Bill White: The Grinch Who Stole Tolerance Interfaith Relations Hit A Low For The Holidays

"In rabbinic law human life does not simply begin at birth," Rabbi Robert Loewy testified before the Louisiana State Legislature June 7, 1990, according to JJ Goldberg's book Jewish Power, "Development continues even after birth ... an infant that dies before the eighth day does not even receive a Jewish funeral." "There is a moral and ethical basis for a woman to undergo an abortion. Do not impose the views of some on us all." The state legislators were shocked. "We [just] heard from a crazy religion that doesn't think babies are people after their born," Representative Louis Jenkins told the press. A few days later, when the Rabbi pulled the same nonsense at the State Senate, Senator Mike Cross asked rhetorically: "Does the Jewish religion also condone drugs and prostitution?", not realizing that, in some cases, it actually does, before kicking the Rabbi out on his coat-tails.

"Several community officials wanted to respond vigorously to the tone of the Rabbi's inquisitors," Goldberg tells us, "But the majority 'decided not to play it up as an issue of anti-Semitism.'" It was a bit shocking. If an Arab newspaper had implied that the Jewish faith doesn't recognize the personhood of children until eight days after birth, they would have pounced on it as a "blood libel". When a rabbi made the same point, the only issue was whether the refusal to show "tolerance" for the Jewish conception of the non-personhood of seven day old babies was a manifestation of "anti-Semitism. It was fortunate that Jewish groups "decided to play the issue down": "It was a highly unusual presentation," Goldberg says, "An object lesson in the wisdom of the usual approach." But lately some more highly unusual things have been happening. Pairing up with the hubris of Jewish butchery in Palestine has come the hubris of American Jewish leaders who have been vigorously picking fights with both ordinary volk and the leaders of other faiths. It can't be called a clever strategy, as it has done little but produce anti-Semitism and erode support for Israel within the Christian community. Witness the recent confrontations in Kensington, Maryland.

No Santa, No Peace "If Jews Can Ban Santa, Why Can't We Ban Jews?" the banner read. Yes, it was your humble Pravda correspondent, with a few friends, who had carried it there. But the sentiment was not confined to our little clique, all lifelong residents of Montgomery County. According to one letter published in the Montgomery Gazette: "The Jewish people have been persecuted and kicked out of one country after another. In America, they found welcome and safety. ... Their response in recent decades has been to suppress or attempt to suppress religious observance by the more than 90 percent [98 percent, to be exact] of the American public that is not Jewish. ... [Jews should] wonder how things look from the other side: From the viewpoint of those who have given Jewish religion and culture every welcome only to have a tiny Jewish minority work assiduously to force our beliefs and rites underground." That was only one of hundreds of letters the Gazette received. Many were too hostile to Judaism for a paper owned by the Jewish owned Washington Post company to publish. But how has these hostilities started? Was it the imperialist goy forcing Christmas down the throats of starving Jewish children? No - it was an incident that had been provoked totally by the town's Jewish population. The act to suppress Santa has been initiated by local racist Jewish families, and a counter-proposal by non-Jewish families to include a Menorah in the display had been rejected by the fanatically nihilistic, mostly Jewish Town Council. It wasn't equality with others that Kensington's Jews were demanding, or toleration for their religious difference - it was the prohibition by law of expressions of non-Jewish faith. The plan backfired.

Matt Drudge, himself of Jewish ethnicity, brought the case to the world's attention with a notice on his Drudge Report website. The word spread quickly, and soon a Million Santa March was being organized. The Zionist-press turned on the spin cycle and began to recast the ban. It wasn't Jews banning Santa, Americans were told, it was "secular liberals". The fact that secular liberalism is an ideology that derives from the pseudo-academic work of the disciples of several overtly racist Jewish thinkers - Marx in economics, Freud in psychology, Boas in anthropology, and theFrankfurt school of Sociology - was ignored by an American populace largely ignorant of history. When one Washington Times editor was asked why his paper had decided not to even mention the fact that the ban had been prompted solely by members of the Jewish community, he responded with a philosophical debate on the nature of Jews in America:

"Did some Jews contribute to American decline? Sure. But the Jewish contributors were no more to blame than the Catholics and WASPs who contributed. And if, as you may believe, the Catholics and WASPs were duped into this by nefarious Jews -- well, it's like the sucker who loses his money playing three-card monty. Stupidity is not a virtue." Never mind that Goldwin Smith in his 1894 book Essays on Questions Of The Day, demolished this argument, made 100 years ago about the Russians, by stating: "Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all . places of power to the exclusion of the natives ... Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers ... The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew, the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. ..." And the thinking of our comrade at the Times seemed to match the thinking of the militantly mediocre members of the "conservative" movement which appeared at the event. They declared that it axiomatically "couldn't" be Judaism motivating the ban - after all, all their televisions and newspapers had said so - and therefore it must be "something else" - an ideology, like liberalism. On popular message board websites, such as where some of the protesters organized, a campaign of disinformation was initiated - posters would insist that "there was no proof" that the families involved were Jewish - and those who produced the public record of the minutes of the October 29 meeting, or other records relevant to the facts, were censored from the website - their messages removed and their accounts disabled. Despite the efforts to cover up and censor what had occurred, and the use that Jewish community leaders made of a motorcycle gang who attempted to assault your banner waving comrade, your humble correspondent received hundreds of letters of support from those who attended the demonstration. Letters like:



"Just saw the morons at Free Republic talking about you and your sign. I never knew you were 'hateful', Bill! rofl. Well, we can't have mean men with hateful signs roaming the streets and wrecking our pastures. They're probably right. If you find another planet with a reasonable temperature and oxygen level, don't keep it a secret."


"Rumor has it you and your buddy were bearing signs in Kensington....great job.....wish poe-boy [Richard Poe, of] was there..." And they went on forever. A dozen were sent over at random to various local papers. As of today, none had been printed. But as a good friend in the government who has helped me bring hate crimes charges against the aforementioned motorcyclists said,

"Mr White it looks like you've created an international incident."

Well, maybe that not much - but the Jewish residents of Kensington certainly didn't do anything to improve interfaith relations.

And the Santa battle has only been the latest episode of conflict between America's organized Jewish community and the rest of the population. Three churches - the Episcopal, the Catholic, and the Lutheran, have been targeted for attack by Jewish groups in just the past year, after refusing to bow to Jewish demands to change elements of their doctrine or to change their church's stance on various political issues. Jews For Genocide "How unusual," wrote Sharon Salinger of Newton, Massachusetts in the November 3 edition of the Boston Globe, " Christian clergy [are] indifferent to the murder of Jews and to systematic efforts to wipe our a Jewish population. It was the silence and cooperation of the Christian church and Christian governments in the face of a 6-million-person genocide and the unwillingness of any nation in the world to accept refugees from Hitler's gas chambers that convinced Jews of the need to establish a homeland where it would not be acceptable to attack Jews and blame them for defending themselves." Her view of history, of course, was a repeat of the Big Lie that America's organized Jewish community has been pushing abut the role of Christianity in the deaths of Jewish civilians in World War II for years. But what made this particular harpy shriek? It was a growing confrontation in the City of Boston between the Episcopal Church - the American Anglicans - and the official Jewish community, after three of the city's bishops had joined a demonstration in protest against acts of genocide committed by Jews in Occupied Palestine. "I am shocked that the Episcopal bishops would be there and make a statement in such a one-sided way," Barry Shrage, president of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston told the Globe. Itzhal Levanon, the Israeli consul general for Boston was similarly "shocked" that Christians would take the part of the victim in a dispute, and not immediately side the victimizer. In his words, it was "inappropriate." Rabbi Barry Starr, president of the Massachusetts Board of Rabbis, told reporters that: "I am here to say that the Jewish community is in pain that statements were made, actions were taken that we believe represent a lack of moral fairness and rightness, statements which would argue to all of us that people are not thinking clearly about the Middle East." Didn't these bishops know that under rabbinical law the entire population of Palestine wasn't worth a Jewish fingernail? "The Jewish community [was] in pain" that these uppity churchmen were refusing to recognize their racial superiority and the inherent worthlessness of Palestinian lives. What would come next? Soon the Episcopalians would be speaking out against slavery! And what were these terrible statements that had caused such pain? What exactly had these bishops said. Witness the hateful tirade, "indifferent to the murder of the Jews" given by Reverend Nancy Taylor, who told the Globe that: "There is broken heartedness for everyone who gets killed in the Middle East. We have to cry as many tears over Jewish deaths as Palestinian." Such statements could only but Boston on alert - it looked like the Bishops were planning a new Holocaust. Another "hater", Bishop Margaret Payne, showed her "silence and cooperation" with "genocide" by saying the following: "We certainly have sympathy with the Israeli victims of the suicide bombers who seem adamantly oppose to seeking peace. But recently there's been so much additional destruction of Palestinian homes and property . Palestinian children are being shot every day, and the story of all the oppression that the Palestinians are under doesn't get told." Intolerable in a tolerant society like ours. Where was the post 9-11 unity? Didn't they feel a moral obligation to go to war for Israel? As Ms Salinger put it: "Evidentally some Christians protest the right of Israeli Jews to protect themselves" - against Palestinian babies and children playing in school yards near alleged Palestinian government buildings. Jewish leaders in Boston were furious. Interfaith councils to combat "prejudice" were called to, as one Catholic leader, Cardinal Bernard Law put it, "bring together Jewish leaders and Christians leaders for a dialogue."

But heedless of the call, the tensions have not simmered down, and the sniping has continued back and forth in local papers. If the Episcopalians were alone, the Jews may have been able to surround them - to rally other groups to the Jewish cause and force the Church to capitulate, but it wasn't only the Episcopalians America's "official" Jews were battling - they had opened a number of fronts in their interdenominational warfare. The Learned Researchers Of Zion

"From the beginning of the work, some . members of the Jewish component of the group publicly spread the suspicion that the Holy See was trying to conceal documents . These persons then repeatedly leaked distorted and tendentious news, communicating it to the international press. . [It was] a slanderous campaign."

Jesuit Father Gumpel, 7/26/2001

In July of this year the Jews were expelled again. This time not from Spain or Portugal or Britain or Germany or Egypt or any of the numerous other nations that have asked them to skedaddle in the past five millennia, but from the Vatican library. The Catholics had created an interfaith committee to allow Jewish scholars the opportunity to review Vatican records, in what the Catholics saw as an opportunity to improve inter-faith relations. America's organized Jews saw it differently though - as an opportunity for them to slander the Vatican and extort big bucks out of the pockets of the Pope. The demanded access to records about Pope Pius XII, who has served during World War II, and the Vatican considered their request until they saw the publication of John Cornwell's book "Hitler's Pope", a largely false account that claims that Pius secretly supported the reign of Adolf Hitler (he didn't.) The Vatican sealed all archived documents dated after 1923, and when the Jewish scholars complained, they were deported back to America. The ADL complained, stating in a press release that "Remarks by a Vatican official 'unfounded,' saying his attack on Jewish scholars working as part of a joint commission studying the Vatican archives, 'could do further harm to the joint efforts of Catholic and Jewish historians.'" But Gumpel had probably had a valid point. Only a year ago America's "official" Jewish community had extorted undeserved insurance claims out of the Swiss banking industry. Despite receiving billions, as a 2001 London Times article,,3-2001354387,00.html) put it: "Most dormant Swiss bank accounts thought to have belonged to Holocaust survivors were opened by wealthy, non-Jewish people who then forgot about their money." In the words of Father Peter Gumpel, a Jesuit Catholic Priest, the Jewish scholars had engaged in"clearly incorrect behavior."

America's Jews claimed they had just been seeking knowledge, but they were undermined in their own press, when the Jerusalem Post reported:

"Several of the Jewish scholars had 'publicly spread the suspicion' that the Vatican is hiding documents 'that in their judgment could be compromising'." It was to have been the next pity party - the horrible mistreatment of the Jews by the Vatican. It short circuited and failed - and left one more religious body with its back turned to them. Less than a month later, the aforementioned Cardinal Bernard Law would announce: "The indiscriminate violence in the streets of Bethlehem, including Manger Square, in a disturbing war appears to be further evidence of the Israeli government's apparent indifference to the concerns of the Christian community." It was the first shot in what would become a broadside, and another area of growing tensions as Christian religious leaders began to challenge Jewish political goals. And the conflict did end with the Catholics, either. The One Theses

"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said a resolution calling on the U.S. government to withhold military aid to Israel, passed by a governing body of the Lutheran Church, was 'deplorable,' 'one-sided' and 'counterproductive.'"

Actually, what they meant to say is that it was wrong-sided. One-sided on the Jewish side would not have been a problem. But the Lutherans have never been better than lukewarm on the subject of Israel. This isn't surprising, given that their spiritual father, Martin Luther, is famous for having written a book The Jews And Their Lies. On March 28, 2001, representatives of the Lutheran Church has testified before Congress that:

"The mode and level of U.S. economic assistance to Israel should be restructured and . made accountable consistent with the rules and procedures that are applied to every other recipient of U.S. aid. . We have urged President Bush to reconsider the Clinton Administration's promise to provide for the next eight years an annual increase, equal to one-half of their economic aid reduction, in military assistance grants to Israel. . The use by Israel of U.S. supplied attack helicopters and ammunition against Palestinian civilians during the most recent conflict as well as against the civilian electrical grid in Lebanon has been strongly criticized by our churches. We call for the suspension of the sale to Israel of Apache and Blackhawk helicopters that was announced in October 2000. Economic aid to the Palestinians should continue and be increased."

It wasn't a program that would make Mort Zuckerman convert. And in August the Lutherans came down from the mountain and smashed the golden idol, passing a resolution demanding that the US end all aid to Israel.

The horror was almost worse than the Holocaust.

As the ADL put it:

"Religious leaders have a responsibility to be constructive and fair toward the tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Relief and full human rights for all in the region will come only when Palestinian society renounces violence, takes effective steps to end its terrorism against Israelis and recognizes the right of Israel to exist." Of course, it has always been entirely the Palestinian's fault. Bulldozing houses and shooting children doesn't make people angry. Neither does stealing and occupying their land. And those poor Lutherans weren't being "constructive" enough in their "solutions" to the Palestinian "peace process" - maybe they could've spent their church meeting building a better bulldozer - after all, it would've been "constructive" instead of the horrible "destructive" demand that the US stop funding genocide. Interfaith relations did not improve.

Conclusions Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Melchior made a public statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency December 4, 2001, telling: "Since September 2000, we have experienced the greatest wave of anti-Semitism since the Second World War," and that the current wave of anti-Semitism "is taking on religious overtones, as opposed to national overtones." As we've seen above, Minister Melchior's views are correct - there has been a rise in religious based anti-Semitic feeling: Nationalist skinheads have launched pogroms in Russia, the National Democratic Party has marched in Berlin, the British Nationalist Party is winning a consistent 20% of the vote in elections, and even the American National Alliance has seen recent explosive growth (see "Nazi Group Sees Explosive Growth In Wake Of September 11 Attacks", But what Melchior failed to address is why this anti-Semitism is occurring. As we have seen, in almost all cases it has been provoked by the hostile and hysterical reactions of the organized Jewish community to anyone who questions their community's dictates. Pushiness and the thinly veiled desire to hurt others has caused other religious groups to reject Jewish overtures - realizing that up the sleeve of every interfaith dialogue the organized Jewish community is concealing a dagger. How are people supposed to react to a religion so pushy that it would ban Santa Claus for no reason other than to spit in the eyes of those who are not practitioners of their faith? How can one react to a religion that is invited into a private library as a guest, and then exploits the invitation to attack its host? How can one react to a religion that so demands that its politics be heard that when members of another faith merely express political disagreement it accuses them of supporting genocide? It is the hatred of non-Jews that the leaders of the Jewish community seem unable to contain that is bringing anti-Semitism upon them - and frankly, if thinking that the butchery of children by Israeli gunmen is wrong, and believing that Santa Claus has a rightful place in society is to be condemned, than the Jews deserve anti-Semitism, and there is nothing wrong with other people reacting negatively to a faith that has transformed itself from a "light unto nations" into a nihilistic black hole of all consuming darkness. Most Americans could care less about the religious doctrine of Judaism and its difference with Christianity, just as most Americans couldn't tell you the difference between a Lutheran and an Episcopalian. If it were only a question of religious dogma, there would be no question at all. But most Americans do know that they love Santa Claus, and they know that they love their Church, and that shooting children for sport because you don't consider them human is wrong and most Americans also know, after year after year of seeing the same fake hysteria and phony crocodile tears, that the people who call themselves Jews the loudest and who work hardest to make their Judaism known are running a con-game of immense proportions, and are doing nothing but bringing evil to this country. Either the Jewish community needs to depose its leaders and make it known that it is no longer interested in living as a paranoid and isolated minority at war with its own countrymen, or the likely result of these policies will be a backlash that doesn't discriminate between the "official" Jewish leadership and the bulk of Jewish people, who are about as invested in the Jewish leadership as the bulk of the white population has in George Bush.

Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Editorial Team