Thursday, 13 July 2006

To christian is not a verb

To roman catholic and to protestant are not verbs.

To muslim is not a verb. To sunni and to shi'ite aren't verbs either. To hindu, to buddhist, to sikh, to shinto and to pagan, none of these are verbs. To arab, to asian, to negro, to eskimo, to aborigine, to oriental, to occidental and to caucasian are not verbs either.

To hispanic and to yankee are not verbs, neither is to nazi or to nationalist.

To jew is a verb, however.

When I was a boy, being raised in a Nottinghamshire mining and farming community, to jew someone meant to cheat them, to swindle them. Without ever realising how or why the word had come to mean what it meant, I used it to mean to cheat and to swindle a great deal more often than I used the verbs cheat or swindle.

This verb still exists, but in most modern dictionaries its meaning has been softened and sanitised according to the wishes of the politically correct and those the verb originally vilified. Nowadays, if I use this verb in its original sense I might well be arrested.

If all your ancestors were to be resurrected tomorrow and were to behave with the natural straightforwardness and lack of guile that they possessed until a few short decades ago, they would, probably, use this verb once in a while. If they did they might well be arrested too.

Most of us, when we think of our forefathers and mothers, we think of them as better than us, finer, more decent, more moral and less decadent than we are. We are right to think this. They were. They would be arrested, nonetheless.

If I said that the fat cats, the international financiers, the media, the judiciary, the New World Order, the Globalists, the Multinational Corporation owners and the slithery-up-the-greasy pole politicians had fascisted or rednecked me, you would not know what I meant. However, if I said that they had jewed me, you would know precisely what I meant. You might just say that, along the way, they had jewed you too.

If you ever dare to say such a thing, make sure Big Brother isn't listening in.

Apart from the hard, cold and ever-so practical experience of the peasant classes in their dealings with Jewish folk over the millennia, what else might have led the non-Jew to ascribe such sentiments as those signalled by the verb 'to jew,' to the Jewish person?

In The Talmud, the massive collection of Jewish lore and law passed down by the rabbis and the sages from time immemorial, Nedarim, 23a-23b states:

"And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, every vow which I make in the future shall be null."
Do you understand what is being said here? This verse allows any Jew who wishes to break his vow, to break his word to those he has given it, to so do. As long as he 'stands at the beginning of the year' and declares his intent to do so.

The Kol Nidre prayer, the first prayer said in the synagogue on Yom Kippur, is based on this principle. More Jews attend synagogue when this prayer is being said than at any other time. What follows is the pertinent section of the Kol Nidre Prayer:

"All vows, obligations, oaths… which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next, we do repent.

May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."
Thus, the orthodox Jew believes he had been given permission by God to lie, cheat, swindle and to break his oath, his bond and his word to whomsoever he wishes. Particularly if the subject of his deceitfulness is a non-Jew.

This is what The Jewish Encyclopaedia has to say about it:

"The Kol Nidre Prayer… Prayer recited in the synagogue at the beginning of the evening service on the Day of Atonement… it has often been employed by Christians to support their assertion that THE OATH OF A JEW CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

The tendency to make vows was so strong in ancient Israel that the Pentateuchal code found it necessary to protest against the excessive estimate of the religious value of such obligations.

Rash and frequent vows inevitably involved in difficulties many who had made them, and thus evoked an earnest desire for dispensation from such responsibilities. This gave rise to the rite of absolution from a vow…

The Kol Nidre has been one of the means widely used by Jewish apostates and by enemies of the Jews to cast suspicion on the trustworthiness of an oath taken by a Jew…

Many legislators considered it necessary to have a special form of oath administered to Jews, and many judges refused to allow them to take a supplementary oath, basing their objections chiefly on this prayer…

As early as 1240 Jehiel of Paris was obliged to defend the Kol Nidre against these charges.


Judah ben Barzillai, a Spanish author of the twelfth century, in his halakic work Sefer ha-'Ittim, declares that the custom of reciting the Kol Nidre was unjustifiable and misleading, since MANY IGNORANT PERSONS BELIEVE THAT ALL THEIR VOWS AND OATHS ARE ANNULLED THROUGH THIS FORMULA, and consequently they take such obligations on themselves carelessly.

Yielding to the numerous accusations and complaints brought against the Kol Nidre in the course of centuries, the rabbinical conference held at Brunswick in 1844 decided unanimously that the formula was not essential, and that the members of the convention should exert their influence toward securing its speedy abolition…

The decision of the conference was accepted by many congregations of western Europe and in all the American Reform congregations…

To this day, ladies and gentlemen, some Jews are one hundred percent content to take the words of the Kol Nidre prayer at face value and are happy to apply them literally in their dealings with the rest of us.

And, no matter how much the Jewish authorities would sneer at me and call for my head for having told you this, they all know that a great many 'orthodox' Jews and one or two supposed non-believers think that they have a dispensation given directly from God to break any vow or contract that they may enter into with a non-Jew, if it suits them to do so.

George Bush never told you this, did he? Neither did his father. Nor did Ronnie Reagan, Jimmy Carter, JFK or the Roosevelts. Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Paul Wolfowitz and the Rothschilds definitely didn't bother to mention it and not one Chief Rabbi ever thought it right and proper that the majority of those, amongst whom their brethren live, should know about it either.

Nor did their counterparts on this side of the water.

As for your Jewish sweethearts, lovers, friendly acquaitances, soul mates, work mates, 'best friends,' and those you married decades ago, did they ever bother to tell you what the Kol Nidre prayer was all about after they came back from the synagogue? They didn't, did they?

So, when the politicians, the press and the bought-and-paid-for PC activists are getting stuck into yours truly, do remember where you heard this first.

One last thing, in his 1990 expose, By Way of Deception, Victor Ostrovsky informed us that, when he was being inducted into the Mossad, the Israeli Security Service, the head of the organisation said this to the new recruits:

"Our motto is: by way of deception, thou shalt do war."
To Christian is not a verb.

To Jew is.

No comments:

Post a comment