…Men take masochistic roles and women rape and torture in order to destroy traditional sexual hierarchy. Paganism is restored and the hermaphroditic world of Roman orgy recreated. Sade wants to create an androgyne as perfect monster, combining as many perverse identities as possible.¹⁰

But there is something more underneath Sade’s sexual metaphysics: men—or women—are simply machines that could be manipulated. Sade picked up that idea from Enlightenment writers such as d’Holbach and Helvitius. What is man? and what difference is there between him and other plants, between him and all the other animals of the world? None, obviously, Sade theorized. Since there is no difference between man and plants—or even worms for that matter—Sade proceeded to cross the sexual Rubicon, never to return to sanity. Women are nothing but machines designed for voluptuousness, and, as a metaphysical principle, Voluptuaries of all ages and sexes must listen solely to the delicious passions which guide them, and that their source is the only one that will lead to happiness.¹¹

Austrian scholar Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called Sade the grandfather of modern democracy.¹² Camille Paglia stated that Sade actually changed Mother Nature: Rousseau revives the Great Mother, but Sade restores her true ferocity. She is Darwin’s nature, red in tooth and claw.¹³ Paglia moved on to say that Sade’s metaphysical worldview with respect to nature is a classically Dionysian view of man’s immersion in organic nature. Judeo-Christianity elevates man above nature, but Sade, like Darwin, assigns him to the animal kingdom, subject to natural force.¹⁴ By logical extension, then, marital sex is no different than rape…As a Dionysian sexualist, Sade abolishes the great chain of being, sinking man into the continuum of nature.¹⁵

Sade’s view of nature and man got a scientific spin with the advent of Darwinian metaphysics, which largely declares that the universe, in the words of Richard Dawkins, contains just electrons and selfish genes.¹⁶ Dawkins puts the issue quite bluntly in his popular book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life: In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice…DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.¹⁷

Yet in Selfish Genes, Dawkins writes, We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.¹⁸ We? Who’s we? Didn’t fellow atheist Daniel Dennett relentlessly say that we are each made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all?¹⁹ Dawkins and his peers cannot address this classic contradiction because they know themselves to be building their houses on logically shaky terrain.

DNA does not determine our behavior. Sade’s promiscuity was not part of his genetic code, but part of his immoral reasoning. Einstein once declared, I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him.²⁰ The obvious question is why not? And what then is responsible for the murderous crime? DNA? Forces of nature? Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick tried to give an answer to these questions in The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.²¹ Crick could not see the illogical leap of his assertion because he wanted to preserve the notion that man has no free will. Crick was simply using biology as ideology, and many scientists admit to doing the same thing.²²

Over the past few decades, biology has also been used to propagate the idea that Jewish behavior is genetic, despite the fact that the proponents of this idea have never bothered to address the philosophical and scientific challenges the idea faces.²³ Proponents of this idea adopt Enlightenment principles, add a Darwinian spin, apply it to human behavior, and then absolve themselves of any responsibility for their preposterous maxims.

Moreover, if genes are the arbiter of our behavior, we are therefore doomed to the survival of the fittest. The strongest genes will survive, and the weakest ones must be eliminated for the good of the strongest ones. If the genetic theorists do not like that, they need to take it up with Darwin himself, who fantasized that

at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope…and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.²⁴

The genetic theorists, like many neo-Darwinists, do not want to go beyond mere words and apply their conclusions to ultimate metaphysics. Darwin was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope.²⁵ If eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss is right in saying that we’re just a bit of pollution,²⁶ why not get rid of the pollution through deceptive means? If Richard Dawkins is right, that the universe (including you and me) has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference²⁷—an ideology which he gleaned from his intellectual antecedent Charles Darwin and which has been widely accepted by the vast majority of biologists²⁸—why did he see the need to attack the God of the Old Testament as evil in a book that is more than four hundred pages long?²⁹

Here and elsewhere, both Richard Dawkins and the genetic theorists share a kindred spirit: their hypothesis is internally contradictory, though they search tirelessly for a solution to that contradiction, so far without success.

Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller tell us that Darwinian evolution is not only purposeless but also heartless—a process in which nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit…The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons.³⁰ They try to force that intrinsic contradiction upon the unsuspecting masses.

If they happen to tell you that the Khazar theory is wrong because those who propose it had an agenda from the beginning, point out the double standard that Charles Darwin, whom those people seem to apotheosize, also had an agenda from the moment he started his theory. Darwin wanted to subtly deconstruct any divinely designed purpose in the universe.³¹ In fact, it was not the sciences that led Darwin to reject a divinely designed universe; it was the problem of evil.³² If we use the red-herring argument as propounded by the genetic theorists, then Darwinian evolution, as the late analytic philosopher David Stove put it, is a fairytale.³³

More than likely, the answer you would get from those people is that, Oh no. Darwinism has to be examined upon its merit and evidence. I fully agree, and if we look at the system from a mathematical standpoint, it will collapse in a second.³⁴

But why should only Darwinism get the sort of privilege that the genetic theorists are asking for? What makes these people so discriminatory? Why are they ready to move heaven and earth to lump the Khazar theory in with communist Jews and then are reluctant to analyze Darwinism on the same principles?

That kind of behavior betrays their obvious prejudice and is another piece of evidence suggesting that they are not seriously interested in the truth. They want to propound what they want to believe and then force-feed it to the untrained masses.

If you talk to Christians from different parts of the world, you will have to conclude that they all believe in Jesus. If you talk to Muslims from various parts of the world, you will quickly realize that they all believe that Muhammad was a prophet of God. And if you talk to serious Catholics around the world, you will slowly but surely realize that abortion, contraception, the killing of innocents, and suppressing the poor through usury are an abomination to them. Do all these ideas have a racial or genetic basis? Or are they part of practical reason all men must strive to follow?

One final point. The genetic theorists need not forget that it was a Jew- ish convert to Christianity by the name of Nicholas Donin who made us all aware of the deceptive nature of the Talmud in the thirteenth century.³⁵ If he had wicked DNA, how did he overcome it? If he did not, how can one adjudicate one wicked DNA from a good one? What are the parameters? Do we now differentiate good DNA vs. bad DNA by people’s actions? Do people like Brother Nathanael Kapner have good DNA or bad DNA?

The West did not have this DNA issue until German writer Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) published his famous tract The Victory of Jewry over the Germans: Viewed from a Non-Religious Point of View in which he argued that Germans and Jews were locked in perpetual combat because they were racially different. Marr’s life was quite interesting because three of his first four wives were Jewish women, and

to the end of his days he spoke tenderly of his love for his second wife, who died tragically in childbirth. He had intimate Jewish friends, business partners, and political allies; in the 1840s he was closely associated with a number of Jewish radicals and was attacked for his supposed philo-Semitism. He was a lifelong admirer of the Jewish artists and writers Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Boerne.

In the final decade of his life, in the 1890s, he broke with the anti- Semitic movement of the day, describing the anti-Semites as worse than the Jews and requesting pardon of the Jews for what he had earlier written. He declared that it was in reality problems of industrialization and modernization that had provoked him, not the Jews as such.³⁶

Whether Marr was sincere when he wrote the tract or after his repentance is hard to examine. But one fact is for certain: wherever his tract is in circulation, it is seldom, if ever mentioned, that Marr apologized for it toward the end of his life.

Marr’s cardinal error was not that he was not a good observer and meticulous writer. In fact, he observed quite accurately that the Jewish network abhorred real work and had the inclination to, in the words of Albert S. Lindemann, exploit the labor of others.³⁷ This is not a stereotype, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn found the same thing in Russia.³⁸ But Marr, as an atheist, deliberately ignored the theological substratum in examining the Jewish question. It is like examining Muslims or Christians without a serious examination of their religions or what their founders actually taught and practiced—a highly implausible, dubious, and daunting task. Many modern writers, who seem to have little knowledge of the relationship between mind and matter and who seem to blend those two together as if they were the same,³⁹ are making the same mistake.

If serious scholars are going to examine the issue accurately, they ought not to dismiss the theological dimension, though they may not subscribe to its premise. One highly respected scholar, who has actually examined this issue from a secular perspective, told me that the theological perspective is not my cup of tea. In other words, he did not want to know.

Moreover, ever since the publication of Marr’s tract, the West has fallen into the fallacy that Jewish behavior is based on some kind of bad DNA, which is really a problem for the Church because the Church has never fallen in that trap since the beginning of time.

A classic example would be the Poles and Lithuanians who came to America in the early 1920s, who didn’t even know that they were white, because in Poland you are a human being, not white. They eventually became white by default.⁴⁰ It was after the ideology of people like Luis Wirth in the 1920s, after the rise of the civil rights debacle and the events leading up to the sexual revolution in the 1960s, that the cultural shift began to take place.⁴¹

As we shall see, if a Jew becomes a Christian, he is banned by the state of Israel and sometimes persecuted (even if his family died in Nazi Germany, as in the case of Oswald Rufeisen), which clearly indicates that something other than DNA is at work here.

C ontrary to perceived wisdom, man was created in the image and likeness of God, who, in the words of Augustine, is the Author of this universe, who is not only above everybody, being incorporeal, but also above all souls, being incorruptible—our principle, our light, our good. This Author does not act rashly, and, as it were, fortuitously…but according to the order of things and times, which is hidden from us, but thoroughly known to Himself. ⁴²

That in no way means that the Author of life is going to act contrary to reason, but sometimes He may act, as E. Michael Jones rightly puts it, in ways that sometimes go beyond what human reason can comprehend but never in ways that contradict that reason.⁴³ The Creator has imbued us all with the capacity to reason, choose, and reject evil and that which degrades and suppresses other human beings.

If man suppresses that reason, if he is blinded by a theological system which intellectually and spiritually suppresses the obvious, even if that blindness has continued over the centuries and attracted other people, that is not a license for anyone to say that he has wicked DNA.

The reason that the US is able to spend at least $5 billion in Ukraine,⁴⁴ the reason that the European Union can furnish the same country with at least $15 billion,⁴⁵ the reason why 700 Britons want to go to Syria and support jihadist movement while much of the West stays silent,⁴⁶ the reason the US is transporting weapons to the jihadists in the same region,⁴⁷ while at the same time the average man and woman in America is barely surviving⁴⁸ and at least 48,000 Afghan and Iraq veterans are at risk for homelessness,⁴⁹ is because Talmudic ideology has taken a toll on economics and politics. Now thanks to that Talmudic ideology, we are slowly but surely learning that America has turned into an oligarchy.⁵⁰

The reason that the Israeli regime is able to control virtually the entire world through the NSA is not because of some wicked DNA, but because of their metaphysical rejection of the moral order, which is rooted and grounded in God. According to the Christian understanding, nothing takes Him by surprise—no, not a single evil act committed by man—and He will judge the world at the end of all things.

I n an indirect way, Sade and other Enlightenment thinkers ended up proving what the Apostle Peter declared thousands of years ago: While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage (2 Peter 2:19).

Yet Sade’s sexual metaphysics did not die during the French Revolution, which was Masonic in nature. With Talmudic and Masonic backing, the sexual virus traveled from France to England, from England to Germany,⁵¹ and then from Germany in the 1920s and 30s⁵² to America in the 1960s during the sexual revolution. Wilhelm Reich deconstructed the moral order and replaced it with sexual ideology. He wrote, The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations, or simply on tradition…We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality!⁵³

A person can be brought into bondage in two different ways: by force or by his own will. Force is a crude way of bringing a person into submission, but using the person’s own free will can be done sophistically. Under the banner of freedom and democracy, America has been under the bondage of sexual liberation for over fifty years. Because this was the subject of the second volume of this series, in this concluding volume I will summarize and expand on some of those ideas, emphasizing how Zionism, for over fifty years, has shaken the very foundation of much of Western culture. The Iraq war alone will cost America at least six trillion dollars, and, as if to prove that America is still in bondage, the oppressors continue to use sophisticated means to seduce Americans so that perpetual wars will never cease to exist in the Middle East.

This book will seek to address these and related issues and, in the process, tell us something about the nature of reality and how to approach this serious issue which has dominated the West for over a thousand years.

Jonas E. Alexis

Winter 2017

[e-mail]

CHAPTER 1

The Problem of Anti-Semitism

in the New Testament

The anti-Jewish rhetoric that mars several books of the Christian New Testament has been shown to reflect not historical fact but the rivalry at the time the books were written between Jews who followed Jesus and those who did not.

Abraham H. Foxman¹

Once you start calling everyone you don’t agree with an anti-Semite, we are in trouble.

Rabbi Levi Shemtov²

I n the first two volumes, I demonstrated that in order to understand the root of the conflict between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, one has to go back to the gospels and see how the tensions between the two systems set the panorama for the ages—from the first century to the twenty-first. I also demonstrated that the gospels cannot be anti-Semitic at any level for the very reason that the antagonists were all ethnic Jews. Jesus rebuked Peter severely and called him Satan at one time for not setting his mind on the things that be of God, but those that be of men (Matthew 16:23). This was a theol ogical point, not an attack on Peter as a human being. The gospels are filled with theological points such as these.

The gospels, by their very nature, cannot espouse hatred toward people. On the contrary, they put forth a saving interest for all mankind. A classic example would be when a woman of Canaan came to Jesus and asked Him to cast an evil spirit out of her daughter. Jesus told the woman, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs (Matthew 15:26). Without further reading, one would think that Jesus did not come to save those who were perishing. Yet the story does not end there. The woman responded, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. To which Jesus said, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt(Matthew 15:27-28).

Jesus may use what seems to be harsh language, but the Savior of all mankind has no interest in preaching hatred. Serious Christians also should have no interest in propounding hatred. What should be of concern to us throughout this investigation is truth.

Moreover, as I argued in the first volume, if the New Testament is anti-Semitic, then the Old Testament by definition would be in the same category, for it pronounces radical statements about Israel’s rebellion against God. Consider Isaiah, who writes, Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward (Isaiah 1:4). In the book of Jeremiah we read, But thou shalt say unto them, this is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth (Jeremiah 7:28); Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast deceit, they refuse to return (Jeremiah 8:5).

Heinrich Graetz does not consider the prophet Isaiah to be an anti-Semite at all. He wrote, His words of fire pour forth with inimitable power, chastising like a father, yet comforting like a mother, wounding as with a lash, yet healing as with balm.³ If that is the case, then could it be that the New Testament was chastising the Jews as well?

I t must be emphasized before we move on that the conflict of the ages does not rest on whether your grandparents died in Nazi Germany or not. The conflict of the ages is rooted in theological terms and has serious political and ideological consequences. Israel itself defines the conflict in those ideological terms. This brings us to Shmuel Oswald Rufeisen, who was known as Brother Daniel. Brother Daniel asked the High Court of Justice in Israel to acknowledge him as a Jew in 1962, but the High Court of Justice denied his request because, well, he became a Christian, which obviously was an unpardonable sin. From a political point of view, this was inexplicable because Rufeisen’s entire family was Jewish and they escaped Nazi Germany in Poland in 1922. Rufeisen was a staunch Zionist as a teenager and he even joined a Zionist youth movement. He stood up against Nazis and saved many Jews in the process. But once Rufeisen became a Christian, things completely changed. Rufeisen eventually became a monk and, in 1958, went to Israel to start missionary work there. Even then, he still considered himself a Zionist. He gave up his Polish citizenship and applied to becomes and Israeli citizen on the basis of the Law of Return, arguing that although he was a Catholic by religion, he was still a Jew by ‘nationality.’ We are told: When his application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior, he petitioned the High Court of Justice. By a four-to-one decision, the court rejected his petition to be given Israeli citizenship on the basis of the Law of Return. He was, however, granted an Israeli identity card, which stated, ‘Nationality: Not clear.’ ⁴

Israeli historian Shlomo Sand of Tel Aviv University, who provides serious historical depth to the almost two-thousand-year-old conflict (though I would disagree with him on some issues), comments: Ultimately, Brother Daniel’s betrayal of Judaism by joining the religion of the Nazarene overcame the deterministic biological imaginary. It was categorically decided that there was no Jewish nationality without its religious shell. Ethnocentric Zionism needed the Halakhic precepts as its principal criteria, and the secular judges understood this national-historical necessity very well.⁵

But that is not the end of the story. Contrast Brother Daniel’s story to Major Binyamin Shalit, who requested the High Court of Justice to recognize his two sons as Jews. The interesting thing is that the mother of Shalit’s sons was not a Jew but a Scottish gentile. The High Court of Justice astonishingly declared that the boys were Jewish by nationality, not by religion. This, of course, shook the entire political structure in Israel.⁶

The plot thickens: Israeli officials and geneticists, according to Sand, cannot use DNA to prove that they are descendants of Moses. Sand points his readers to the work of geneticist Nurit Kirsh, who concluded that there was an ideological effort among Jewish geneticists who desperately wanted to believe that there was a biological homogeneity among European Jews. Those geneticists, Sand writes, internalized the Zionist myth and, consciously or not, attempted to adapt their findings to it…The Zionist idea of the Jewish nation-race materialized as a solid life science, and a new discipline was born: ‘Jewish genetics.’ What could be more convincing than publication in respected journals in the Anglo-Saxon world?

It was this ideological foundation that drove those geneticists into a sort of science madness. And when they were confronted with serious scientific balance, as in the case of Harry Ostrer, they deliberately dismiss it in order to maintain the Zionist myth. Sand writes that despite the limited resources available in Israel for academic research, it became a world leader in the ‘investigation of the origins of populations.’⁷

The doctrine of Jewish genetics dominated Israel and much of the West for years, but by 2000, Haaretz messed things up by declaring that the so-called biological homogeneity that Israeli geneticists were hopelessly looking for did not exist. The scientists themselves admitted that their earlier experiment, which they pretentiously hailed as science, was grounded on ideological foundation and not on serious and detailed and scientific explanations. The new paper, published first by the American Society of Human Genetics, showed that the sly Y-chromosome had fooled its inexperienced investigators…⁸ Did the evidence fool investigators, or were the investigators trying to force their ideology upon science?

Sand concludes that anthropologists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries used similar pseudo-scientific criteria to advance their ideological worldviews, which turned out to be detrimental. They used half-truths to the identity-seeking media…The bottom line is that, after all the costly ‘scientific’ endeavors, a Jewish individual cannot be defined by any biological criteria whatsoever. This is not to preclude the potential contribution of genetic anthropology in uncovering important aspects of human history, and importantly in the fight against disease…But in a state in which the law prevents marriage between a ‘Jew’ and a ‘non-Jew,’ we should be very wary about research that seeks genetic markers common to the ‘chosen people.’⁹

Jewish biological determinism, which has enthralled some German and Jewish intellectuals and writers of various stripes, came to a dead end when Israeli-American geneticist Eran Elhaik of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health argued that the Khazar theory¹⁰ is much more scientifically rigorous than previously speculated.¹¹

Elhaik doesn’t mince words. He called the people who perpetuated the scientific blunder liars and frauds. For Elhaik, geneticists like Harry Ostrer of Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine and author of Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People have not been following the scientific method seriously: they started with an agenda and then forced that agenda upon science. Ostrer argues throughout that genetic science proves that there is a common Middle East origins shared by many Jewish populations worldwide. The Zionists have used this theory to advance the claim that Jews have every right to maintain a place of their own in the Middle East. But there is a huge problem: Ostrer did not want to reveal even the method he used for this scientific breakthrough.¹²

Elhaik called the Rhineland Hypothesis (as articulated by Ostrer and others) nonsense, and asked Ostrer a simple question: It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminates the history of our people. Is it possible to see the data used for the study? In his response, Ostrer declared that the data he used could not be made available to Elhaik: It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do. Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.¹³

Although Ostrer is a scientist, he acts like an ideologue here. "Allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is ‘peculiar,’ said Catherine DeAngelis, who edited the Journal of the American Medical Association for a decade. What he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?’¹⁴ (Keep in mind that Ostrer’s book Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People was published by Oxford University Press and received great reviews.¹⁵)

Judging from such an unscientific behavior, Elhaik had every reason to say, First these researchers decided what conclusions they wanted to find, and then they set off to find evidence to support it.¹⁶

Jews do not have bad DNA in their systems. They are revolutionaries in the metaphysical and categorical sense because they willfully reject Logos, the essence of everything reasonable, logical, and orderly. In the first century, the Jews rejected Christ and metaphysically attacked him. Once reason is abandoned, Talmudic mores and discourse take precedence. This Talmud, which is the essence of being Jewish, is also the essence of anti-Christ in its literal sense.¹⁷

This is where the conflict actually lies, not in so-called super or bad DNA. Some have irresponsibly postulated that the Jewish revolt against Logos throughout history proves that their rebellion has a racial or genetic basis; hence the oft-repeated rhetorical question, Is Judaism simply a religion?

Well, is Christianity just a religion? Is Islam just a religion? Is Buddhism just a religion? Why does the question stop with Judaism? How is that a coherent argument is a basis for a morally unsatisfying hypothesis which ultimately leads to an intellectual traffic jam?

If Christianity has been affecting people’s lives for centuries, does that lead to the nonsensical notion that embracing Christianity is a genetically-influenced decision? People who propose the genetic hypothesis do not want to understand that there is a difference between morality and DNA¹⁸ and that the theological substratum upon which both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism operate has enormous ramifications.

Although proponents of the genetic hypothesis understand Newtonian physics and the laws of genetics, they do not want to apply it all the way. Furthermore, if we use their argument against them, the genetic hypothesis is so ingrained in their DNA that they cannot see the obvious. If Jewish behavior is genetic, then the hypothesis that Jewish behavior is genetic can be shown to be a self-defeating philosophy. In other words, is there a gene for believing in the genetic hypothesis?

What I have discovered is that many of those who postulate this idea do not want to know; on many occasions, they appeal to silly arguments to make a point. A while back, I tried to reason with a man who thought that Jewish behavior is genetic. I pointed out to him some of the scientific and rational evidence against the theory, highlighting the cardinal error in books such as Ostrer’s Legacy and how he cooked up some of his evidence to marshal Zionist propaganda.¹⁹ Yet to my surprise, my email opponent continued to believe what he wanted to believe—even if those beliefs were arguably false.

He even said that Ostrer is still right, even though he forged some of his evidence! All of a sudden, I was the bad guy who wanted to destroy this man’s genetic truth. Was his behavior toward me genetic as well? If so, did I make a huge mistake responding to his questions and assertions, thinking that he would change his mind if he saw the evidence?

I f Jewish behavior is genetic, how about Christ and His disciples, Solomon Michael Alexander, Hermann Cohen, Baptista Giovanni Jonas, Leopold Cohn, Theodore Ratisbonne, Michael Polanyi, Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Mortimer Adler, Gilad Atzmon, Roi Tov, and other Jews who became Christians? Well, according to the genetic hypothesis, they are just misfits or genetic defects in the evolutionary scale. ²⁰ Even if a Jewish person becomes Christian and rejects the Talmudic hatred of the goyim, he still must have latent genetic behaviors because what happens genetically happens automatically.

Moreover, if Jewish behavior is genetic, why would people be upset when certain Jews act in a certain way? Why shouldn’t people like Eli Roth say things like to ruin ‘an entire generation’ is in my genes?²¹ When Paramount Pictures feared that Darren Aronofsky’s Noah may not attract a lot of Christian viewers, Aronofsky declared point-blank, I don’t give a [expletive] about the test scores. My films are outside the scores.²² Did his DNA compel him to make that assertion?

On what basis should people convince Roth and Aronofsky to act differently? And how did they get that behavior in their genes? Those are the questions that do not get answers because they ruin the ideological force of the genetic hypothesis.

Christ confronted the genetic theory that the Pharisees of His day desperately tried to propose and rejected it out of hand. If there is to be solid research and serious rationality on this issue, we do not need to appeal to a dubious and unnecessary hypothesis which is not rooted and grounded in metaphysical truth.

O ver the past few decades, the theological and moral issue with respect to Jewish revolutionaries has been challenged by a number of writers of various stripes. Paul Austin Murphy of the neoconservative flagship American Thinker has insinuated quite subtly that Shlomo Sand is a self-described communist who has appealed to the Khazar theory ²³ to buttress his point. By deduction, the Khazar theory somehow must be false.

The Khazar theory, Murphy states, is really Jew-hatred. Even if this theory is false, Murphy tells us, a confirmed and professional hater of the Jews will simply find another reason to hate them. And that reason will no doubt also be racial in nature.²⁴ Murphy is certainly locked into the genetic fallacy here, which is a false argument in reasoning and logic.

In formal logic, the genetic fallacy is the idea that you can invalidate a person’s belief by pointing out how the belief originated in the first place. Every freshman in logic knows that this is demonstrably and hopelessly false. For example, suppose I pick up a comic book from a trash can. Upon inspection, I discover that the comic book declares that the earth is round. Does that mean that the earth is not round because I picked up the comic book from a trashcan? Obviously not.

Throughout his analysis, Murphy trivializes the issue and does not analyze Sand’s claims and evidence. Murphy appeals to straw man, ad hominem, and illogical leaps, such as the following: Shlomo Sand’s all-encompassing Leftist ideology—as well as his zealous hopes for a fully socialist Israel (which would amount to Israel’s annihilation)—permeates just about every single word he utters. If his readers don’t understand that, then they will have no idea about where this man is coming from and what he is trying to achieve through his books and articles…Incidentally, almost all of the contemporary believers are either Leftists, Nazis, or Islamists…Leftists propagate the theory, or myth, Murphy continues, because they want to destroy Israel. Both Nazis and Leftists want to destroy Israel because it is a capitalist and democratic state for Jews; which is a three-level heresy for any respectable Leftist or Nazi. All this clearly shows is how deeply both International Socialists and National Socialists fuse on the Jews and on so much more.²⁵

Murphy needs to take logic seriously and realize that this is not an argument that deserves serious consideration. But it is sad to see that this sophomoric tactic has become popular in current thinking. If people want to dismiss Sand and others, they have some serious rethinking to do.

It is astonishing to see that people who profess to move by reason and evidence sometimes abandon reason and evidence and even intellectual honesty in order to embellish their cherished ideology. Daniel J. Flynn was right in Intellectual Morons when he said, Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to truth. Truth, however, is not everyone’s intended destination.²⁶

Genetic theorists believe Jewish behavior is genetic, yet keep getting upset when they see Jewish revolutionaries act on that basis. If those theorists cannot see this vital contradiction, there is nothing else to discuss.

If one follows their logic consistently, the only way to solve the genetic problem is to destroy the gene that caused the wicked act in the first place— or to isolate those who possess bad genes. Moral reasoning, therefore, is no longer man’s guiding principle. Good and bad genes are. That ideology is dangerous and got its founding principles in the Enlightenment, where man was viewed as a machine. Whether they like it or not, genetic theorists cannot avoid the implication of their weltanschauung, which inexorably is as wicked and repugnant as Zionism.

Once Talmudic ideas are rejected in their political, ideological, theological, and historical forms, and once Jews embrace Logos, they become our brothers and friends. Jews are part of the human race and have the same problems as everyone else. However, embracing subversive movements and then unleashing them upon mankind is not compatible with reason.

As Civilta Cattolica put it a century after the French Revolution, They arrogate to themselves the conquest of the world, of reigning over all the nations by overthrowing them, of subjugating all the peoples to themselves…It is amazing to read and hear about this terrible challenge by a fistful of men, about 8 million of them, who course among five hundred million others, and who seriously wish to enslave them, and dream of doing so!²⁷

More importantly, Civilta Cattolica made it clear that any country or government that rejects Logos will fall prey to Jewish subversive movements. The Talmud, it warns, reduces Gentiles—especially Christians—to a kind of nothingness, which contradicts the basic principles of natural law.

Since the Talmud over the centuries has become the core of Jewish identity, Jews view their hosts as enemies, and they greedily prey upon them, even as they sit at their tables. In other words, they always create a nation within a nation, constructing subversive and ideological movements which always turned out to be bad for the particular nation itself. Classic examples are Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis and the Bolshevik Revolution. St. Paul had the prophetic vision to say that "Jews were God’s displeasure and repulsive to all men, Deo non placent, et omnibus hominibus adversantur [who please not God and are adversaries to all men] (I Thess. ii. 14).²⁸

Keep in mind that Civilta Cattolica was published more than a century before Yuri Slezkine’s study The Jewish Century, in which he historically argues that the Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century…Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish.²⁹ Civilta Cattolica was also published more than a century before David Horowitz’s admission that for nearly two hundred years, Jews have played a disproportionate role as leaders of the modern revolutionary movements in Europe and the West…By carrying the revolution to its conclusion, socialists would usher in a millennium and fulfill the messianic prophecies of the pre-Enlightenment religions that modern ideas had discredited. Through this revolution, the lost unity of mankind would be restored, social harmony would be reestablished, paradise regained. It would be a tikkun olam, a repair of the world.³⁰

In short, anti-Logos ideology has always tried to destroy the West by subterfuge. As Civilta Cattolica put it in 1890: Once having acquired absolute civil liberty and equality in every sphere with Christians and the nations, the dam which previously had held back the Hebrews was opened for them, and in short time, like a devastating torrent, they penetrated and cunningly took over everything; gold, trade, the stock market, the highest appointments in political administrations, in the army and in diplomacy; public education, the press, everything fell into their hands or into the hands of those who were inevitably depending on them.³¹

If Logos (as articulated in the Gospels) made the West possible, then anti-Logos will perpetually seek to destroy it. If Noam Chomsky is right by saying that the Gospels are…basically radical pacifism with [their] preferential option for the poor,³² then anti-Logos will seek to suppress the poor with usury at an exorbitant rate, which Jewish bankers have used for centuries. (More Jewish storms are on the way—the Federal Reserve continues to nominate one Jewish usurer after another.³³ What is even more interesting is that Stanley Fischer, who worked for the Bank of Israel for years, has been nominated as the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.³⁴)

In short, if Logos gave us Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, da Vinci and The Last Supper, and Raphael and The School of Athens (a personal favorite of mine), then anti-Logos is responsible for piss Christ³⁵ and Caroleen Schneemann, who produced I saw the Vagina and other sexually grotesque works of so-called art.

For Schneemann, sexual liberation gave her a messianic vision: I suppose that not internalizing [sexual] prohibitions gave me some messianic sense that I was going to have to confront or go against erotic denial, fragmentations.³⁶ In the mid-sixties, she thought about eroticizing my guilty culture…My work was dependent on my sexuality—its satisfaction, integrity… An erotic sensibility is inevitably going to experience conflicting messages in a masculist culture that is basically divisive, sex-negative, that traditionally controls female expressiveness—our imaginative domain, our creative will, our desire.³⁷ How did Shneeman come to this unbridled eroticism? In the early sixties my personal relationships were sustaining, as well as the writings of [Wilhelm] Reich, [Antonin] Artaud, [Simon] de Beauvoir.³⁸ After Schneemann produced Meat Joy, she was quickly recognized as a seductress and was instantly and internally recognized as a cultural leader of the 1960s sexual revolution.³⁹

Yet sexual liberation always comes with a huge price:

The celebration of sexual liberation that came to a crashing end with the widely perceived failure of ‘the sixties’ in the mid-1970s, followed by the advent of the HIV-AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s, occurred precisely during the period when Schneeman’s art began to be widely known and respected for its pioneering feminism. But that sexuality would also then be associated with the ‘mess’ of the 1960s, the embarrassment of the ‘hippie’ sensual expressivity, and the residual relationship of such eroticism to the epidemic contagion of AIDS, all of which reached a peak in the so-called culture wars of the late 1980s and 1990s.⁴⁰

If art is supposed to uplift the spirit toward what is good, noble,