This is a momentous post, Librarian. I read it closely but it bears reading again. In addition to Schlomo's great research is your intro, that puts this all into a summary giving it meaning. I have another article that Greg (Walking the Dog) who first referred me to you recommended, that for every Jewish Zionist there are 30 Christian Zionists. I think that confirms your statement.
I think we're in agreement on all points except two. I don't know if you've read my latest, that responds to your two articles on anti-Semitism: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/logic-is-your-friend. I look at the semantics of the phrase anti-Semitism. I apologize if I'm mischaracterized your views, I think we're still in the process of figuring that out for each other.
The other place would be your So What? I don't know exactly so what, but I feel there's something. Otherwise you've answered with this post questions I'd only just formulated, in my post, in my comments, or just in my head. I'll certainly be pointing to this in another article. I'm sure my readers in this area will be interested. Some other points I'll throw in:
1. For several years, I've had a book called Facts On the Ground by Nadia Abu Ed-Haj about archeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society. You're giving me reason to brush it off and actually read it.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been in Israeli hands since their discovery, with the lead researcher committing suicide some years back. I've wondered if they provide a literary counter-evidence to the Biblical narrative.
3. I know you have your reservations about Guyenot but he provides a good argument that the cult of Yahweh was never monotheistic but supremacist, a sociopath among the gods. I wonder if Yahweh might have appropriated more characteristics of Set.
4. From Joe Atwill's analysis, the texts of the gospels and Josephus were written by the same author(s), with too many similarities in word order and style to be chance. From other sources, Josephus was the pen name of a Roman named Piso. I think this is an interesting clue because the word 'Jew' means the rebel zealots to both of them.
I'll Look at your new post after this. I believe that I have material, or speculation on how and when the gospels were written. That will come out of this round-up. I am reading three or four books at once to keep a timeline going from different views. I will post interesting segments from all of them. I don't know any answer to SO-WHAT either. What I meant by it is that defusing the Zionist logic is no longer a solution. So what is it then? Must be a feel-good exercise in pointing blame??? I am not attached to it, although we can know.
I'll look forward to your material on the author(s) and origin of the Jesus story, whether his-story or history. And to your thoughts on my post, which is the ending part where your articles come in.
My perspective is the opposite of pointing blame at people. My dogma is that people are inherently good and, when they behave badly, systems and stories are to blame. Understanding why good people do bad things, how they've been misled or manipulated, seems like the only way to avoid labeling people as good, bad or evil. So that's the reason behind my approach of deciphering the stories.
If the scriptural stories are true, then some people or whole societies including infants or whole races are evil and the only solution is to destroy them. The alternative to the annihilation-of-evil-people solution is that the stories are false. But there's no third way, it's either one or the other.
So very insightful! -"Above all, the Bible became an ethnic marker, indicating a common origin for people of very different backgrounds and different secular cultures yet all still hated for their religion, which they barely observed. That was the meaning that underlay this image of an ancient nation, dating back almost to the Creation, that came to be imprinted in the minds of people who felt themselves dislocated in the rough-and-tumble of modernity. It became imprinted in their consciousness of the past." - because people have , naturally a deep seeded need to be connected to their past in some way, as was once done via the clan or tribal system. I believe this is the only way the clans could have been overthrown, is with such a religion. Before there was a war on the nuclear family, the clans had to be erased. Or at least weakened. A weakened clan is an enslaved or subordinate clan. they are the natural power structures of humanity. a rival to world domination forever. hard to corrupt, focused on homeland and sacred soils.
I agree that Jewishness was a marker and an identity, and that it may have been "barely observed". But I have written that there were pretty strict Rabbinical Laws, and 100's of ritual observations that you had to do (every day). That all broke loose in the European Enlightenment, and most Jews were liberated to some degree.
You say "Jews were hated for their religion". I am not so sure about that. I just started reading Solzhenitsyn "200 Years". I am just at the beginning, so I don't know where this book is heading. In the late 1790's there was the partition of Poland. That added land to Russia, and about one or two million Jewish people. But even before that, and for 100 years, the Jewish main business in Russia and Poland was in brandy distilling, (not banking).
Russian land-owners possessed vast tracts of lands with serfs and many villages. For any activity you had to purchase a "lease" from these owners. Jewish people were able to borrow enough capital to purchase the lease for distilling spirits. That gave them rights to part of the grain harvests for brandy.
They ran all the taverns in the rural villages. They sold vodka 24/7 on credit, and made the peasants drunkards. (Maybe it's like the Chinese opium wars). The more downhearted the peasants, in times of bad harvest, the drunker they got. No work got done. Then when some harvest did come in, the Tavern owners moved in to collect back debts. There wasn't enough money so they confiscated farm tools and livestock and sold them. (This for over 100 years.) Those peasants were ruined, and became wards of the state.
THIS WAS NOT A MANDATE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION. It was a behaviorism that people used to make an "easy living".
The Russian government tried for 50 years to close down the taverns, lock down the distilling business and/or move the Jewish people out of the rural villages. (They had no engagement with farming, what were they doing there?) They already had a system of citizen registration, that was tied to locality, so it could be done.
Russia opened up new lands which they called the Pale of Settlement. It was the empty country of the Ukraine and Eastern Poland. The attempt was to shift tavern owners into the agricultural business. That was decried as "flagrant anti-Semitism", to uproot the Jewish from their "innocuous businesses" and move them out of the villages.
This new land had the best black earth and best conditions for growing in all of Russia. The potential migrants were given enormous plots of land, (40 Hectares), tools, livestock, loans with long paybacks, and no tax. Much more incentives than anywhere else in Russia. It was made of small experiments to set up model farming villages. Maybe 30 families each. The Jewish people absolutely refused to farm. They came only for the subsidies. It was the rare one that could plant half a hectare. This went on for 50 years with very-very limited success. And the village taverns were still in operation, and the peasants still drunkards, and deep into debt. Germans on the same new land were harvesting huge crops and making a fortune.
That was Russian anti-Semitism (so far), maybe I will post some excerpts. To say "Jews couldn't farm", is that anti-Semitism?
In this whole thread I am trying to deconstruct the myth that 4,000 years of fantasy writings and their rigid enforcement compelled the Jewish people to act in certain ways. It did and it didn't. Let's see where I can take it.
I read 200 years some time back. I do not think that jews are hated for their religion actually. If i said that i misspoke. If you do the math on charging usury, it looks pretty bleak. the jewish owned slave ships going to africa, carried rum and whisky for trade in human beings. I say 2 things, corrupting people (getting them addicted to something, and charging usury) these things are not common in high trust societies. it is not really "the jews , either, but a mafia, that is fine with using the religion and the people in it as cover. real human shields, you might say. judaism is not special here tho. all the abrahamics are designed to be used thus, and are. even the mormon church is full of corruption, as i can tell you from first hand experience. No, it's not jews, it is a design function of top down power with a great marketing arm of "good works" to front it.Brilliant, really. evil, but brilliant. this is how the clan system was destroyed.
OK, i have to ask, "I must conclude that it is the UK and the US that are killing Palestinians for their own end-game. The Israelis are just their unwitting patsies, carrying out the atrocity. I say, sort of “unwitting”, because of their belief structures are that they honor killing whomever they conjure up as the enemy. The Zionist society built on hate of the other, is liable to do anything." the general public of both the US and UK are being screwed, by extracting their resources to isreal, so how do they benefit? My sis thinks jesus is commin' and that i will believe when i see , so, it does not count as a benefit to me. weapons manufacture benefits. those who want the oil below, the land above benefit. who are they again? who benefits?
It is not a benefit to you. It is said that the US has 800 + military bases around the world. Are they a benefit to you? Notice, the US does not profess 800 libraries, or learning centers around the world. A military base is where you stockpile weapons, ammunition, food and fuel for a possible immediate assault, covering all the logistics.
Israel is a western foothold in the Middle East, and Moslem countries. I say "unwitting patsy" because Israelis may think they have a country where they can live a decent life, but their supporters know they have a perennial hot spot where proxy atrocities are the order of the day.
I have no attachment to the 2nd coming but I feel the moment "Jesus" appears, he will be killed as an imposter. 98% sure.
Israel was one of several places the Rothschilds chose among, for a sort of HQ from which to conquer various neighboring resource-rich countries. The whole complex story about the Jews wanting the holy land back is distraction. The Khazarians, before they migrated to Khazar, were a society presumably similar to gypsies, at least the ones who were expert grifters. They were driven out of their homeland(s?) Somewhere in Central Asia. Once established in Khazaria, the whole group converted to Judaism. Meanwhile ythe true, Sephardic jews were decreasing in number in the holy land, high numbers having converted to Islam. Which gives rise to the question, how can genetics prove who's Jewish? Who became Christians & Muslims? But that's another issue. The main and only true issue is the fact that the family who, even Forbes reports, own over half the entire world's wealth, are in charge not only of Israel but of the US, UK, and many many other countries. The only reason "we" keep Israel armed and dangerous is because the Roth's own our politicians as well as many others around the world.
They had to give up on genetics as a marker for the Jewish. For many 100's of years the Jewish expanded with converts in a dozen countries. Later I'll post more details.
Thanks, Tereza. I read the first few paragraphs... I always thought and voted liberal (till I realized both parties are fake, LOL) but the way the author sets the scene with "the guy was a conservative" and "conspiracy theorists got on board" (or whatever) pretty much indicated that the author is either a hired shill, or too brainwashed to trust. What's your take? Should I keep reading? Please excuse my passing the buck! I feel it's safe to heed your opinion though and I appreciate it!
That's so funny, Ann. I'd started that comment when I began the article, and the next line I'd written was "But it's made me question the credibility of Ron Unz." And for exactly the reasons you cited. He writes, "many other right-wingers hostile to Jewish influence. This was especially true of the leading antisemitic Christian preachers of that era" and "many anti-Zionists of all ideological stripes have also taken up that same theory ... among anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist activists on the Internet, “Khazar” has become quite common as a denigrating synonym for “Jew.”
But then this comment got buried in my tabs and I didn't find it until I just finished the article. I erased that line before I posted.
I don't think there's anyone on the internet who is doing as deep of a dive into trying to figure out the history of the Jews and how the Jews have impacted history. There are some who think Unz is allowed to survive without being shut down because he 'sets the Overton window' on these questions. But I don't know. I don't always agree with him but he's astonishingly well read.
This is a VERY long article and it covers several books, including the same Shlomo Sand as Librarian. I found several missing puzzle pieces in it, but I still don't know the answer to the question. But it's very kind of you to say you heed my opinion, which is that it gets more factual and less opinions further in.
This is a momentous post, Librarian. I read it closely but it bears reading again. In addition to Schlomo's great research is your intro, that puts this all into a summary giving it meaning. I have another article that Greg (Walking the Dog) who first referred me to you recommended, that for every Jewish Zionist there are 30 Christian Zionists. I think that confirms your statement.
I think we're in agreement on all points except two. I don't know if you've read my latest, that responds to your two articles on anti-Semitism: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/logic-is-your-friend. I look at the semantics of the phrase anti-Semitism. I apologize if I'm mischaracterized your views, I think we're still in the process of figuring that out for each other.
The other place would be your So What? I don't know exactly so what, but I feel there's something. Otherwise you've answered with this post questions I'd only just formulated, in my post, in my comments, or just in my head. I'll certainly be pointing to this in another article. I'm sure my readers in this area will be interested. Some other points I'll throw in:
1. For several years, I've had a book called Facts On the Ground by Nadia Abu Ed-Haj about archeological practice and territorial self-fashioning in Israeli society. You're giving me reason to brush it off and actually read it.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been in Israeli hands since their discovery, with the lead researcher committing suicide some years back. I've wondered if they provide a literary counter-evidence to the Biblical narrative.
3. I know you have your reservations about Guyenot but he provides a good argument that the cult of Yahweh was never monotheistic but supremacist, a sociopath among the gods. I wonder if Yahweh might have appropriated more characteristics of Set.
4. From Joe Atwill's analysis, the texts of the gospels and Josephus were written by the same author(s), with too many similarities in word order and style to be chance. From other sources, Josephus was the pen name of a Roman named Piso. I think this is an interesting clue because the word 'Jew' means the rebel zealots to both of them.
Thanks again for this, Librarian!
I'll Look at your new post after this. I believe that I have material, or speculation on how and when the gospels were written. That will come out of this round-up. I am reading three or four books at once to keep a timeline going from different views. I will post interesting segments from all of them. I don't know any answer to SO-WHAT either. What I meant by it is that defusing the Zionist logic is no longer a solution. So what is it then? Must be a feel-good exercise in pointing blame??? I am not attached to it, although we can know.
.
I'll look forward to your material on the author(s) and origin of the Jesus story, whether his-story or history. And to your thoughts on my post, which is the ending part where your articles come in.
My perspective is the opposite of pointing blame at people. My dogma is that people are inherently good and, when they behave badly, systems and stories are to blame. Understanding why good people do bad things, how they've been misled or manipulated, seems like the only way to avoid labeling people as good, bad or evil. So that's the reason behind my approach of deciphering the stories.
If the scriptural stories are true, then some people or whole societies including infants or whole races are evil and the only solution is to destroy them. The alternative to the annihilation-of-evil-people solution is that the stories are false. But there's no third way, it's either one or the other.
So very insightful! -"Above all, the Bible became an ethnic marker, indicating a common origin for people of very different backgrounds and different secular cultures yet all still hated for their religion, which they barely observed. That was the meaning that underlay this image of an ancient nation, dating back almost to the Creation, that came to be imprinted in the minds of people who felt themselves dislocated in the rough-and-tumble of modernity. It became imprinted in their consciousness of the past." - because people have , naturally a deep seeded need to be connected to their past in some way, as was once done via the clan or tribal system. I believe this is the only way the clans could have been overthrown, is with such a religion. Before there was a war on the nuclear family, the clans had to be erased. Or at least weakened. A weakened clan is an enslaved or subordinate clan. they are the natural power structures of humanity. a rival to world domination forever. hard to corrupt, focused on homeland and sacred soils.
Hello Artemis and thanks.
I agree that Jewishness was a marker and an identity, and that it may have been "barely observed". But I have written that there were pretty strict Rabbinical Laws, and 100's of ritual observations that you had to do (every day). That all broke loose in the European Enlightenment, and most Jews were liberated to some degree.
You say "Jews were hated for their religion". I am not so sure about that. I just started reading Solzhenitsyn "200 Years". I am just at the beginning, so I don't know where this book is heading. In the late 1790's there was the partition of Poland. That added land to Russia, and about one or two million Jewish people. But even before that, and for 100 years, the Jewish main business in Russia and Poland was in brandy distilling, (not banking).
Russian land-owners possessed vast tracts of lands with serfs and many villages. For any activity you had to purchase a "lease" from these owners. Jewish people were able to borrow enough capital to purchase the lease for distilling spirits. That gave them rights to part of the grain harvests for brandy.
They ran all the taverns in the rural villages. They sold vodka 24/7 on credit, and made the peasants drunkards. (Maybe it's like the Chinese opium wars). The more downhearted the peasants, in times of bad harvest, the drunker they got. No work got done. Then when some harvest did come in, the Tavern owners moved in to collect back debts. There wasn't enough money so they confiscated farm tools and livestock and sold them. (This for over 100 years.) Those peasants were ruined, and became wards of the state.
THIS WAS NOT A MANDATE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION. It was a behaviorism that people used to make an "easy living".
The Russian government tried for 50 years to close down the taverns, lock down the distilling business and/or move the Jewish people out of the rural villages. (They had no engagement with farming, what were they doing there?) They already had a system of citizen registration, that was tied to locality, so it could be done.
Russia opened up new lands which they called the Pale of Settlement. It was the empty country of the Ukraine and Eastern Poland. The attempt was to shift tavern owners into the agricultural business. That was decried as "flagrant anti-Semitism", to uproot the Jewish from their "innocuous businesses" and move them out of the villages.
This new land had the best black earth and best conditions for growing in all of Russia. The potential migrants were given enormous plots of land, (40 Hectares), tools, livestock, loans with long paybacks, and no tax. Much more incentives than anywhere else in Russia. It was made of small experiments to set up model farming villages. Maybe 30 families each. The Jewish people absolutely refused to farm. They came only for the subsidies. It was the rare one that could plant half a hectare. This went on for 50 years with very-very limited success. And the village taverns were still in operation, and the peasants still drunkards, and deep into debt. Germans on the same new land were harvesting huge crops and making a fortune.
That was Russian anti-Semitism (so far), maybe I will post some excerpts. To say "Jews couldn't farm", is that anti-Semitism?
In this whole thread I am trying to deconstruct the myth that 4,000 years of fantasy writings and their rigid enforcement compelled the Jewish people to act in certain ways. It did and it didn't. Let's see where I can take it.
.
I read 200 years some time back. I do not think that jews are hated for their religion actually. If i said that i misspoke. If you do the math on charging usury, it looks pretty bleak. the jewish owned slave ships going to africa, carried rum and whisky for trade in human beings. I say 2 things, corrupting people (getting them addicted to something, and charging usury) these things are not common in high trust societies. it is not really "the jews , either, but a mafia, that is fine with using the religion and the people in it as cover. real human shields, you might say. judaism is not special here tho. all the abrahamics are designed to be used thus, and are. even the mormon church is full of corruption, as i can tell you from first hand experience. No, it's not jews, it is a design function of top down power with a great marketing arm of "good works" to front it.Brilliant, really. evil, but brilliant. this is how the clan system was destroyed.
Thank you!
wow, great article tho.
OK, i have to ask, "I must conclude that it is the UK and the US that are killing Palestinians for their own end-game. The Israelis are just their unwitting patsies, carrying out the atrocity. I say, sort of “unwitting”, because of their belief structures are that they honor killing whomever they conjure up as the enemy. The Zionist society built on hate of the other, is liable to do anything." the general public of both the US and UK are being screwed, by extracting their resources to isreal, so how do they benefit? My sis thinks jesus is commin' and that i will believe when i see , so, it does not count as a benefit to me. weapons manufacture benefits. those who want the oil below, the land above benefit. who are they again? who benefits?
It is not a benefit to you. It is said that the US has 800 + military bases around the world. Are they a benefit to you? Notice, the US does not profess 800 libraries, or learning centers around the world. A military base is where you stockpile weapons, ammunition, food and fuel for a possible immediate assault, covering all the logistics.
Israel is a western foothold in the Middle East, and Moslem countries. I say "unwitting patsy" because Israelis may think they have a country where they can live a decent life, but their supporters know they have a perennial hot spot where proxy atrocities are the order of the day.
I have no attachment to the 2nd coming but I feel the moment "Jesus" appears, he will be killed as an imposter. 98% sure.
Billions of dollars a year go from the us taxpayers directly to israel. the MIC extracts without giving back as well.
Israel was one of several places the Rothschilds chose among, for a sort of HQ from which to conquer various neighboring resource-rich countries. The whole complex story about the Jews wanting the holy land back is distraction. The Khazarians, before they migrated to Khazar, were a society presumably similar to gypsies, at least the ones who were expert grifters. They were driven out of their homeland(s?) Somewhere in Central Asia. Once established in Khazaria, the whole group converted to Judaism. Meanwhile ythe true, Sephardic jews were decreasing in number in the holy land, high numbers having converted to Islam. Which gives rise to the question, how can genetics prove who's Jewish? Who became Christians & Muslims? But that's another issue. The main and only true issue is the fact that the family who, even Forbes reports, own over half the entire world's wealth, are in charge not only of Israel but of the US, UK, and many many other countries. The only reason "we" keep Israel armed and dangerous is because the Roth's own our politicians as well as many others around the world.
They had to give up on genetics as a marker for the Jewish. For many 100's of years the Jewish expanded with converts in a dozen countries. Later I'll post more details.
yes, so you are saying the rothchilds? I had judged them to be merely agents, front men for the money aspect.
I was just reading https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-true-origin-of-the-jews-as-khazars-israelites-or-canaanites? It has an interesting perspective on it.
Thanks, Tereza. I read the first few paragraphs... I always thought and voted liberal (till I realized both parties are fake, LOL) but the way the author sets the scene with "the guy was a conservative" and "conspiracy theorists got on board" (or whatever) pretty much indicated that the author is either a hired shill, or too brainwashed to trust. What's your take? Should I keep reading? Please excuse my passing the buck! I feel it's safe to heed your opinion though and I appreciate it!
That's so funny, Ann. I'd started that comment when I began the article, and the next line I'd written was "But it's made me question the credibility of Ron Unz." And for exactly the reasons you cited. He writes, "many other right-wingers hostile to Jewish influence. This was especially true of the leading antisemitic Christian preachers of that era" and "many anti-Zionists of all ideological stripes have also taken up that same theory ... among anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist activists on the Internet, “Khazar” has become quite common as a denigrating synonym for “Jew.”
But then this comment got buried in my tabs and I didn't find it until I just finished the article. I erased that line before I posted.
I don't think there's anyone on the internet who is doing as deep of a dive into trying to figure out the history of the Jews and how the Jews have impacted history. There are some who think Unz is allowed to survive without being shut down because he 'sets the Overton window' on these questions. But I don't know. I don't always agree with him but he's astonishingly well read.
This is a VERY long article and it covers several books, including the same Shlomo Sand as Librarian. I found several missing puzzle pieces in it, but I still don't know the answer to the question. But it's very kind of you to say you heed my opinion, which is that it gets more factual and less opinions further in.
Huge thanks for your time and thoughtfulness! I think I'll go ahead and at least check it out! Literal "heart" to you!