There are certain folks who assume I give no men credit at all.That is not true,I just do not give credit to the men they want me to give credit to. Now Mr Douglas Reed here the author of this Giant of a book is and was a giant among Men.Here in the latter days of Western Civilization,a genre of books have appeared with the title like...Window's for Dummies...Gardening for Dummies...etc,etc...Well this book right here would be a perfect fit for the Title..Judaism for Dummies,and I say that only because many are not aware of what The Truth is in this Affair,and where they have placed themselves in it.There is a reason,this book was suppressed for 20 years after it's completion in 1956, and it has everything to do with it's message,take care of yourselves one and all....
THE CONTROVERSY
OF ZION
BY DOUGLAS REED
A PREFACE
By Ivor Benson
The Author: In Europe during the years immediately before and after World War II the name of
Douglas Reed was on everyone's lips; his books were being sold by scores of thousand, and he was known
with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of readers and admirers.
Former London Times correspondent in Central Europe, he had won great fame with books like Insanity Fair,
Disgrace Abounding, Lest We Regret, Somewhere South of Suez, Far and Wide and several others, each amplifying a
hundredfold the scope available to him as one of the world's leading foreign correspondents.
The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that
could not have been wrought by time alone; indeed, the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding
history of the times found some confirmation in what happened to him when at the height of his powers.
After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of
America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself
banished from the bookstands, all publishers' doors closed to him, and those books already published liable
to be withdrawn from library shelves and "lost", never to be replaced.
His public career as a writer now apparently at an end, Reed was at last free to undertake a great task
for which all that had gone before was but a kind of preparation and education that no university could
provide and which only the fortunate and gifted few could fully use - his years as a foreign correspondent, his
travels in Europe and America, his conversations and contacts with the great political leaders of his day, plus
his eager absorption through reading and observation of all that was best in European culture.
Experiences which other men might have accepted as defeat, served only to focus Douglas Reed's
powers on what was to be his most important undertaking - that of researching and retelling the story of the
last 2000 years and more in such a way as to render intelligible much of modern history which for the masses
remains in our time steeped in darkness and closely guarded by the terrors of an invisible system of
censorship.
The Book: Commencing in 1951, Douglas Reed spent more than three years - much of this time
separated from his wife and young family - working in the New York Central Library, or tapping away at his
typewriter in spartan lodgings in New York or Montreal. With workmanlike zeal, the book was rewritten, all
300,000 words of it, and the Epilogue only added in 1956.
The story of the book itself - the unusual circumstances in which it was written, and how the
manuscript, after having remained hidden for more than 20 years, came to light and was at last made available
for publication - is part of the history of our century, throwing some light on a struggle of which the
multitudes know nothing: that conducted relentlessly and unceasingly on the battleground of the human
mind.
It needed some unusual source of spiritual power and motivation to bring to completion so big a book involving so much laborious research and cross-checking, a book, moreover,
which seemed to have little or no chance of being published in the author's lifetime.
Although there is correspondence to show that the title was briefly discussed with one publisher, the
manuscript was never submitted but remained for 22 years stowed away in three zippered files on top of a
wardrobe in Reed's home in Durban, South Africa.
Relaxed and at peace with himself in the knowledge that he had carried his great enterprise as far as
was possible in the circumstances of the times, Douglas Reed patiently accepted his forced retirement as
journalist and writer, put behind him all that belonged to the past and adjusted himself cheerfully to a
different mode of existence, in which most of his new-found friends and acquaintances, charmed by his lively mind and rich sense of humor, remained for years wholly unaware that this was indeed the Douglas Reed of
literary fame.
Of this he was sure, whether or not it would happen in his lifetime, there would come a time when
circumstances would permit, and the means be found, to communicate to the world his message of history
rewritten, and the central message of Christianity restated.
Interpretation: For the rest, The Controversy of Zion,
can be left to speak for itself; indeed, it is a work of revisionist history and religious exposition the central
message of which is revealed in almost every page, understanding and compassionate of people but severely
critical of the inordinate and dangerous ambitions of their leaders.
In the final chapter, under the heading the Climacteric, Douglas Reed remarks that if he could have
planned it all when he began writing his book in 1949, he could not have chosen a better moment than the
last months of 1956 to review the long history of Talmudic Zionism and re-examine it against the
background of what was still happening on the stage of world politics.
For 1956 was the year of another American presidential election in which, once again, the Zionists
demonstrated their decisive power to influence Western politics; it was the year in which the nations of the
West stood by as helpless spectators as Soviet forces were used to crush a spontaneous revolt and re-install a
Jewish-Communist regime in Hungary; and it was the year in which Britain and France, under Zionist
pressure, were drawn into the disastrous fiasco of an attempt to capture the Suez Canal, an adventure from
which, once again, Israel alone gained any advantage.
Everything that has happened since Reed wrote those last sentences in 1956 has continued to endorse
the correctness of his interpretation of more than 2000 years of troubled history.
The Middle East has remained an area of intense political activity and of the maximum falsification of
news and suppression of genuine debate, and it was only the few with some knowledge of the role of
Talmudic Zionism and Communism who could have had any chance of solving the problem of successive
events of major importance, like the so-called Six Day War in 1967 and the massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Those who have read The Controversy of Zion will not be surprised to learn that there were clear signs of
collusion between the Soviet Union and Israel in precipitating the Israeli attack on Egypt, for it was only
because Colonel Nasser had been warned by the Kremlin bosses that Israel was about to attack Egypt's ally
Syria that he moved nearly all his armed forces to his country' s northern border, where they fell an easy prey
to Israel's vastly superior army.
It seemed as if nothing had changed when in 1982 Israel launched a massive and most ruthless attack
on Southern Lebanon, ostensibly for the purpose of rooting out the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but
actually in furtherance of an expansionist policy about which Jewish leaders have always been remarkably
frank.
By this time, however, the pro-Zionist mythology generated by Western politicians and media in which
Israel was always represented as a tiny and virtuous nation in constant need of help and protection, was
obviously beginning to lose much of its plausibility, so that few were surprised when the British Institute of
Strategic Studies announced that Israel could now be regarded as fourth in the world as a military power,
after the USA, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China - well ahead of nations like Britain and
France.
More deeply significant was the reaction of the Jewish people, both in Israel and abroad, to an
apparent triumph of Zionist arms in Lebanon. While Western politicians and media remained timorously
restrained in their comment, even after news of the massacre of an estimated 1500 men, women and children
in two Beirut refugee camps, 350,000 of the residents of Tel Aviv staged a public demonstration against their
government and there were reports in the Jewish press that controversy over the Lebanese war had rocked
the Israel army and affected all ranks.
Of this, too, Douglas Reed seems to have had some presentiment, for among the last words in his
book are these: "I believe the Jews of the world are equally beginning to see the error of revolutionary
Zionism, the twin of the other destructive movement, and, as this century ends, will at last decide to seek
involvement in common mankind" .
IVOR BENSON.
Chapter 1
THE START OF THE AFFAIR
The true start of this affair occurred on a day in 458 BC which this narrative will reach in its sixth
chapter. On that day the petty Palestinian tribe of Judah (earlier disowned by the Israelites) produced a racial
creed, the disruptive effect of which on subsequent human affairs may have exceeded that of explosives or
epidemics. This was the day on which the theory of the master-race was set up as "the Law".
At the time Judah was a small tribe among the subject-peoples of the Persian king, and what today is
known as "the West" could not even be imagined. Now the Christian era is nearly two thousand years old and
"Western civilization", which grew out of it, is threatened with disintegration.
The creed born in Judah 2,500 years ago, in the author's opinion, has chiefly brought this about. The
process, from original cause to present effect, can be fairly clearly traced because the period is, in the main,
one of verifiable history.
The creed which a fanatical sect produced that day has shown a great power over the minds of men
throughout these twenty-five centuries; hence its destructive achievement. Why it was born at that particular
moment, or ever, is something that none can explain. This is among the greatest mysteries of our world,
unless the theory that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction is valid in the area of religious
thought; so that the impulse which at that remote time set many men searching for a universal, loving God
produced this fierce counter-idea of an exclusive, vengeful deity.
Judah-ism was retrogressive even in 458 BC, when men in the known world were beginning to turn
their eyes away from idols and tribal gods and to look for a God of all men, of justice and of neighbourliness.
Confucius and Buddha had already pointed in that direction and the idea of one-God was known among the
neighbouring peoples of Judah. Today the claim is often made that the religious man, Christian, Muslim or
other, must pay respect to Judaism, whatever its errors, on one incontestable ground: it was the first universal
religion, so that in a sense all universal religions descend from it. Every Jewish child is taught this. In truth,
the idea of the one-God of all men was known long before the tribe of Judah even took shape, and Judaism
was above all else the denial of that idea. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (manuscripts of which were found
in the tombs of kings of 2,600 BC, over two thousand years before the Judaist "Law" was completed)
contains the passage: "Thou art the one, the God from the very beginnings of time, the heir of immortality,
self-produced and self-born; thou didst create the earth and make man". Conversely, the Scripture produced
in Judah of the Levites asked, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the Gods?" (Exodus).
The sect which attached itself to and mastered the tribe of Judah took this rising concept of one-God
of all-peoples and embodied it in its Scripture only to destroy it, and to set up the creed based on its denial. It is denied subtly, but with scorn, and as the creed
is based on the theory of the master-race this denial is necessary and inevitable. A master-race, if there be
one, must itself be God.
The creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC was then and still is unique in the
world. It rested on the assertion, attributed to the tribal deity (Jehovah), that "the Israelites" (in fact, the
Judahites) were his "chosen people" who, if they did all his "statutes and judgments", would be set over all
other peoples and be established in a "promised land". Out of this theory, whether by forethought or
unforeseen necessity, grew the pendent theories of "captivity" and "destruction". If Jehovah were to be
worshipped, as he demanded, at a certain place in a specified land, all his worshippers had to live there.
Obviously all of them could not live there, but if they lived elsewhere, whether by constraint or their
own choice, they automatically became "captives" of "the stranger", whom they had to "root out", "pull down" and "destroy". Given this basic tenet of the creed, it made no difference whether the "captors" were
conquerors or friendly hosts; their ordained lot was to be destruction or enslavement.
Before they were destroyed or enslaved, they were, for a time, to be "captors" of the Judahites, not in
their own right, but because the Judahites, having failed in "observance", deserved punishment. In this way,
Jehovah revealed himself as the one-God of all-peoples: though he "knew" only the "chosen people", he
would employ the heathen to punish them for their "transgressions", before meting out the foreordained
destruction to these heathen.
The Judahites had this inheritance thrust on them. It was not even theirs, for the "covenant",
according to these Scriptures, had been made between Jehovah and "the children of Israel", and by 458 BC
the Israelites, spurning the non-Israelitish Judahites, had long since been absorbed by other mankind, taking
with them the vision of a universal, loving God of all men. The Israelites, from all the evidence, never knew
this racial creed which was to come down through the centuries as the Jewish religion, or Judaism. It stands,
for all time, as the product of Judah of the Levites.
What happened before 458 BC is largely lore, legend and mythology, as distinct from the period
following, the main events of which are known. Before 458 BC, for instance, there were in the main only
"oral traditions"; the documentary period begins in the two centuries leading up to 458 BC, when Judah had
been disavowed by the Israelites. At this stage, when the word-of-mouth tradition became written Scripture,
the perversion occurred. The surviving words of the earlier Israelites show that their tradition was a widening
one of neighbourliness under a universal God. This was changed into its opposite by the itinerant priests who
segregated the Judahites and established the worship of Jehovah as the god of racialism, hatred and revenge.
In the earlier tradition Moses was a great tribal leader who heard the voice of one-God speak from a burning bush and came down from a mountain bearing this one-God's moral
commandments to the people. The time when this tradition took shape was one when the idea of religion
was first moving in the minds of men and when all the peoples were borrowing from each other's traditions
and thought.
Whence the idea of one-God may have come has already been shown, although the earlier Egyptians
themselves may have received it from others. The figure of Moses himself, and his Law, both were taken
from material already existing. The story of Moses's discovery in the bulrushes was plainly borrowed from the
much earlier legend (with which it is identical) of a king of Babylonia, Sargon the Elder, who lived between
one and two thousand years before him; the Commandments much resemble earlier law codes of the
Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians. The ancient Israelites built on current ideas, and by this means
apparently were well on the way to a universal religion when they were swallowed up by mankind.
Then Judah put the process into reverse, so that the effect is that of a film run backward. The masters
of Judah, the Levites, as they drew up their Law also took what they could use from the inheritance of other
peoples and worked it into the stuff they were moulding. They began with the one just God of all men,
whose voice had been briefly heard from the burning bush (in the oral tradition) and in the course of five
books of their written Law turned him into the racial, bargaining Jehovah who promised territory, treasure,
blood and power over others in return for a ritual of sacrifice, to be performed at a precise place in a
specified land.
Thus they founded the permanent counter-movement to all universal religions and identified the name
Judah with the doctrine of self-segregation from mankind, racial hatred, murder in the name of religion, and
revenge.
The perversion thus accomplished may be traced in the Old Testament, where Moses first appears as
the bearer of the moral commandments and good neighbour, and ends as a racial mass-murderer, the moral
commandments having been converted into their opposites between Exodus and Numbers. In the course of
this same transmutation the God who begins by commanding the people not to kill or to covet their
neighbors' goods or wives, finishes by ordering a tribal massacre of a neighbouring people, only the virgins
to be saved alive!
Thus the achievement of the itinerant priests who mastered the tribe of Judah, so long ago, was to turn
one small, captive people away from the rising idea of a God of all men, to reinstate a bloodthirsty tribal deity
and racial law, and to send the followers of this creed on their way through the centuries with a destructive
mission.
The creed, or revelation of God as thus presented, was based on a version of history, every event of
which had to conform with, and to confirm the teaching.
This version of history went back to the Creation, the exact moment of which was known; as the
priests also claimed to possess the future, this was a complete story and theory of the universe from start to
finish. The end was to be the triumphant consummation in Jerusalem, when world dominion was to be
established on the ruins of the heathen and their kingdoms.
The theme of mass-captivity, ending in a Jehovan vengeance ("all the firstborn of Egypt"), appears
when this version of history reaches the Egyptian phase, leading up to the mass-exodus and mass-conquest of
the promised land. This episode was necessary if the Judahites were to be organized as a permanent
disruptive force among nations and for that reason, evidently, was invented; the Judaist scholars agree that
nothing resembling the narrative in Exodus actually occurred.
Whether Moses even lived is in dispute. "They tell you", said the late Rabbi Emil Hirsch, "that Moses
never lived. I acquiesce. If they tell me that the story that came from Egypt is mythology, I shall not protest;
it is mythology. They tell me that the book of Isaiah, as we have it today, is composed of writings of at least
three and perhaps four different periods; I knew it before they ever told me; before they knew it, it was my
conviction".
Whether Moses lived or not, he cannot have led any mass-exodus from Egypt into Canaan (Palestine).
No sharply-defined Israelitish tribes existed (says Rabbi Elmer Berger) at any time when anyone called Moses
may have led some small groups out of Egyptian slavery. The Habiru (Hebrews) then were already established
in Canaan, having reached it long before from Babylonia on the far side: Their name, Habiru, denoted no
racial or tribal identity; it meant "nomads". Long before any small band led by Moses can have arrived they
had overrun large Canaanite areas, and the governor of Jerusalem reported to Pharaoh in Egypt, "The King
no longer has any territory, the Habiru have devastated all the King's territory".
A most zealous Zionist historian, Dr. Josef Kastein, is equally specific about this. He will often be
quoted during this narrative because his book, like this one, covers the entire span of the controversy of Zion
(save for the last twenty-two years; it was published in 1933). He says, "Countless other Semitic and Hebrew
tribes were already settled in the promised land which, Moses told his followers, was theirs by ancient right of inheritance;
what matter that actual conditions in Canaan had long since effaced this right and rendered it illusory".
Dr. Kastein, a fervent Zionist, holds that the Law laid down in the Old Testament must be fulfilled to
the letter, but does not pretend to take the version of history seriously, on which this Law is based. In this he
differs from Christian polemicists of the "every word is true" school. He holds that the Old Testament was in
fact a political program, drafted to meet the conditions of a time, and frequently revised to meet changing
conditions.
Historically, therefore, the Egyptian captivity, the slaying of "all the firstborn of Egypt", the exodus toward and conquest of the promised land are myths. The story was invented, but
the lesson, of vengeance on the heathen, was implanted in men's minds and the deep effect continues into
our time.
It was evidently invented to turn the Judahites away from the earlier tradition of the God who, from
the burning bush, laid down a simple law of moral behavior and neighborliness; by the insertion of
imaginary, allegorical incident, presented as historical truth, this tradition was converted into its opposite and
the "Law" of exclusion, hatred and vengeance established. With this as their religion and inheritance, attested
by the historical narrative appended to it, a little band of human beings were sent on their way into the future.
By the time of that achievement of 458 BC, many centuries after any possible period when Moses may
have lived, much had happened in Canaan. The nomadic Habiru, supplanting the native Canaanites by
penetration, intermarriage, settlement or conquest, had thrown off a tribe called the Ben Yisrael, or Children
of Israel, which had split into a number of tribes, very loosely confederated and often at war with each other.
The main body of these tribes, the Israelites, held the north of Canaan. In the south, isolated and surrounded
by native Canaanitish peoples, a tribe called Judah took shape. This was the tribe from which the racial creed
and such words as "Judaism", "Jewish" and "Jew" in the course of centuries emerged.
From the moment when it first appears as an entity this tribe of Judah has a strange look. It was always
cut off, and never got on well with its neighbours. Its origins are mysterious. It seems from the beginning,
with its ominous name, somehow to have been set apart, rather than to have been "chosen". The Levitical Scriptures include it among the tribes of Israel, and as the others mingled themselves with mankind this
would leave it the last claimant to the rewards promised by Jehovah to "the chosen people". However, even
this claim seems to be false, for the Jewish Encyclopaedia impartially says that Judah was "in all likelihood a non-Israelitish
tribe".
This tribe with the curious air was the one which set out into the future saddled with the doctrine
drawn up by the Levites, namely, that it was Jehovah's "chosen people" and, when it had done "all my
statutes and judgments", would inherit a promised land and dominion over all peoples.
Among these "statutes and judgments" as the Levites finally edited them appeared, repeatedly, the
commands, "utterly destroy", "pull down", "root out". Judah was destined to produce a nation dedicated to
destruction.
Chapter 2
THE END OF ISRAEL
About five hundred years before the event of 458 BC, or nearly three thousand years ago today, the
brief and troubled association between Judah and the Israelites ("the children of Israel") came to an end.
Israel rejected the chosen people creed which was beginning to take shape in Judah and went its own way.
(The adoption of the name "Israel" by the Zionist state which was set up in Palestine in 1948 was transparent
false pretence).
The events which led to the short-lived, unhappy union covered earlier centuries. The mythological or
legendary period of Moses was followed by one in Canaan during which "Israel" was the strong, cohesive and
recognizable entity, the northern confederation of the ten tribes. Judah (to which the very small tribe of
Benjamin attached itself) was a petty chiefdom in the south.
Judah, from which today's Zionism comes down, was a tribe of ill repute. Judah sold his brother
Joseph, the most beloved son of Jacob-called-Israel, to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver (as Judas,
the only Judean among the disciples, much later betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver), and then founded
the tribe in incest, (Genesis 37-38). The priestly scribes who wrote this Scriptural account centuries afterwards
had made themselves the masters of Judah and as they altered the oral tradition, whenever it suited them, the
question prompts itself: why were they at pains to preserve, or possibly even to insert, this attribution of
incestuous beginnings and a treacherous nature to the very people who, they said, were the chosen of God?
The thing is mysterious, like much else in the Levitical Scriptures, and only the inner sect could supply an
answer.
Anyway, those Scriptures and today's authorities agree about the separateness of "Israel" and "Judah".
In the Old Testament Israel is often called "the house of Joseph", in pointed distinction from "the house of
Judah". The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, ''Joseph and Judah typify two distinct lines of descent" and adds (as already
cited) that Judah was "in all likelihood a non-Israelitish tribe". The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Judaism
developed long after the Israelites had merged themselves with mankind, and that the true relationship of the two
peoples is best expressed in the phrase, "The Israelites were not Jews". Historically, Judah was to survive for a
little while and to bring forth Judaism, which begat Zionism. Israel was to disappear as an entity, and it all
came about in this way:
The little tribe in the south, Judah, became identified with the landless tribe, that of the Levites. These
hereditary priests, who claimed that their office had been bestowed on them by Jehovah on Mount Sinai,
were the true fathers of Judaism. They wandered among the tribes, preaching that the war of one was the war
of all, and Jehovah's war. Their aim was power and they strove for a theocracy, a state in which God is the
sovereign and religion the law. During the period of the Judges they achieved their aim to some extent, for
they naturally were the Judges. What they, and isolated Judah, most needed was union with Israel. Israel, which distrusted
this lawgiving priesthood, would not hear of unification unless it were under a king; all the surrounding
peoples had kings.
The Levites grasped this opportunity. They saw that if a king were appointed the ruling class would
supply the nominee, and they were the ruling class. Samuel, at their head, set up a puppet monarchy, behind
which the priesthood wielded true power; this was achieved through the stipulation that the king should reign
only for life, which meant that he would not be able to found a dynasty. Samuel chose a young Benjaminite
peasant, Saul, who had made some name in tribal warfare and, presumably, was thought likely to be tractable
(the choice of a Benjaminite suggests that Israel would not consider any man of Judah for the kingship). The
unified kingdom of Israel then began; in truth it survived but this one reign, Saul's.
In Saul's fate (or in the account given of it in the later Scriptures) the ominous nature of Judaism, as it
was to be given shape, may be discerned. He was commanded to begin the holy war by attacking the
Amalekites "and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass". He destroyed "man and woman, infant and suckling", but spared
King-Agag and the best of the sheep, oxen, yearlings and lambs. For this he was excommunicated by Samuel,
who secretly chose one David, of Judah, to be Saul's successor. Thereafter Saul vainly strove by zeal in "utter
destruction" to appease the Levites, and then by attempting David's life to save his throne. At last he killed
himself.
Possibly none of this happened; it is the account given in the Book of Samuel, which the Levites
produced centuries later. Whether it is true or allegorical, the importance lies in the plain implication: Jehovah
demanded literal obedience when he commanded "utter destruction", and mercy or pity were capital
offences. This lesson is driven home in many other depictment's of events which were possibly historical and
possibly imaginary.
This was really the end, three thousand years ago, of the united kingdom, for Israel would not accept
the man of Judah, David, as king. Dr. Kastein says that "the rest of Israel ignored him" and proclaimed Saul's
son, Ishbosheth, king, whereon the re-division into Israel and Judah "really took place". According to Samuel,
Ishbosheth was killed and his head was sent to David, who thereon restored a nominal union and made
Jerusalem his capital. He never again truly united the kingdom or the tribes; he founded a dynasty which
survived one more reign.
Formal Judaism holds to this day that the Messianic consummation will come about under a worldly
king of "the house of David"; and racial exclusion is the first tenet of formal Judaism (and the law of the land
in the Zionist state). The origins of the dynasty founded by David are thus of direct relevance to this
narrative.
Racial discrimination and segregation were clearly unknown to the tribespeople in those days of the
association between Israel and Judah, for the Old Testament says that David, the Judahite, from his roof, saw
"a very beautiful woman" bathing, commanded her to him and made her with child, and then had her
husband, a Hittite, sent into the front battle-line with orders that he be killed. When he was dead David
added the woman, Bathsheba, to his wives, and her second son by him became the next king, Solomon (this
story of David and Bathsheba, as related in the Old Testament, was bowdlerized in a Hollywood-made
moving picture of our day).
Such was the racial descent of Solomon, the last king of the riven confederacy, according to the
Levitical scribes. He began his reign with three murders, including that of his brother, and vainly sought to
save his dynasty by the Habsburg method, marriage, though on grander scale. He married princesses from
Egypt and many neighbouring tribes and had hundreds of lesser wives, so that in his day, too, racial
segregation must have been unknown. He built the temple and established a hereditary high priesthood.
That was the story, concluded in 937 BC, of the short association between Israel and Judah. When
Solomon died the incompatible associates finally split, and in the north Israel resumed its independent life.
Dr Kastein says:
"The two states had no more in common, for good or evil, than any other two countries with a common
frontier. From time to time they waged war against each other or made treaties, but they were entirely separate. The
Israelites ceased to believe that they had a destiny apart from their neighbours and King Jeroboam made separation from Judah as
complete in the religious as in the political sense". Then, of the Judahites, Dr. Kastein adds, "they decided that they
were destined to develop as a race apart. . . they demanded an order of existence fundamentally different from that
of the people about them. These were differences which allowed of no process of assimilation to others. They demanded
separation, absolute differentiation. "
Thus the cause of the breach and separation is made clear. Israel believed that its destiny lay with
involvement in mankind, and rejected Judah on the very grounds which recurrently, in the ensuing three
thousand years, caused other peoples to turn in alarm, resentment and repudiation from Judaism. Judah
"demanded separation, absolute differentiation". (However, Dr. Kastein, though he says "Judah", means "the
Levites". How could even the tribespeople of Judah, at that stage, have demanded "separation, absolute
differentiation", when Solomon had had a thousand wives?)
It was the Levites, with their racial creed, that Israel rejected. The next two hundred years, during
which Israel and Judah existed separately, and often in enmity, but side by side, are filled with the voices of
the Hebrew "prophets", arraigning the Levites and the creed which they were constructing. These voices still
call to mankind out of the tribal darkness which beclouds much of the Old Testament, for they scarified the creed which was in the making just as Jesus scarified it seven or eight
hundred years later, when it was long established, at the Temple in Jerusalem.
These men were nearly all Israelites; most of them were Josephites. They were on the road to the one God
of all-peoples and to participation in mankind. They were not unique among men in this: soon the
Buddha, in India, was to oppose his Sermon at Benares and his Five Commands of Uprightness to the creed
of Brahma, the creator of caste-segregation, and to the worship of idols. They were in truth Israelite
remonstrants against the Levitical teaching which was to become identified with the name of Judah. The
name "Hebrew prophets" is inapt because they made no pretence to power of divination and were angered
by the description ("I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son", Amos). They were protestants in their
time and gave simple warning of the calculable consequences of the racial creed; their warning remains valid
today.
The claims of the Levite priesthood moved them to these protests, particularly the priestly claim to
the firstborn ("That which openeth the womb is mine," Exodus), and the priestly insistence on sacrificial rites.
The Israelite expostulants (to whom this "so-called law of Moses" was unknown, according to Mr.
Montefiore) saw no virtue in the bloodying of priests, the endless sacrifice of animals and the "burnt
offerings", the "sweet savour" of which was supposed to please Jehovah. They rebuked the priestly doctrine
of slaying and enslaving "the heathen". God, they cried, desired moral behaviour, neighbourly conduct and
justice towards the poor, the fatherless, the widow and the oppressed, not blood sacrifices and hatred of the
heathen.
These protests provide the first forelight of the dawn which came some eight hundred years later.
They find themselves in strange company among the injunctions to massacre in which the Old Testament
abounds. The strange thing is that these remonstrances survived the compilation, when Israel was gone and
the Levites, supreme in Judah, wrote down the Scriptures.
Today's student cannot explain, for instance, why King David suffers Nathan publicly to rebuke him
for taking Uriah's wife and having Uriah murdered. Possibly among the later scribes who compiled the
historical narrative, long after Israel and the Israelite expostulants were gone, were some of their mind, who
contrived in this way to continue their protest.
Conversely, these benevolent and enlightened passages are often followed by fanatical ones, attributed
to the same man, which cancel them, or put the opposite in their place. The only reasonable explanation is
that these are interpolations later made, to bring the heretics into line with Levitical dogma.
Whatever the explanation, these Israelite protests against the heresy of Judah have an ageless appeal
and form the monument to vanished Israel. They force their way, like little blades of truth, between the dark
stones of tribal saga. They pointed the way to the rising and widening road of common involvement in mankind and away from the tribal abyss.
Elijah and Elisha both worked in Israel, and Amos spoke solely to the Josephites. He in particular
attacked the blood sacrifices and priestly rites: "I hate, I despise your feasts and I take no delight in your
solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them.
Neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs"
(the Levites' chanted liturgies) "and let me not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run as water
and righteousness as a mighty stream". And then the immortal rebuke to the "peculiar people" doctrine: "Are
ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel, saith the Lord".
Hosea, another Israelite, says, "I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings". Hosea exhorts to the practice of "justice and righteousness", "loving kindness and
compassion and faithfulness", not discrimination and contempt.
In Micah's time the Levites apparently still demanded the sacrifice of all the firstborn to Jehovah:
"Wherewith shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before
him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with
ten thousands of rivers of oil. Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? It hath been told to thee, O man, what is good and what the Lord doth require of thee: only to do justly and to
love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God" .
These men contended for the soul of the tribespeople during the two centuries when Israel and Judah
existed side by side, and sometimes at daggers drawn. During this period the Levites, earlier distributed
among the twelve tribes, were driven more and more to congregate in tiny Judah and in Jerusalem, and to
concentrate their energies on the Judahites.
Then, in 721 BC, Israel was attacked and conquered by Assyria and the Israelites were carried into
captivity. Judah was spared for that moment and for another century remained an insignificant vassal, first of
Assyria and then of Egypt, and the stronghold of the Levitical sect.
At that point "the children of Israel" disappear from history and if promises made to them are to be
redeemed, this redemption must evidently be from among the ranks of mankind, in which they became
involved and merged. Given the prevalent westward trend among the movements of peoples during the last
twenty-seven hundred years, it is probable that much of their blood has gone into the European and
American peoples.
The Judaist claim, on the other hand, is that Israel was totally and deservedly "lost", because it rejected
the Levitical creed and chose "rapprochement with neighbouring peoples". Dr. Kastein, whose words these
are, nearly twenty-seven centuries later ardently rejoiced, on that very account, in their downfall: "The ten northern tribes, with
their separate development, had drifted so far from their kindred in the south that the chronicle of their fall
takes the form of a brief bald statement of fact unrelieved by any expression of grief. No epic poem, no dirge,
no sympathy marked the hour of their downfall". [Kastein is Zionist scum DC]
The student of the controversy of Zion has to plod far before he begins to unveil its mysteries, but
very soon discovers that in all things it speaks with two tongues, one for "the heathen" and one for the
initiates.
The Levites of that ancient time did not, and today's Zionists do not believe that the Israelites
"vanished without leaving a trace" (as Dr. Kastein says). They were pronounced "dead", in the way that a Jew
marrying out of the fold today is pronounced dead (for instance, Dr. John Goldstein); they were
excommunicated and only in that sense "vanished".
Peoples do not become extinct; the North American Indians, the Australian Blackfellows, the New
Zealand Maoris, the South African Bantu and others are the proofs of that. For that matter, the Israelites
could not have been "taken away captive", had they been physically exterminated. Their blood and thought
survive in mankind, somewhere, today.
Israel remained separate from Judah of its own will, and for the very reasons which ever since have
aroused the mistrust and misgiving of other peoples. The Israelites "were not Jews"; the Judahites were "in all
likelihood non-Israelitish".
The true meaning of the assertion that Israel "disappeared" is to be found in the later Talmud, which
says: "The ten tribes have no share in the world to come". Thus, "the children of Israel" are banned from
heaven by the ruling sect of Judah because they refused to exclude themselves from mankind on earth.
The Chief Rabbi of the British Empire in 1918, the Very Rev. J.H. Hertz, in answer to an enquiry on
this point said explicitly, "The people known at present as Jews are descendants of the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin with a certain number of descendants of the tribe of Levi". This statement makes perfectly clear that
"Israel" had no part in what has become Judaism (no authority, Judaist or other, would support the claim
made to blood-descent from Judah, for the Jews of today, but this is of little account).
Therefore the use of the name "Israel" by the Zionist state which was created in Palestine in this
century is in the nature of a forgery. Some strong reason must have dictated the use of the name of a people
who were not Jews and would have none of the creed which has become Judaism. One tenable theory
suggests itself. The Zionist state was set up with the connivance of the great nations of the West, which is
also the area of Christendom. The calculation may have been that these peoples would be comforted in their
consciences if they could be led to believe that they were fulfilling Biblical prophecy and God's promise to
"Israel", at whatever cost in the "destruction" of innocent peoples.
If that was the motive for the misuse of the name "Israel", the expedient may for the time being have been successful; the multitude was ever easily "persuaded". However, truth will
out in the long run, as the surviving remonstrances of the Israelite prophets show.
If the Zionist state of 1948 could lay claim to any name whatever taken from far antiquity, this could
only be "Judah", as this chapter has shown.
This was the birth of "the Mosaic law", which Moses, if he ever lived, never knew. It is called the Mosaic law because it is attributed to him, but the authorities agree that it was the product of the Levites, who then and later repeatedly made Moses (and for that matter, Jehovah) say what suited them. Its correct description would be "the Levitical law" or "the Judaic law".
Deuteronomy is to formal Judaism and Zionism what the Communist Manifesto was to the destructive revolution of our century. It is the basis of the Torah ("the Law") contained in the Pentateuch, which itself forms the raw material of the Talmud, which again gave birth to those "commentaries" and commentaries on-commentaries which together constitute the Judaic "law".
Therefore Deuteronomy is also the basis of the political program, of worldly dominion over nations despoiled and enslaved, which has been largely realized in the West during this Twentieth Century. Deuteronomy is of direct relevancy to the events of our day, and much of the confusion surrounding them disperses if they are studied in its light.
It was read, in 621 BC, to so small an audience in so small a place that its great effects for the whole world, through the following centuries into our time, are by contrast the more striking.
Before Deuteronomy was compiled only the "oral tradition" of what God said to Moses existed. The Levites claimed to be the consecrated guardians of this tradition and the tribespeople had to take their word for it (their pretensions in this respect chiefly caused the anger of the Israelite "prophets"). If anything had been written down before Deuteronomy was read, such manuscripts were fragmentary and in priestly keeping, and as little known to the primitive tribesmen as the Greek poets to Kentucky hills folk today.
That Deuteronomy was different from anything that had been known or understood before is implicit in its name, which means "Second Law". Deuteronomy, in fact, was Levitical Judaism, first revealed; the Israelites (as already shown) "were not Jews" and had never known this "Law".
Significantly, Deuteronomy which appears as the fifth book of today's Bible, with an air of growing naturally out of the previous ones, was the first book to be completed as a whole. Though Genesis and Exodus provide the historical background and mount for it, they were later produced by the Levites, and Leviticus and Numbers, the other books of the Torah, were compiled even later.
Deuteronomy stood the earlier tradition on its head, if it was in harmony with the moral commandments. However, the Levites were within their self-granted right in making any changes they chose, for they held that they were divinely authorized to amend the Law, as orally revealed by God to Moses, in order to meet "the constantly changing conditions of existence in the spirit of traditional teaching" (Dr. Kastein).
For that matter, they also claimed that Moses had received at Sinai a secret oral Torah, which must never be committed to writing. In view of the later inclusion of the Old Testament in one volume with the Christian New Testament, and the average Gentile's assumption that he thus has before his eyes the whole of "the Mosaic Law", this qualification is of permanent interest.
The Talmud, as quoted by Dr. Funk, says, "God foresaw that one day a time would come when the Heathen would possess themselves of the Torah and would say to Israel, 'We, too, are sons of God'. Then will the Lord say: 'Only he who knows my secrets is my son'. And what are the secrets of God? The oral teachings".[No! would say to Judah not Israel DC]
The few people who heard Deuteronomy read in 621 BC, and then first learned what "the Mosaic Law" was to be, were told that the manuscripts had been "discovered". Today's Judaist authorities dismiss this and agree that Deuteronomy was the independent work of the Levites in isolated Judah after Judah's rejection by the Israelites and the conquest of Israel. Dr. Kastein puts the matter like this:
"In 621 BC, a manuscript hoary with the dust of ages was discovered among the archives. It contained a curious version of the laws which had been codified up to that time, a sort of repetition and variation of them, giving a host of instructions regarding man's duty to God and to his neighbour. It was couched in the form of speeches supposed to have been delivered by Moses just before his death on the farther side of Jordan. Who the author was it is impossible to say".
Thus Dr. Kastein, a zealot who awaits the literal fulfilment of "the Mosaic Law" in every detail, does not believe that its author was either Jehovah or Moses. It is enough for him that it was produced by the lawgiving priesthood, which for him is divine authority.
None can now tell how closely Deuteronomy, as we know it, resembles Deuteronomy as it was read in 621 BC, for the books of the Old Testament were repeatedly revised up to the time of the first translation, when various other modifications were made, presumably to avoid excessive perturbation among the Gentiles. No doubt something was then excised, so that Deuteronomy in its original form may have been ferocious indeed, for what remains is savage enough.
Religious intolerance is the basis of this "Second Law" (racial intolerance was to follow later, in another "New Law") and murder in the name of religion is its distinctive tenet. This necessitates the destruction of the moral Commandments, which in fact are set up to be knocked down. Only those of them which relate to the exclusive worship of the "jealous" Jehovah are left intact. The others are buried beneath a great mound of "statutes and judgments" (regulations issued under a governing Law, as it were) which in effect cancel them.
Thus the moral commandments against murder, stealing, adultery, coveting, bad neighbourliness, and the like are vitiated by a mass of "statutes" expressly enjoining the massacre of other peoples, the murder of apostates individually or in communities, the taking of concubines from among women captives, "utter destruction" that leaves "nothing alive", the exclusion of "the stranger" from debt-remission and the like.
By the time the end of Deuteronomy is reached the moral commandments have been nullified in this way, for the purpose of setting up, in the guise of a religion, the grandiose political idea of a people especially sent into the world to destroy and "possess" other peoples and to rule the earth. The idea of destruction is essential to Deuteronomy. If it be taken away no Deuteronomy, or Mosaic Law, remains.
This concept of destruction as an article of faith is unique, and where it occurs in political thought (for instance, in the Communist philosophy) may also derive originally from the teaching of Deuteronomy, for there is no other discoverable source.
Deuteronomy is above all a complete political program: the story of the planet, created by Jehovah for this "special people", is to be completed by their triumph and the ruination of all others. The rewards offered to the faithful are exclusively material: slaughter, slaves, women, booty, territory, empire. The only condition laid down for these rewards is observance of "the statutes and judgments", which primarily command the destruction of others. The only guilt defined lies is non-observance of these laws. Intolerance is specified as observance; tolerance as non-observance, and therefore as guilt. The punishments prescribed are of this world and of the flesh, not of the spirit. Moral behaviour, if ever demanded, is required only towards co-religionists and "strangers" are excluded from it.
This unique form of nationalism was first presented to the Judahites in Deuteronomy as "the Law" of Jehovah and as his literal word, spoken to Moses. The notion of world domination through destruction is introduced at the start (chapter 2) of these "speeches supposed to have been delivered" by the dying Moses:
"The Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee". In token of this, the fate of two nations is at once shown. The King of Sihon and the King of Bashan "came out against us, he and all his people", whereon they were "utterly destroyed, the men, and the women, and the little ones", only the cattle being spared and "the spoil" being taken "for a prey unto ourselves". (The insistence on utter destruction is a recurrent and significant feature of these illustrative anecdotes).
These first examples of the power of Jehovah to destroy the heathen are followed by the first of many warnings that unless "the statutes and judgments" are observed Jehovah will punish his special people by dispersing them among these heathen. The enumeration of these "statutes and judgments" follows the Commandments, the moral validity of which is at once destroyed by a promise of tribal massacre:
"Seven nations greater and mightier than thou" are to be delivered into the Judahites' hands, and: "Thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them. . . ye shall destroy their alter's . . . for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth . . . Thou shalt be blessed above all people . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed. . . And the Lord thy God will put out these nations before thee by little and little. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed. And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them. . ."
By the Twentieth Century AD the peoples of the West, as a whole, had ceased to attach any present meaning to these incitements, but the peoples directly concerned thought differently. For instance, the Arab population of Palestine fled en masse from its native land after the massacre at Deir Yasin in 1948 because this event meant for them (as its perpetrators intended it to mean) that if they stayed they would be "utterly destroyed".
They knew that the Zionist leaders, in the palavers with British and American politicians of the distant West, repeatedly had stated that "the Bible is our Mandate" (Dr. Chaim Weizmann), and they knew (if the Western peoples did not realize) that the allusion was to such passages as that commanding the "utter destruction" of the Arab peoples. They knew that the leaders of the West had supported and would continue to support the invaders and thus they had no hope of even bare survival, save by flight. This massacre of 1948 AD relates directly to the "statute and judgment" laid down in chapter 7 of the book of The Law which the Levites completed and read in 621 BC.
The incitements and allurements of Deuteronomy continue: ". . . Go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself . . . the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face; so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee. . . For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you . . . then will the Lord drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves . . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be. There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the Lord your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon . . ."
Then Moses, in this account, enumerates the "statutes and judgments" which must be "observed" if all these rewards are to be gained, and again "the Law" is to destroy:
"These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess, served their gods. . . When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land: Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them. . . and that thou inquire not after their gods."
This tenet of "the Law" requires the faithful to destroy other religions. It was impartial when enacted but gained a specific application in later centuries from the fact that the Christian faith grew up in, and the mass of Jews then moved into, the same geographical area: the West. (This made Christianity the primary object of the command to "utterly destroy the places. . .", and the dynamiting of Russian cathedrals, the opening of "anti-God museums", the canonization of Judas and other acts of early Bolshevist governments,which were to nine-tenths comprised of Eastern Jews, were evidently deeds of "observance" under this "statute" of Deuteronomy).
The ideas of the inquisition of heretics and of the informer, which the West has used in its retrogressive periods and repudiated in its enlightened ones, also find their original source (unless any can locate an earlier one) in Deuteronomy. Lest any such heretic should call in question the Law of destruction, summarized in the preceding paragraphs, Deuteronomy next provides that "if there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams . . . (he) shall be put to death"; the crucifixion of Jesus (and the deaths of numerous expostulants against literal Judaism) fall under this "statute".
The denunciation of kinsfolk who incur suspicion of heresy is required. This is the terrorist device introduced in Russia by the Bolshevists in 1917 and copied in Germany by the National Socialists in 1933. The Christian world at the time professed horror at these barbarbous innovations, but the method is plainly laid down in Deuteronomy, which requires that any who say, "Let us go and serve other gods", be denounced by their brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, wives and so on, and be stoned to death.
Characteristically, Deuteronomy prescribes that the hand of the blood kinsman or spouse shall be "first upon" the victim of denunciation at the killing, and only afterwards "the hand of all the people". This "statute of the Law" is still observed today, in a measure dictated by local conditions and other circumstances. Apostates cannot be publicly stoned to death in the environment of foreign communities, where the law of "the stranger" might hold this to be murder, so that a formal pronunciation of "death" and ceremony of mourning symbolically takes the place of the legal penalty; see Dr. John Goldstein's account both of the symbolic rite and of a recent attempt to exact the literal penalty, which during the centuries was often inflicted in closed Jewish communities where the law of "the stranger" could not reach.
The Law also demands that entire communities shall be massacred on the charge of apostasy: "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein".
In this matter of destroying cities, Deuteronomy distinguishes between near (that is, Palestinian) and far cities. When a "far off city" has been captured, "thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword, but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself. . ." This incitement in respect of captured women is a recurrent theme and Deuteronomy lays down the law that a Judahite captor who sees among captives "a beautiful woman" may take her home, but if he had "no delight in her" may turn her out again.
The case of a near city is different; the law of utter destruction (against which Saul transgressed) then rules. "But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth; But thou shalt utterly destroy them. . . as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee". (This verse 16 of chapter 20, again, explains the mass flight of the Palestinian Arabs after Deir Yasin, where nothing that breathed was saved alive. They saw that literal fulfilment of the Law of 621 BC was the order of the day in 1948 AD, and that the might of the West was behind this fulfilment of the Law of "utter destruction".)
The Second Law continues: "Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth". Further "statutes and judgments" then provide that "anything that dieth of itself", being unclean, may not be eaten, but "thou shalt give it to the stranger . . . or thou mayest sell it to the alien; for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God".
Every seven years a creditor shall remit his "neighbour's" debt, but "of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again". Chapter 10 (surprisingly in this context) says, "Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt", but chapter 23 brings the familiar cancellation: "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother . . . unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury" (and graver examples of this legal discrimination between the "neighbour" and "the "stranger" appear in later books, as will be seen).
Deuteronomy ends with the long-drawn-out, rolling, thunderous curse-or-blessing theme. Moses, about to die, once more exhorts "the people" to choose between blessings and cursings, and these are enumerated.
The blessings are exclusively material: prosperity through the increase of kith, crop and kine; the defeat of enemies; and world dominion. "The Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth . . . The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself . . . And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee. . . thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath . . ."
These blessings occupy thirteen verses; the cursings some fifty or sixty. The deity in whose name the curses are uttered clearly was held capable of doing evil (indeed, this is explicitly stated in a later book, Ezekiel, as will be shown).
Literal Judaism is ultimately based on terror and fear and the list of curses set out in chapter 28 of The Second Law shows the importance which the priesthood attached to this practice of cursing (which literal Judaists to this day hold to be effective in use). These curses, be it remembered, are the penalties for nonobservance, not for moral transgressions! "If thou will not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and statutes. . . all these curses shall come upon thee . . ."[So in this way,the folks posing as Israel now here in 2018,have no way out,way to paint yourselves into a corner DC]
The city and the dwelling, the children, crops and cattle, are to be cursed "until thou be destroyed and until thou perish utterly". Plague, wasting, inflammation, mildew, botch, emerods, scab, itch, madness, blindness, famine, cannibalism and drought are specified. Men's wives are to lie with other men; their children are to be lost into slavery; any that remain at home are to be eaten by their parents, the father and mother contesting for the flesh and denying any to the children still alive. (These curses were included in the Great Ban when it was pronounced on apostates down to relatively recent times, and in the fastnesses of Talmudic Jewry are probably in use today).
The diseases and disasters were to be visited on the people "if thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord Thy God: . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live for ever".
Such was the life and the blessing which the Judahites, gathered in the Temple in 621 BC, were exhorted in the name of Jehovah and Moses to choose by their tribal chieftain Josiah, the mouthpiece of the priesthood. The purpose and meaning of existence, under this "Mosaic Law", was the destruction and enslavement of others for the sake of plunder and power. Israel might from that moment have counted itself happy to have been pronounced dead and to have been excluded from such a world to come. The Israelites had mingled in the living bloodstream of mankind; on its banks the Judahites were left stranded in the power of a fanatical priesthood which commanded them, on pain of "all these curses", to destroy.
To the terror inspired by "all these curses" the Levites added also an allurement. If "the people" should "return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments. . .", then "all these curses" would be transferred to their "enemies" (not because these had sinned, but simply to swell the measure of the blessing conferred on the rehabilitated Judahites!)
In this tenet Deuteronomy most clearly revealed the status allotted to the heathen by The Second Law. In the last analysis, "the heathen" have no legal existence under this Law; how could they have, when Jehovah only "knows" his "holy people"? Insofar as their actual existence is admitted, it is only for such purposes as those stated in verse 65, chapter 28 and verse 7, chapter 30: namely, to receive the Judahites when they are dispersed for their transgressions and then, when their guests repent and are forgiven, to inherit curses lifted from the regenerate Judahites. True, the second verse quoted gives the pretext that "all these curses" will be transferred to the heathen because they "hated" and "persecuted" the judahites, but how could they be held culpable of this when the very presence of the Judahites among them was merely the result of punitive "curses" inflicted by Jehovah? For Jehovah himself, according to another verse (64, chapter 28) took credit for putting the curse of exile on the Judahites:
"And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other . . . and among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest…"[Yep that Be Their God DC]
Deuteronomy employs this Doublespeak (to use the modem idiom) throughout: the Lord makes the special people homeless among the heathen for their transgressions; the heathen, who have no blame either for their exile or for those transgressions, are their "persecutors "; ergo, the heathen will be destroyed.
The Judaist attitude towards other mankind, creation, and the universe in general, is better understood when these and related passages have been pondered, and especially the constant plaint that Jews are "persecuted" everywhere, which in one tone or another runs through nearly all Jewish literature. To any who accept this book as The Law, the mere existence of others is in fact persecution; Deuteronomy plainly implies that.
The most nationalist Jew and the most enlightened Jew often agree in one thing: they cannot truly consider the world and its affairs from any but a Jewish angle, and from that angle "the stranger" seems insignificant. Thinking makes it so, and this is the legacy of twenty-five centuries of Jewish thinking; even those Jews who see the heresy or fallacy cannot always divest themselves entirely of the incubus on their minds and spirits.
The passage from Deuteronomy last quoted shows that the ruling sect depicted homelessness at one and the same time as the act of the special people's god and as persecution by the special people's enemies, deserving of "all these curses". To minds of such extreme egotism a political outrage in which 95 Gentiles and 5 Jews lose their lives or property is simply an anti-Jewish disaster, and they are not consciously hypocritical in this. In the Twentieth Century this standard of judgment has been projected into the lives of other peoples and applied to all major events in the ordeal of the West. Thus we live in the century of the Levitical fallacy. [The aftermath of WW2 being the biggest example of this nonsense DC]
Having undertaken to put "all these curses" on innocent parties, if the Judahites would return to observance of "all these statutes and judgments", the resurrected Moses of Deuteronomy promised one more blessing ("The Lord thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them. . . ") and then was allowed to die in the land of Moab.
In "the Mosaic Law" the destructive idea took shape, which was to threaten Christian civilization and the West, both then undreamed of. During the Christian era a council of theologians made the decision that the Old Testament and the New should be bound in one book, without any differentiation, as if they were stem and blossom, instead of immovable object and irresistible force. The encyclopaedia before me as I write states laconically that the Christian churches accept the Old Testament as being of "equal divine authority" with the New.
This unqualified acceptance covers the entire content of the Old Testament and may be the original source of much confusion in the Christian churches and much distraction among the masses that seek Christianity, for the dogma requires belief in opposite things at the same time. How can the same God, by commandment to Moses, have enjoined men to love their neighbours and "utterly to destroy" their neighbours? What relationship can there be between the universal, loving God of the Christian revelation and the cursing deity of Deuteronomy?
But if in fact all the Old Testament, including these and other commands, is of "equal divine authority" with the New, then the latter day Westerner is entitled to invoke it in justification of those deeds by which Christendom most denied itself: the British settlers' importation of African slaves to America, the American and Canadian settlers' treatment of the North American Indian, and the Afrikaners' harsh rule over the South African Bantu. He may justly put the responsibility for all these things directly on his Christian priest or bishop, if that man teaches that the Old Testament, with its repeated injunction to slay, enslave, and despoil is of "equal divine authority". No Christian divine can hold himself blameless if he so teaches. The theological decision which set up this dogma cast over Christendom and the centuries to come the shadow of Deuteronomy, just as it fell on the Judahites themselves when it was read to them in 621 BC.
Only one other piece of writing has had any comparable effect on the minds of men and on future generations; if any simplification is permissible, the most tempting one is to see the whole story of the West, and particularly of this decisive Twentieth Century, as a struggle between the Mosaic Law and the New Testament and between the two bodies of mankind which rank themselves behind one or other of those two messages of hatred and love respectively.
In Deuteronomy Judaism was born, yet this would have been a stillbirth, and Deuteronomy might never again have been heard of, if that question had rested only with the Levites and their captive Judahites. They were not numerous, and a nation a hundred times as many could never have hoped to enforce this barbarous creed on the world by force of its own muscle. There was only one way in which "the Mosaic Law" could gain life and potency and become a disturbing influence in the life of other peoples during the centuries to follow. This was if some powerful "stranger" (among all those strangers yet to be accursed), some mighty king of those "heathen" yet to be destroyed, should support it with arms and treasure.
Precisely that was about to happen when Josiah read The Second Law to the people in 621 BC, and it was to repeat itself continually down the centuries to our day: the gigantic improbability of the thing confronts the equally large, demonstrable fact that it is so! The rulers of those "other nations" which were to be dispossessed and destroyed repeatedly espoused the destructive creed, did the bidding of the dominant sect, and at the expense of their own peoples helped to further its strange ambition.[If folks cannot see where this is going,do not expect help from those you threw under the bus and called evil,to protect yourself against this tyrant.YOU are the ones who enabled him! DC]
Some twenty years after the reading of Deuteronomy in Jerusalem, Judah was conquered by the Babylonian king, in about 596 BC. At the time, this looked like the end of the affair, which was a petty one in itself, among the great events of that period. Judah never again existed as an independent state, and but for the Levites, their Second Law and the foreign helper the Judahites, like the Israelites, would have become involved in mankind.
Instead, the Babylonian victory was the start of the affair, or of its great consequences for the world. The Law, instead of dying, grew stronger in Babylon, where for the first time a foreign king gave it his protection. The permanent state-within-states, nation-within-nations was projected, a first time, into the life of peoples; initial experience in usurping power over them was gained. Much tribulation for other peoples was brewed then.
As for the Judahites, or the Judaists and Jews who sprang from them, they seem to have acquired the unhappiest future of all. Anyway, it was not a happy man (though it was a Jewish writer of our day, 2,500 years later, Mr. Maurice Samuel) who wrote: ". . . we Jews, the destroyers, will remain the destroyer forever. . . nothing that the Gentiles will do will meet our needs and demands".
At first sight this seems mocking, venomous, shameless. The diligent student of the controversy of Zionism discovers that it is more in the nature of a cry of hopelessness, such as the "Mosaic Law" must wring from any man who feels he cannot escape its remorseless doctrine of destruction.
next
THE FORGING OF THE CHAINS
Chapter 3
THE LEVITES AND THE LAW
During the hundred years that followed the Assyrian conquest of Israel, the Levites in Judah began to
compile the written Law. In 621 BC they produced Deuteronomy and read it to the people in the temple at
Jerusalem. This was the birth of "the Mosaic law", which Moses, if he ever lived, never knew. It is called the Mosaic law because it is attributed to him, but the authorities agree that it was the product of the Levites, who then and later repeatedly made Moses (and for that matter, Jehovah) say what suited them. Its correct description would be "the Levitical law" or "the Judaic law".
Deuteronomy is to formal Judaism and Zionism what the Communist Manifesto was to the destructive revolution of our century. It is the basis of the Torah ("the Law") contained in the Pentateuch, which itself forms the raw material of the Talmud, which again gave birth to those "commentaries" and commentaries on-commentaries which together constitute the Judaic "law".
Therefore Deuteronomy is also the basis of the political program, of worldly dominion over nations despoiled and enslaved, which has been largely realized in the West during this Twentieth Century. Deuteronomy is of direct relevancy to the events of our day, and much of the confusion surrounding them disperses if they are studied in its light.
It was read, in 621 BC, to so small an audience in so small a place that its great effects for the whole world, through the following centuries into our time, are by contrast the more striking.
Before Deuteronomy was compiled only the "oral tradition" of what God said to Moses existed. The Levites claimed to be the consecrated guardians of this tradition and the tribespeople had to take their word for it (their pretensions in this respect chiefly caused the anger of the Israelite "prophets"). If anything had been written down before Deuteronomy was read, such manuscripts were fragmentary and in priestly keeping, and as little known to the primitive tribesmen as the Greek poets to Kentucky hills folk today.
That Deuteronomy was different from anything that had been known or understood before is implicit in its name, which means "Second Law". Deuteronomy, in fact, was Levitical Judaism, first revealed; the Israelites (as already shown) "were not Jews" and had never known this "Law".
Significantly, Deuteronomy which appears as the fifth book of today's Bible, with an air of growing naturally out of the previous ones, was the first book to be completed as a whole. Though Genesis and Exodus provide the historical background and mount for it, they were later produced by the Levites, and Leviticus and Numbers, the other books of the Torah, were compiled even later.
Deuteronomy stood the earlier tradition on its head, if it was in harmony with the moral commandments. However, the Levites were within their self-granted right in making any changes they chose, for they held that they were divinely authorized to amend the Law, as orally revealed by God to Moses, in order to meet "the constantly changing conditions of existence in the spirit of traditional teaching" (Dr. Kastein).
For that matter, they also claimed that Moses had received at Sinai a secret oral Torah, which must never be committed to writing. In view of the later inclusion of the Old Testament in one volume with the Christian New Testament, and the average Gentile's assumption that he thus has before his eyes the whole of "the Mosaic Law", this qualification is of permanent interest.
The Talmud, as quoted by Dr. Funk, says, "God foresaw that one day a time would come when the Heathen would possess themselves of the Torah and would say to Israel, 'We, too, are sons of God'. Then will the Lord say: 'Only he who knows my secrets is my son'. And what are the secrets of God? The oral teachings".[No! would say to Judah not Israel DC]
The few people who heard Deuteronomy read in 621 BC, and then first learned what "the Mosaic Law" was to be, were told that the manuscripts had been "discovered". Today's Judaist authorities dismiss this and agree that Deuteronomy was the independent work of the Levites in isolated Judah after Judah's rejection by the Israelites and the conquest of Israel. Dr. Kastein puts the matter like this:
"In 621 BC, a manuscript hoary with the dust of ages was discovered among the archives. It contained a curious version of the laws which had been codified up to that time, a sort of repetition and variation of them, giving a host of instructions regarding man's duty to God and to his neighbour. It was couched in the form of speeches supposed to have been delivered by Moses just before his death on the farther side of Jordan. Who the author was it is impossible to say".
Thus Dr. Kastein, a zealot who awaits the literal fulfilment of "the Mosaic Law" in every detail, does not believe that its author was either Jehovah or Moses. It is enough for him that it was produced by the lawgiving priesthood, which for him is divine authority.
None can now tell how closely Deuteronomy, as we know it, resembles Deuteronomy as it was read in 621 BC, for the books of the Old Testament were repeatedly revised up to the time of the first translation, when various other modifications were made, presumably to avoid excessive perturbation among the Gentiles. No doubt something was then excised, so that Deuteronomy in its original form may have been ferocious indeed, for what remains is savage enough.
Religious intolerance is the basis of this "Second Law" (racial intolerance was to follow later, in another "New Law") and murder in the name of religion is its distinctive tenet. This necessitates the destruction of the moral Commandments, which in fact are set up to be knocked down. Only those of them which relate to the exclusive worship of the "jealous" Jehovah are left intact. The others are buried beneath a great mound of "statutes and judgments" (regulations issued under a governing Law, as it were) which in effect cancel them.
Thus the moral commandments against murder, stealing, adultery, coveting, bad neighbourliness, and the like are vitiated by a mass of "statutes" expressly enjoining the massacre of other peoples, the murder of apostates individually or in communities, the taking of concubines from among women captives, "utter destruction" that leaves "nothing alive", the exclusion of "the stranger" from debt-remission and the like.
By the time the end of Deuteronomy is reached the moral commandments have been nullified in this way, for the purpose of setting up, in the guise of a religion, the grandiose political idea of a people especially sent into the world to destroy and "possess" other peoples and to rule the earth. The idea of destruction is essential to Deuteronomy. If it be taken away no Deuteronomy, or Mosaic Law, remains.
This concept of destruction as an article of faith is unique, and where it occurs in political thought (for instance, in the Communist philosophy) may also derive originally from the teaching of Deuteronomy, for there is no other discoverable source.
Deuteronomy is above all a complete political program: the story of the planet, created by Jehovah for this "special people", is to be completed by their triumph and the ruination of all others. The rewards offered to the faithful are exclusively material: slaughter, slaves, women, booty, territory, empire. The only condition laid down for these rewards is observance of "the statutes and judgments", which primarily command the destruction of others. The only guilt defined lies is non-observance of these laws. Intolerance is specified as observance; tolerance as non-observance, and therefore as guilt. The punishments prescribed are of this world and of the flesh, not of the spirit. Moral behaviour, if ever demanded, is required only towards co-religionists and "strangers" are excluded from it.
This unique form of nationalism was first presented to the Judahites in Deuteronomy as "the Law" of Jehovah and as his literal word, spoken to Moses. The notion of world domination through destruction is introduced at the start (chapter 2) of these "speeches supposed to have been delivered" by the dying Moses:
"The Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee". In token of this, the fate of two nations is at once shown. The King of Sihon and the King of Bashan "came out against us, he and all his people", whereon they were "utterly destroyed, the men, and the women, and the little ones", only the cattle being spared and "the spoil" being taken "for a prey unto ourselves". (The insistence on utter destruction is a recurrent and significant feature of these illustrative anecdotes).
These first examples of the power of Jehovah to destroy the heathen are followed by the first of many warnings that unless "the statutes and judgments" are observed Jehovah will punish his special people by dispersing them among these heathen. The enumeration of these "statutes and judgments" follows the Commandments, the moral validity of which is at once destroyed by a promise of tribal massacre:
"Seven nations greater and mightier than thou" are to be delivered into the Judahites' hands, and: "Thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them. . . ye shall destroy their alter's . . . for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth . . . Thou shalt be blessed above all people . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed. . . And the Lord thy God will put out these nations before thee by little and little. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed. And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them. . ."
By the Twentieth Century AD the peoples of the West, as a whole, had ceased to attach any present meaning to these incitements, but the peoples directly concerned thought differently. For instance, the Arab population of Palestine fled en masse from its native land after the massacre at Deir Yasin in 1948 because this event meant for them (as its perpetrators intended it to mean) that if they stayed they would be "utterly destroyed".
They knew that the Zionist leaders, in the palavers with British and American politicians of the distant West, repeatedly had stated that "the Bible is our Mandate" (Dr. Chaim Weizmann), and they knew (if the Western peoples did not realize) that the allusion was to such passages as that commanding the "utter destruction" of the Arab peoples. They knew that the leaders of the West had supported and would continue to support the invaders and thus they had no hope of even bare survival, save by flight. This massacre of 1948 AD relates directly to the "statute and judgment" laid down in chapter 7 of the book of The Law which the Levites completed and read in 621 BC.
The incitements and allurements of Deuteronomy continue: ". . . Go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself . . . the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face; so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee. . . For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you . . . then will the Lord drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves . . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be. There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the Lord your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon . . ."
Then Moses, in this account, enumerates the "statutes and judgments" which must be "observed" if all these rewards are to be gained, and again "the Law" is to destroy:
"These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess, served their gods. . . When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land: Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them. . . and that thou inquire not after their gods."
This tenet of "the Law" requires the faithful to destroy other religions. It was impartial when enacted but gained a specific application in later centuries from the fact that the Christian faith grew up in, and the mass of Jews then moved into, the same geographical area: the West. (This made Christianity the primary object of the command to "utterly destroy the places. . .", and the dynamiting of Russian cathedrals, the opening of "anti-God museums", the canonization of Judas and other acts of early Bolshevist governments,which were to nine-tenths comprised of Eastern Jews, were evidently deeds of "observance" under this "statute" of Deuteronomy).
The ideas of the inquisition of heretics and of the informer, which the West has used in its retrogressive periods and repudiated in its enlightened ones, also find their original source (unless any can locate an earlier one) in Deuteronomy. Lest any such heretic should call in question the Law of destruction, summarized in the preceding paragraphs, Deuteronomy next provides that "if there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams . . . (he) shall be put to death"; the crucifixion of Jesus (and the deaths of numerous expostulants against literal Judaism) fall under this "statute".
The denunciation of kinsfolk who incur suspicion of heresy is required. This is the terrorist device introduced in Russia by the Bolshevists in 1917 and copied in Germany by the National Socialists in 1933. The Christian world at the time professed horror at these barbarbous innovations, but the method is plainly laid down in Deuteronomy, which requires that any who say, "Let us go and serve other gods", be denounced by their brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, wives and so on, and be stoned to death.
Characteristically, Deuteronomy prescribes that the hand of the blood kinsman or spouse shall be "first upon" the victim of denunciation at the killing, and only afterwards "the hand of all the people". This "statute of the Law" is still observed today, in a measure dictated by local conditions and other circumstances. Apostates cannot be publicly stoned to death in the environment of foreign communities, where the law of "the stranger" might hold this to be murder, so that a formal pronunciation of "death" and ceremony of mourning symbolically takes the place of the legal penalty; see Dr. John Goldstein's account both of the symbolic rite and of a recent attempt to exact the literal penalty, which during the centuries was often inflicted in closed Jewish communities where the law of "the stranger" could not reach.
The Law also demands that entire communities shall be massacred on the charge of apostasy: "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein".
In this matter of destroying cities, Deuteronomy distinguishes between near (that is, Palestinian) and far cities. When a "far off city" has been captured, "thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword, but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself. . ." This incitement in respect of captured women is a recurrent theme and Deuteronomy lays down the law that a Judahite captor who sees among captives "a beautiful woman" may take her home, but if he had "no delight in her" may turn her out again.
The case of a near city is different; the law of utter destruction (against which Saul transgressed) then rules. "But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth; But thou shalt utterly destroy them. . . as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee". (This verse 16 of chapter 20, again, explains the mass flight of the Palestinian Arabs after Deir Yasin, where nothing that breathed was saved alive. They saw that literal fulfilment of the Law of 621 BC was the order of the day in 1948 AD, and that the might of the West was behind this fulfilment of the Law of "utter destruction".)
The Second Law continues: "Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth". Further "statutes and judgments" then provide that "anything that dieth of itself", being unclean, may not be eaten, but "thou shalt give it to the stranger . . . or thou mayest sell it to the alien; for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God".
Every seven years a creditor shall remit his "neighbour's" debt, but "of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again". Chapter 10 (surprisingly in this context) says, "Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt", but chapter 23 brings the familiar cancellation: "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother . . . unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury" (and graver examples of this legal discrimination between the "neighbour" and "the "stranger" appear in later books, as will be seen).
Deuteronomy ends with the long-drawn-out, rolling, thunderous curse-or-blessing theme. Moses, about to die, once more exhorts "the people" to choose between blessings and cursings, and these are enumerated.
The blessings are exclusively material: prosperity through the increase of kith, crop and kine; the defeat of enemies; and world dominion. "The Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth . . . The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself . . . And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee. . . thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath . . ."
These blessings occupy thirteen verses; the cursings some fifty or sixty. The deity in whose name the curses are uttered clearly was held capable of doing evil (indeed, this is explicitly stated in a later book, Ezekiel, as will be shown).
Literal Judaism is ultimately based on terror and fear and the list of curses set out in chapter 28 of The Second Law shows the importance which the priesthood attached to this practice of cursing (which literal Judaists to this day hold to be effective in use). These curses, be it remembered, are the penalties for nonobservance, not for moral transgressions! "If thou will not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and statutes. . . all these curses shall come upon thee . . ."[So in this way,the folks posing as Israel now here in 2018,have no way out,way to paint yourselves into a corner DC]
The city and the dwelling, the children, crops and cattle, are to be cursed "until thou be destroyed and until thou perish utterly". Plague, wasting, inflammation, mildew, botch, emerods, scab, itch, madness, blindness, famine, cannibalism and drought are specified. Men's wives are to lie with other men; their children are to be lost into slavery; any that remain at home are to be eaten by their parents, the father and mother contesting for the flesh and denying any to the children still alive. (These curses were included in the Great Ban when it was pronounced on apostates down to relatively recent times, and in the fastnesses of Talmudic Jewry are probably in use today).
The diseases and disasters were to be visited on the people "if thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord Thy God: . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live for ever".
Such was the life and the blessing which the Judahites, gathered in the Temple in 621 BC, were exhorted in the name of Jehovah and Moses to choose by their tribal chieftain Josiah, the mouthpiece of the priesthood. The purpose and meaning of existence, under this "Mosaic Law", was the destruction and enslavement of others for the sake of plunder and power. Israel might from that moment have counted itself happy to have been pronounced dead and to have been excluded from such a world to come. The Israelites had mingled in the living bloodstream of mankind; on its banks the Judahites were left stranded in the power of a fanatical priesthood which commanded them, on pain of "all these curses", to destroy.
To the terror inspired by "all these curses" the Levites added also an allurement. If "the people" should "return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments. . .", then "all these curses" would be transferred to their "enemies" (not because these had sinned, but simply to swell the measure of the blessing conferred on the rehabilitated Judahites!)
In this tenet Deuteronomy most clearly revealed the status allotted to the heathen by The Second Law. In the last analysis, "the heathen" have no legal existence under this Law; how could they have, when Jehovah only "knows" his "holy people"? Insofar as their actual existence is admitted, it is only for such purposes as those stated in verse 65, chapter 28 and verse 7, chapter 30: namely, to receive the Judahites when they are dispersed for their transgressions and then, when their guests repent and are forgiven, to inherit curses lifted from the regenerate Judahites. True, the second verse quoted gives the pretext that "all these curses" will be transferred to the heathen because they "hated" and "persecuted" the judahites, but how could they be held culpable of this when the very presence of the Judahites among them was merely the result of punitive "curses" inflicted by Jehovah? For Jehovah himself, according to another verse (64, chapter 28) took credit for putting the curse of exile on the Judahites:
"And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other . . . and among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest…"[Yep that Be Their God DC]
Deuteronomy employs this Doublespeak (to use the modem idiom) throughout: the Lord makes the special people homeless among the heathen for their transgressions; the heathen, who have no blame either for their exile or for those transgressions, are their "persecutors "; ergo, the heathen will be destroyed.
The Judaist attitude towards other mankind, creation, and the universe in general, is better understood when these and related passages have been pondered, and especially the constant plaint that Jews are "persecuted" everywhere, which in one tone or another runs through nearly all Jewish literature. To any who accept this book as The Law, the mere existence of others is in fact persecution; Deuteronomy plainly implies that.
The most nationalist Jew and the most enlightened Jew often agree in one thing: they cannot truly consider the world and its affairs from any but a Jewish angle, and from that angle "the stranger" seems insignificant. Thinking makes it so, and this is the legacy of twenty-five centuries of Jewish thinking; even those Jews who see the heresy or fallacy cannot always divest themselves entirely of the incubus on their minds and spirits.
The passage from Deuteronomy last quoted shows that the ruling sect depicted homelessness at one and the same time as the act of the special people's god and as persecution by the special people's enemies, deserving of "all these curses". To minds of such extreme egotism a political outrage in which 95 Gentiles and 5 Jews lose their lives or property is simply an anti-Jewish disaster, and they are not consciously hypocritical in this. In the Twentieth Century this standard of judgment has been projected into the lives of other peoples and applied to all major events in the ordeal of the West. Thus we live in the century of the Levitical fallacy. [The aftermath of WW2 being the biggest example of this nonsense DC]
Having undertaken to put "all these curses" on innocent parties, if the Judahites would return to observance of "all these statutes and judgments", the resurrected Moses of Deuteronomy promised one more blessing ("The Lord thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them. . . ") and then was allowed to die in the land of Moab.
In "the Mosaic Law" the destructive idea took shape, which was to threaten Christian civilization and the West, both then undreamed of. During the Christian era a council of theologians made the decision that the Old Testament and the New should be bound in one book, without any differentiation, as if they were stem and blossom, instead of immovable object and irresistible force. The encyclopaedia before me as I write states laconically that the Christian churches accept the Old Testament as being of "equal divine authority" with the New.
This unqualified acceptance covers the entire content of the Old Testament and may be the original source of much confusion in the Christian churches and much distraction among the masses that seek Christianity, for the dogma requires belief in opposite things at the same time. How can the same God, by commandment to Moses, have enjoined men to love their neighbours and "utterly to destroy" their neighbours? What relationship can there be between the universal, loving God of the Christian revelation and the cursing deity of Deuteronomy?
But if in fact all the Old Testament, including these and other commands, is of "equal divine authority" with the New, then the latter day Westerner is entitled to invoke it in justification of those deeds by which Christendom most denied itself: the British settlers' importation of African slaves to America, the American and Canadian settlers' treatment of the North American Indian, and the Afrikaners' harsh rule over the South African Bantu. He may justly put the responsibility for all these things directly on his Christian priest or bishop, if that man teaches that the Old Testament, with its repeated injunction to slay, enslave, and despoil is of "equal divine authority". No Christian divine can hold himself blameless if he so teaches. The theological decision which set up this dogma cast over Christendom and the centuries to come the shadow of Deuteronomy, just as it fell on the Judahites themselves when it was read to them in 621 BC.
Only one other piece of writing has had any comparable effect on the minds of men and on future generations; if any simplification is permissible, the most tempting one is to see the whole story of the West, and particularly of this decisive Twentieth Century, as a struggle between the Mosaic Law and the New Testament and between the two bodies of mankind which rank themselves behind one or other of those two messages of hatred and love respectively.
In Deuteronomy Judaism was born, yet this would have been a stillbirth, and Deuteronomy might never again have been heard of, if that question had rested only with the Levites and their captive Judahites. They were not numerous, and a nation a hundred times as many could never have hoped to enforce this barbarous creed on the world by force of its own muscle. There was only one way in which "the Mosaic Law" could gain life and potency and become a disturbing influence in the life of other peoples during the centuries to follow. This was if some powerful "stranger" (among all those strangers yet to be accursed), some mighty king of those "heathen" yet to be destroyed, should support it with arms and treasure.
Precisely that was about to happen when Josiah read The Second Law to the people in 621 BC, and it was to repeat itself continually down the centuries to our day: the gigantic improbability of the thing confronts the equally large, demonstrable fact that it is so! The rulers of those "other nations" which were to be dispossessed and destroyed repeatedly espoused the destructive creed, did the bidding of the dominant sect, and at the expense of their own peoples helped to further its strange ambition.[If folks cannot see where this is going,do not expect help from those you threw under the bus and called evil,to protect yourself against this tyrant.YOU are the ones who enabled him! DC]
Some twenty years after the reading of Deuteronomy in Jerusalem, Judah was conquered by the Babylonian king, in about 596 BC. At the time, this looked like the end of the affair, which was a petty one in itself, among the great events of that period. Judah never again existed as an independent state, and but for the Levites, their Second Law and the foreign helper the Judahites, like the Israelites, would have become involved in mankind.
Instead, the Babylonian victory was the start of the affair, or of its great consequences for the world. The Law, instead of dying, grew stronger in Babylon, where for the first time a foreign king gave it his protection. The permanent state-within-states, nation-within-nations was projected, a first time, into the life of peoples; initial experience in usurping power over them was gained. Much tribulation for other peoples was brewed then.
As for the Judahites, or the Judaists and Jews who sprang from them, they seem to have acquired the unhappiest future of all. Anyway, it was not a happy man (though it was a Jewish writer of our day, 2,500 years later, Mr. Maurice Samuel) who wrote: ". . . we Jews, the destroyers, will remain the destroyer forever. . . nothing that the Gentiles will do will meet our needs and demands".
At first sight this seems mocking, venomous, shameless. The diligent student of the controversy of Zionism discovers that it is more in the nature of a cry of hopelessness, such as the "Mosaic Law" must wring from any man who feels he cannot escape its remorseless doctrine of destruction.
next
THE FORGING OF THE CHAINS
No comments:
Post a Comment