The two publications examined here in considerable depth are by no means the be-all and end-all of Talmud-baiting. As Ben Zion Bokser reveals (64), Talmudic fabrication, like Talmudic interpretation, is an on-going process. The “father of the modern calumnies upon the Talmud”, was John Andreas Eisenmenger, (1654-1704). His work, Entdecktes Judentum (or Jewry Unmasked) was described by the encyclopaedia of German bibliography, Allgemeine deutsche Bibliographie as a “collection of scandals”. (65) August Rohling, (1839-1931), Professor of Hebrew Antiquities at Prague, (someone who, like David Irving, should really know better), followed this with Der Talmudjude, (The Talmud Jew). The earliest version of Dibre David was published in 1671; it is from this calumny that the Talmudic “quote” credited to Libbre David can be traced. (66)
[For an alternative view of Libbre David, check this out].
Other fabrications include The Talmud Unmasked by Father Pranaitis, who offered his services to the prosecution at the notorious Beiliss “ritual murder” trial in Kiev, 1912, and the fellow who wrote that “The temple can accept money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog.” (67)
Elizabeth Kirkpatrick Dilling (1894-1966), a fellow traveller of Henry Ford (and a recipient of his largess), authored a number of books on the Jewish Question. Dilling’s The Plot Against Christianity, is a mad, rambling book peppered with quotes from the Talmud which forge the link between “Talmudism” and communism. Elizabeth Dilling was largely self-published, but The Plot Against Christianity was republished by the Noontide Press as The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The Third Noontide printing is dated February 1987.
In 1991, Lady Birdwood (now deceased) published The Longest Hatred under her imprint Inter-City Researchers. (68) This is another Jew-is-the-root-of-all-evil type book which, although it does not concern itself unduly with Talmudic fabrication, traces the supposed influence of the Talmud from Biblical times to the modern era via the Order of the Illuminati, “Jewish communism” and the Race Relations Act. Lady Birdwood was not herself a Jew-hater, but a sorely misguided idealist who, as well as having more Jews in her head than the City of New York and the State of Israel combined, would willingly believe that the Jews are the world’s master liars, yet stoically refuse to believe that any Gentile, least of all any “Christian”, could ever be so wicked as to lie about them. Further delights can be found in Anti-Semitic Propaganda... and other books by the same publisher. (69) The Wiener Library, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and (sadly) most other Jewish political organisations and publishers have reams of this stuff on file.
There is a subtle irony about most anti-Semitic propagandists. This is that the opinions they claim Torah Jews (and by implication all others) hold about us goyim, ie that we are beasts, that we deserve death etc and ad nauseam, these opinions are on a par with those espoused by these very same people about the Jews themselves and about non-whites generally. Probably the most extreme of these rabid anti-Semites was the self-styled Pontifex Maximus of the “Church of the Creator”, the late Ben Klassen. He and his acolytes were/are fighting RAHOWA – a racial holy war – against non-whites and the international Jewish conspiracy. Klassen’s newspaper, Racial Loyalty [sic] and other writings, barely stop short of preaching genocide against all non-whites, and against the Jews in particular.
Although he is not known to fabricate Talmudic literature, Dr William L. Pierce, founder of the American National Alliance, is just as genocidal in his anti-Talmudic ravings. The “Dr” is genuine; Pierce, a highly intelligent man, is also the author of two novels in which he expounds his “philosophy”. (70) Both these sickos are Americans; unfortunately, they have many admirers and emulators on this side of the Pond.
There exist in Britain certain organisations which claim to be “fighting” anti-Semitism, as though it were a disease. (71) Even if it were a disease, it is doubtful if it could be cured by trampling all over people’s civil liberties and the mass subversion and suppression of individual rights and legitimate dissent.
Sadly, there is no cure for hate; just as every tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, so too will bigots always find excuses to hate the Jews, or whoever it is they choose to hate. And if they can’t find reasons, they will invent them, hence Four Small Candles. However, there is a cure for disinformation: that is to tell the truth then allow the not-so-gullible goyim to take their choice between fabrication and fact. If truth, along with falsehood, is given a level playing field, it will usually triumph, if not in every individual case, then at least over the really big lies of our times.
The main reason “anti-fascist” organisations spend so much time lobbying and so little disseminating the truth is because anti-Semitism is like cancer: there are more people living off it than dying of it. In short, it is an industry, one which flourishes by making Jews (and other minorities) paranoid. Hopefully, the publication of A Goy Pries Into The “Talmud” will start a new trend. (72)
The previous sentence is where the first edition of this publication ended, but the greatest irony was yet to come, because shortly after publishing A Goy Pries Into The “Talmud”, a book called Jewish History, Jewish Religion was published by the left wing Pluto Press. Subtitled The Weight Of Three Thousand Years, this apparently scholarly work repeats most of the more subtle calumnies on the Talmud. In many ways it is the most anti-Semitic book I have ever read, rising far above the straightforward Jews-are-evil-so-let’s-hate-them type calumnies. Incredibly, the author is not only a Jew but a Belsen survivor.
Israel Shahak, who arrived in Palestine in 1945, is described on the back cover as “a life long human rights activist”. I read Jewish History, Jewish Religion shortly after it was published, and in view of the fact that I had only recently published the first edition of my collaboration with Rabbi Cohen I had never been so embarrassed in my life. Equally embarrassing was the encounter I had with a Jewish academic at a Libertarian Alliance meeting in London about the same time. I won’t say that we nearly came to blows, but our conversation became extremely heated – on his side – when he insisted that the Talmud did indeed contain extremely nasty sentiments directed towards the rest of mankind, and he objected to a dumb goy telling him otherwise. I won’t name him to avoid embarrassment, but returning to Israel Shahak, at page 20 of his book he refers to “passages in the Talmud and the talmudic literature which are specifically anti-Christian or more generally anti-Gentile”.
On the following page, Shahak accuses Jewish authorities of “bribery and string-pulling” to settle disputes, (such allegations are of course stock charges in the classical anti-Semitic literature). At page 25, the reader is told that “...Maimonides was...an anti-Black racist” because in his eyes, blacks were “below that of a man and above that of a monkey” in their level of existence. And so on.
Needless to say, Shahak’s book was applauded by today’s genuine anti-Semites, none more so than Michael Hoffman, who went to town on it. The American anti-Zionist Jew Harry Katz has set the record straight re Hoffman, while of Shahak, he says that his endorsement of such calumnies is probably not a conscious lie, so much as it is a silly mistake made by an overzealous atheist engaged in a holy war against religion.
It goes without saying that even the mild-mannered Harry Katz would have been far less charitable to any Gentile who authored such calumnies on the Talmud. Organised Jewry regularly scream to high heaven and demand (and get!) prosecutions for incitement for far milder attacks on the Jewish holy book.
Whatever Shahak’s motives, he is clearly wrong; page 76 of his book illustrates a clear example of how Talmudic texts are perverted by Zionist rabbis, and not vice versa. His other nonsense is easily refuted. For example, the views espoused by Maimonides on blacks (ie Negroes) were hardly exceptional for the time, and in view of the fact that on his own the African never aspired to a written language, or even the wheel, it is an argument that is not entirely without merit. It remains to be seen of course whether either Jews or Gentile white men are in any real sense more advanced or civilised than coal black savages: where the Zulu killed his enemy with a spear, we slaughter innocents in their thousands with heavy ordnance, napalm and atomic bombs.
At the end of the day, attempts to quantify evil on a racial, religious, national, or any other basis, are futile. Deep down inside we are all as bad as one another, and always will be unless restrained by law. The Jewish scriptures and other holy writings are suspectible of perversion by both enemies and professed friends, but so is every other religion, as we have seen in the wake of September 11. There is no meaningful evidence though that the raison d’être of the Jewish religion is in anyway incompatible with that of either of the world’s other great religions, Christianity and Islam.
Alexander Baron,
Sydenham,
South London,
May 26, 2002
To Notes And References
Back To ...Second Postscript...
Back To Postscript To The Second Edition
Back To Further Points Of Controversy
Back To Case For The Defence (3)
Back To Case For The Defence (2)
Back To Case For The Defence (1)
Back To A Note On Slight Inconsistencies
Back To Case For The Prosecution
Back To A Note On Sources
Back To To The Reader
Back To Preface
Back To Foreword
Back To Frontispiece
Back To Author Credits
Back To Front Cover
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index