There is a useful comment thread on Digg about the publication entitled, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
Most Jews and many others believe that the Protocols, as they are referred to in short, are the work of the Russians who took an earlier work aimed against Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III, Emperor of the French (1852-1871), nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte) and just changed the aim to the Zionists at the time. It makes good sense, since what was written against Louis fits the Protocols nearly perfectly and it predates the Protocols. Now, here's where this leads that perpetuates confusion and error.
As the comment thread indicates in its two most telling (as of the time of this writing) comments, certain Jews in particular accuse others of lumping together all Jews while those same accusers do exactly the same thing (i.e., lump everyone together who even considers the precision with which aspects of the Protocols describe the current situation and regardless of whether they agree that the Protocols were not necessarily written by any Jew or Jews and also regardless of whether they hold certain Jews, such as Jesus, in the highest).
Here are those two comments:
Isn't digg a lovely place, where even filthy, ignorant Nazis have a home to shill their racist, anti-Semitic blood libel.
You people disgust me. Die in a fire, nazi scum.
I think I'll go donate some money to AIPAC now, just to ***** off the nazi filth here.
"Isn't digg a lovely place, where even filthy, ignorant Nazis have a home to shill their racist, anti-Semitic blood libel."
I agree. Now, I'm sure you'll agree that digg is also a place where racist Zionists are able to peddle their fetid ideology.
On a positive note, there are also many principled people here who work hard for peace and justice. I'm sure you'll agree that you are not one of them.
Frankly, I don't know whether or not this bamapachyderm person identifies as a Jew. I do know that her views are widely shared by false-Zionists (the more hardhearted, the more shared).
The Protocols may be taken in many ways. Two ways to take them are 1) not based upon an earlier work against Napoleon III or 2) a work designed to get people to believe that a Sanhedrin-type body (a council of Jewish elders) literally planned the takeover of the world by extremely devious and police-state means.
If the Protocols are based upon an attack against Napoleon III for his police-state tactics, but the tactics and other things also fit what the false-Zionists have been and still are doing, then what?
It certainly isn't anti-Jew to be against police-state and fascistic tactics used by anyone, including Jews. An anti-Semite may also be against such tactics, but being against such tactics does not of necessity demonstrate being anti-Semitic (which includes Arabs) or anti-Jew or anti-Anglo-Saxon or anti-German (Anglo-Saxons are primarily Germanic) or against any ethnic or racial group.
Rather than calling everyone who is against all evil, including done by Jews, a Nazi, it would behoove those calling themselves Zionists (whether Christian-Zionists or by any other qualifier) to alter their behavior so that none of the evil tactics described in the Protocols fit. That's the most important thing here.
If the Russians created the Protocols by changing the work against Napoleon and did so in a way designed to deceive rather than simply be an obvious parody, those Russians did wrong. However, if the Protocols are taken on the level of say George Orwell's Animal Farm, then to use some apt clichés, if the shoe fits the false-Zionists, then the ball is in their court to straighten out their behavior.
The fact is that the Protocols does describe the hardheartedness we see coming out of the ardent false-Zionists. They aren't real Zionists, because the meaning of the word "Zion" is peace and love. Jesus was a real Zionists for instance. The term has been hijacked, as have so many other terms such as "Christian."
Another comment in the thread is very useful here as well. It points to an article on Forward that, among other things, describes Jews distancing themselves from Jewish racists (Jewish supremacists).
According to an article in Forward, Rabbi Saadya Grama argues:
o The differences between Jews and gentiles are not religious, historical, cultural or political. They are, rather, racial, genetic and scientifically unalterable. The one group is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil" while the other is "totally good."
o Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face total catastrophe do the Jews experience good fortune.
o The Jews themselves brought about their own destruction during the Holocaust, since they arrogantly endeavored to overcome their very essence, dictated by divine law, by leaving their ghettoes and trying to assimilate into Christian European society. The confrontational approach of the Zionists, their boycott of German products and anti-Nazi demonstrations in particular, only exacerbated the peril to European Jewry. For this they were massacred by Hitler who, while himself an evil person, was acting as God's agent in punishing the Jews.
Grama also argues that in opposition to Zionism's advocacy of Jewish national self-assertion and self-defense, which he views as an imitation of "gentile ways," the Torah mandates that the Jews, while in exile, should employ such means as appeasement, deception, duplicity and even "bribery" in their dealing with gentiles, so as to avoid their wrath.
Grama's full-blown racialist theories appear to break new ground, building on a handful of hints of national and racial chauvinism occasionally found in the writings of a few earlier rabbinic figures, but combining them into a racialist doctrine with no precedent in rabbinic literature.
[That's false propaganda, and the people at Forward know it full well. The Talmud itself contains many of the sentiments expressed by Grama.]
To be sure, a minority stream exists in the rabbinic tradition - from the 11th- and 12th-century Hebrew romantic poet Yehuda Halevy to the 18th century chasidic sage Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev - which sees the differences between Jew and gentile as innate, rather than merely religious. Perhaps the most extreme version of this view is found in the central text of Chabad chasidism, Tanya, whose author, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyadi, Chabad's founder, maintained that Jewish and gentile souls are fundamentally different, the former "divine" and the latter "animalistic." That viewpoint has gained ground in recent decades, particularly among charedi thinkers.
Grama frequently quotes Biblical verses that advocate terribly harsh treatment of the pagan inhabitants of ancient Canaan, implying that the same standards ought to be applied to his non-Jewish neighbors in America. By doing so, he appears to disregard extensive rabbinic deliberations dating back to the early medieval period whose general consensus was that Christianity and Islam are licit, monotheistic faiths. The net result of these medieval rabbinic deliberations was to limit the application of such Biblical laws to ancient pagans, and to mandate that Muslims and Christians could not be classified together with the idol-worshippers of earlier times.
Written by Rabbi Saadya Grama - an alumnus of Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned yeshiva in Lakewood, N.J. - the self-published book attempts to employ classical Jewish sources in defense of a race-based theory of Jewish supremacy. Grama's book, published in Hebrew under the title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut," includes flowery endorsements from the most revered religious scholars at the renowned Lakewood yeshiva, including the institution's foremost religious leader, or rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler.
Reading that, there can be no doubt that there are Jews who are supremacists in the worst sense (as applied against White supremacists; Nazis; KKK members, etc.) and out for world domination by evil means. It's exactly what Jesus came to expose and defeat in the hearts and souls of people, thank God, literally.
The positions of such Jews need to be denounced just as strongly as Nazis have been and are denounced.
We see the Jewish Anti-Defamation League denouncing many people that League terms anti-Semites while that League fails to make the distinctions made in this article that separate people falsely lumping people together from those who do not. The League falsely lumps people together who are not of the same mentality toward Jews as a whole.
I stand firmly against an unrepentant Rabbi Saadya Grama. Grama has been fully informed of his error. The choice is his. No one may force him to see the light. If he chooses not to, he trips himself up and falls. To be sure, he has been misguided. Those who aided in that and who are themselves not repentant are fallen with Grama. Nevertheless, Jesus has no responsibility for their falling. Jesus is not accountable for their evil actions.
An unrepentant Rabbi Saadya Grama has no place in the kingdom. His attitude completely dismisses the transformational power of God. People of all ethnic backgrounds are desired by God to come into God's spirit of love for each other as one heart and one soul with God proper. This is the heart and soul of salvation.
How can those Jews who practice evil be superior? It's ridiculous. It puts dark for light. Grama doesn't even believe the prophets of his own religion about that? He is neither ordained nor qualified in my book.
We ask God to reach into Grama's heart to change him if that be God's will. God bless everyone. We aren't out for Grama's punishment or the punishment of anyone. We are out for the salvation of those who will accept it. This is tautological but certainly not needlessly expressed as it is.
It is Grama's views that allow young Israelis to kick around Arabs as subhuman. To many Israelis and Jews living in America, all non-Jews, all goy, are subhuman. What makes those Jews and Israelis any different from Hitler? If they had the button to push to eliminate all non-Jews they would do it. If I had the button to push to eliminate all non-Christians, I would not push it for the simple reason that I do not know who would otherwise turn to God.
This is why Jesus did not call down fire from Heaven or ask for ten thousand or twenty thousand angels to fight for him. This is why he said that evil must come (someone to push the buttons, as Hitler did) but woe to the one who does. This is why he said to his disciples that they didn't know the spirit of God when they asked whether they should call down wrath.
Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets: To remove the hypocrisy. He did that. He showed that God is not the God of wrath but that it is the human spirit that causes the spirit of wrath to swoop down. That spirit of wrath is not God's desire. God desires the human spirit to rise above that level of darkness. God's plan reveals this. We are to take our instruction from Jesus on this. That's why he was sent: To enlighten and save.
Grama needs to repent and convert, which is the same thing. All non-Christians need to.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)