• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Removing The Sheen From Judaism
#1
Hindus have a soft spot for jews, since there is the commonality of enemies

However, keep in mind that Judaism is the root of our problems
with Abraham and his jealous god

I am worried that there are too many jew hindu marriages going on in silicon valley

Just google up Hinjew

Also, consider Swami Dayanand's Hindu-Jew summit

While it is well and good, there is no need to grovel
He said Hinduism in only monotheistic
That is grovelling
Some forms of hinduism is monotheistic and some is polytheistic



  Reply
#2
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 23 2009, 10:00 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 23 2009, 10:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindus have a soft spot for jews, since there is the commonality of enemies

However, keep in mind that Judaism is the root of our problems
with Abraham and his jealous god

I am worried that there are too many jew hindu marriages going on in silicon valley

Just google up Hinjew

Also, consider Swami Dayanand's Hindu-Jew summit

While it is well and good, there is no need to grovel
He said Hinduism in only monotheistic
That is grovelling
Some forms of hinduism is monotheistic and some is polytheistic
[right][snapback]94853[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1. But G Sub, until Jews take their "Abraham and jealous God" and push it onto us, I don't see that they pose a threat to us. Nor we to them. Whatever they personally believe, unless they make it a public imposition - and particularly <i>onto people of other traditions</i> - how can it affect us?

2. One can be against Hindu-Jewish marriages on the ground that neither permits marrying outside the religion. But that is no reason to be against Judaism.

3. And when our side stops grovelling (that is, no compromises on who we are, to correspond with how we already have no requirement on them to compromise), then we can surely form some kind of unified front against terrorist ideologies - at least on the basis that neither of us (Hindus and Jews) want to be terrorised by christoislamism.

4. But it's not a "soft spot". People who don't terrorise us/the world are not our enemies. Live and let live. Make a case where they are a significant danger. Sandhya Jain's recent writings posted by Bodhi seems to indicate some kind of shady activity in Bharatam organised by US Jewish organisations for political purposes. Does this necessary reflect on Judaism itself and Israeli Jews as well? Or just American Jewish political lobbyists?


But I didn't mean to otherwise interrupt this thread. Keep going, I want to read what you and others have to write (in case there are many things on this matter that I am clueless about and that that is why this thread was started in the first place).
  Reply
#3
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Feb 23 2009, 10:00 AM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Feb 23 2009, 10:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am worried that there are too many jew hindu marriages going on in silicon valley

Just google up Hinjew[right][snapback]94853[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Though I don't know about the American case, one can see the attraction. There were Israeli exchange students and they were very kind - and sincere in their kindness - very bright and knowledgeable and, most importantly, very principled. Highly principled. I also liked looking at them.
The ones I knew were Jewish but not of the very strictly religious kind, and I appreciated their openness in accepting others as friends without any expectation. That's why I don't think the Hindu-Jewish summit need be the way to go at all. There are other Jews who would be quite willing to co-exist with Hindus in this world without either of us having to change or to tresspass in each other's space (religious).

But I can't see the advantage of Hindus and Jews intermarrying because <i>they</i>'d be stuck with spouses offending their God, and it's impossible for us as well (Hindus have strict rules about marrying). Both are endogamous traditions and both place (religious) expectations on marriage, as also happens among the Natural Traditionalists in E Asia: Taoists, Shintos and Mahayana Buddhists can't just marry anyone.

But friendship between Hindus and Jews - from experience - oh yes, assuredly.

In India, isn't it the case that Jews only marry among themselves and so are their own subcommunity, and that they fit in well because they also do not have any intention or practice of intermarrying with others?

I think in America there is just too much melting-potism that affects all the migrants. America seems to dilute identity and confuse people about who they are or make them altogether forgetful.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindus have a soft spot for jews, since there is the commonality of enemies<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My "soft spot" for Jews is due to the fact that the Israeli Jews I knew were good people, good company, worth befriending. Am glad to have known them. Interesting how the first friends they make are Hindus and Serbs (and then E Asian Buddhists sometimes - there's a slight language factor here) and the unreligious among the locals. Good taste.
  Reply
#4
Certainly make tactical alliances with jews,
but there is no need to grovel by trying to fit hinduism into the abrahamist frame work
  Reply
#5
A better question was if are some groups or sects of jews that want to convert all the world to judaism.

The anti-sionist propaganda claim just that and they show pasages of Bible(were profets talk about a future judaic world) ,Talmud(containing anti-goim verses) or the so call protocols of sion ,acusing jewish bankers that want to take up the world.

In reality there are all kind of jews,liberal jews,atheist jews,comunist jews,religios jews and many many other ...surely among the nations whit the most diverse belives on earth.
And Israel doesnt mean only classical judaism.An aliance whit jews in this conditions is a win-win situation.
  Reply
#6
Recently, we were talking about misrepresentations of Sanathana Dharma in school textbooks.

Here's a [url="http://www.owasso.k12.ok.us/webpages/gyankey/files/Earth%20and%20Its%20Peoples%20Ch%2003.pdf"]link[/url] to the history textbook that my high school used (in particular, the chapter on the ancient Middle East). The section on Judaism begins on page 74, and it reproduces the Biblical account word-for-word. The biases of the authors are all too clear.
  Reply
#7
Let's not forget about Wendy Doniger's background.

She is at the forefront of the campaign to vilify Hindu Dharma in academia.
  Reply
#8
Jews may not have been openly antagonists to Hinduism, but they live in such a Jew centric world, they know nothing about Hindus and Hinduism. How else can you explain their hostility to Hindu swastika? Indian jews are far more liberal. Or rather were. But they never had an affinity with India. But Israeli students in India? Sure, they are good friends. But invite them to your only after you have hidden all swastikas. If you send them a wedding card, make sure not a single swastika is printed on that. Otherwise they would be offended.
  Reply
#9
Jewish Attitudes Toward Eastern Religions



Most traditional authorities dismissed Hinduism as idolatry, but in recent years, some Jews have become more tolerant of certain Eastern religions and practices.





By Rachael Gelfman Schultz

Email this page

Print this page



















In the last several decades, countless Westerners have turned to Eastern religions for inspiration and spirituality. Jews have been no different. Many American Jews flocked to Eastern religions as part of the hippy counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s, and today, India and Thailand are havens for Israelis seeking to explore other cultures and religions.



How can the Jewish tradition respond to this trend? What are some approaches within the Jewish tradition to the practice of Eastern religions?



This article focuses primarily on Hinduism and Buddhism, as these are the religions most often discussed in Jewish sources. Numerous pre-modern Jewish authorities addressed Hinduism (probably because pre-modern Jews encountered Hinduism through their trade with India), and, more recently, Buddhism has become increasingly popular with some American Jews.



Hinduism is Idolatry



The medieval sources that discuss Hinduism consider it idolatrous, implying that all the traditional laws that govern Jewish interactions with idolaters apply to Hindus. For example, a Jew cannot derive benefit from Hindu objects of worship or do business with a Hindu on Hindu festive days.



In the Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides (1135-1204) argued that Hinduism is one of the only religions that has not joined Abraham's monotheistic mission. According to Maimonides, the Hindus are a remnant of the Sabians, an idolatrous religious community that used to extend across the whole earth. A Jewish scholar from the 13th century, Jacob ben Sheshet, also identified Hinduism with idolatry, and he attacked those Jews who learned wisdom from the Indians, because he believed it would lead to idolatry.



Later responsa also discuss Hinduism within the context of idolatry. Ezekiel Landau, a Rabbi in Prague in the 18th century, ruled that a cohen (priest) who married a Hindu woman according to Hindu rites--including entering a Hindu temple and bowing down there--then later divorced her and did penance, may still recite the priestly blessings.



In his ruling, Landau relied on the minority opinion among medieval Jewish legal authorities that a priest who has practiced idolatry can still recite the priestly blessings. However, Landau pointed out that, even according to the majority opinion that a cohen who practiced idolatry cannot recite the priestly blessings, this man should be able to perform these duties, because he did not genuinely believe in the Hindu gods; he just went through the motions to please his wife.



Rabbi Yehudah Moshe Ftayah, a 20th-century mystic, in his Minhat Yehudah, also classified Hinduism as idolatry. Ftayah observed that some Jews were turning to Hinduism for mystical insights, and he attacked this trend. He explained that these Jews turned to Hinduism after the rabbis refused to teach them Jewish mysticism, which many rabbis only teach to committed, knowledgeable Jews. Ftayah, therefore, urged these Jews to repent so that they could learn Jewish mysticism instead.



Tolerance for Eastern Religions



Despite these rulings, from the beginning of the modern era, some Jewish scholars began to see Eastern religions in a more positive light. In Jerusalem, Moses Mendelssohn, an Enlightenment Jewish thinker, argued that we should not be so quick to judge other religions--particularly Hinduism--as idolatry. First one must know that religion well and investigate how its own practitioners see it.



Martin Buber, a 20th-century thinker, went a step further than Mendelssohn. He made no mention of the idolatrous nature of Eastern religions, and suggested that they made positive contributions to his own understanding of Jewish spirituality. Buber drew from Taoism and Zen in his discussions of Jewish spirituality. For example, he discusses the Taoist emphasis on the One--a sense of mystical unity--in his analysis of Hasidic mysticism. He cautioned, however, that Judaism maintains that the world is real and not a delusion, while the Taoist Chuang Tzu saw the world as indistinguishable from a dream.



The Debate: Are Eastern Religions Good for the Jews?



In the wake of the spiritual revolution of the 1960s, Rabbis Zalman Schachter-Shalomi and Chaim Zvi Hollander debated the value of Eastern religions in a 1974 issue of Sh'ma. Schachter-Shalomi embraced those Jews who practiced Eastern religions, within certain limits. He criticized modern Judaism for being excessively rationalistic, without leaving room for mysticism and spirituality, and expressed sympathy for those Jews who turned to Eastern religions to find spiritual inspiration. However, Schachter-Shalomi only endorsed those Eastern religions, such as Zen Buddhism, that do not necessitate the rejection of other religions.



Hollander, on the other hand, argued that all Eastern religions are idolatrous, and he defined idolatry broadly, to include any innovative way of worshipping God outside the framework of Jewish law. According to Hollander, even Jews who used Eastern meditation techniques to become closer to God, were being idolatrous. In response, Schachter-Shalomi suggested that exploring Eastern religions could be part of repentance, and the way of repentance is not governed by the strict understanding of Jewish law that Hollander preached, but by personal spiritual direction.



The Jewish renewal movement, following Schachter-Shalomi's leadership, at times incorporates Eastern religious practices such as Zen meditation into its prayers and meetings.



Another possible reason to be more tolerant of some Eastern religions--such as Zen, Taoism, and Confucianism--is the fact that they have no real deity in the Western sense. It could be argued, that these religions are modes of spirituality, philosophies of life, more so than ways of worshipping God. Just like one can be a pragmatist or an existentialist and a Jew, perhaps one can be a Buddhist (or a Taoist or a Confucianist) and a Jew.



Interfaith Dialogue



In recent years, interfaith dialogue between Jews and practitioners of Eastern religions has developed, as well.



One of the most famous of these dialogues is described in Roger Kamenetz's The Jew in the Lotus. Kamenetz writes about eight Jewish delegates who traveled to Dharamsala, India to meet with the XIV Dalai Lama in 1990. The Jewish delegates had diverse attitudes toward this dialogue which reflect the diversity of Jewish attitudes toward inter-religious dialogue in general.



For example, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, an Orthodox rabbi, embraced dialogue with Buddhists, but drew the line at joint prayers and meditation. Greenberg explained: "[The late leader of Modern Orthodoxy] Rabbi [Joseph] Soloveitchik made the distinction: on social justice we have a universal language, but theology is a more intimate language. Liturgy conveys an affirmation that I'm in this system, so I would feel uncomfortable, for instance, in a Buddhist meditation."



Schachter-Shalomi, however, prayed the Jewish evening prayers in a Sikh Temple, asserting that the Sikh guru and he were, "in the same business, struggling to see holy values don't get lost. I see every other practitioner as organically doing in his bailiwick what I am doing in mine. When a non-Jewish person affirms me, I feel strengthened in my work. When I affirm a non-Jewish person, he or she feels strengthened in their work."
  Reply
#10
Quote:Another possible reason to be more tolerant of some Eastern religions--such as Zen, Taoism, and Confucianism--is the fact that they have no real deity in the Western sense.


Shows a great ignorance of Daoism.

To set the record straight (though only Daoists can do a proper job, but they're not here to defend themselves):



1. Daoism most definitely has Gods (who are very much real) in the Hindu, Hellenistic and other such heathen sense. (Note that Hellenismos can be held up as the "western" definition for "real deity".)

The Daoist Gods are not merely real they are also central in Daoism.

Also, if "Hinduism is idolatry", as in the above article, then Daoism is JUST AS MUCH idolatry.

Traditional Daoists, not being cowards, insist they have very real Gods. They insist they have x numbers of Gods and x numbers of Goddesses (e.g. I think some 9 Divine Emperors, and over 80,000 Longs=Chinese Dragons of which 5 or so are the main ones). And just as important to Daoists as acknowledging the existence of their Gods, these loyal insubvertible heathens find it paramount to worship their Gods. Correctly. They are VERY pedantic about the correct worship (the correct times, the correct arrangement of all the moortis of the Gods with respect to each others' positions, the correct vahanas, dhootas and dvarapalakas for each, the correct body-position of each God including "mudras", the correct "mantras" and "stotras" pertaining to each God, the correct "yantras" for each God and "tantra"/ritual practices to be performed with these, and the correct arrangement of various Gods in the "yantras" in the form of "mandalas". [Many Gods are manifest in forms of beings, while what seems to me to be no more than a few Daoist Gods are merely symbolised (special sacred symbols). The Chinese written akSharas are themselves sacred so the written 'secret' names of these Gods are doubly sacred.]



* I am using Hindoo terms for what are not Hindoo but Daoist matters in the above ONLY because 1. there are no (respectable) English words that even approach the meaning and 2. because Hindoo words are what a Hindoo audience can easily understand.





Even the traditional Daoists that do not worship Hindoo Gods speak respectfully of the Hindoo Gods and Goddesses, knowing them by name and depiction and with a willingness to understand their divine nature. Even those traditional Daoists that know to make a clear distinction between where their religion ends and Hindoo religion begins (or vice-versa) speak of Hindus' religion as a very ancient religion (too). (They actually sounded like they are pre-empting any thought of encroachment on Hindu religion from their end. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' /> )

Traditional Daoists (consciously) identify their religion - in terms of being able to *relate* - with Hindu religion among the various religions in the world, and far more than they ever would with Judaism which bears not even a passing resemblance to Daoism. Traditional Daoists never say they are monotheists (because they insist they know many Gods). Further, there's something quite like what Hindoos call Advaitam in Daoism (it has ever been a part of Daoism, and its intrinsic presence in Daoism is utterly independent of Hindu and all Indian religion and influence <- Indian would-be encroachers are thereby pre-emptively told to stay away). This monism of Daoism is intrinsically related to the Daoist Gods - i.e. both being inseparable elements of the same religion (actually dvaitam in Daoism seems to be inseparable from Daoism's advaitam too).



To summarise, in the paragraphs above I just gave some of the descriptions that underline how [color="#0000FF"]Daoism is a/the textbook case of heathenism, consciously recognises itself as a heathenism, and is able to recognise - and hence 'identify' (comraderie in) - other heathenisms that are "like" it in some important ways in the heathen sense (in particular, Daoists choose to make such 'identifications' with Asian heathenisms such as Hindus' religion).[/color]



Daoism is a very private religion: the Daoist heathens are VERY protective of their religion (for many reasons, including some paramount ones). Which is why non-heathens do not know it and continue to be so ignorant of it (which can only be good news). Heathens, however, upon learning about some of the basics of Daoism, will not fail to recognise direct kinship. A kinship far more potent - and more trustworthy - than any mere genetic relationship. No it's not the same religion and not the same Gods - but Daoists (etc) are so "like" Hindoos: they think about/go about their heathenism in a manner Hindoos can relate to, which is: relatable to the way Hindoos think about/go about their own heathenism. (You know what I mean.) But both of which is utterly different from non-heathenisms <- which last are in turn completely alien to what comes natural to heathen comprehension.





2. I wanted to elaborate on this next in the Buddhism thread, but in case I forget to -

Traditional Daoists - and more importantly their Gods, which is where the Daoists get this stipulation from - do NOT approve of mixing-and-matching using their religion. To be more explicit, [color="#0000FF"]as traditional Daoists explain, Daoism [color="#0000FF"]disallows[/color] applying their Ritual Practices in the context of other religions and other Gods. That is, Daoist Rituals are NOT to be applied when practising Buddhism or in the worship of Buddhist or Bauddhified characters, etc. Traditional Daoists (you know, the kind that sees/directly interacts with their Gods) state categorically that Daoist ritual practices are only for Daoist ends, and Daoist ritual practices for worship are only to be applied to Daoist Gods (and not to Buddhist characters). What to say of Judaism etc.[/color]



(Some Daoists have enabled interested lay Chinese Buddhists to continue worshipping the latter's ancestral Daoist Gods and have, to this end, intimated some Daoist rituals pertaining to/belonging with these Gods to their countrymen. But besides the above stipulations - such as ensuring a pooja area for the Daoist Gods that is entirely separate from the worship area of Buddhist characters, and the ban on transferral of rituals, mantras and stotras from Daoism to Buddhism, and the ban of Buddhist "mantras and rituals" from being applied to Daoist Gods - Daoists can even be seen further insisting that these lay Buddhists should leave some time between the worship of Buddhist characters and the worship of Daoist Gods. This is all actually the insistence of the Daoist Gods and hence Daoist religion. As a mere but very useful side-effect, such stipulations also prevent lay Buddhists from the grave error of mixing up the two utterly-unrelated religions, which thus also prevents that great crime of opportunistic and conscious Bauddhification of=inculturation on Daoism by non-lay Buddhists, as happened in the past.)





Also:

As traditional Daoists explain it - and who else should be allowed to explain it - Daoism sounds very much like an ethnic religion to me.

- Traditional Daoists do NOT recognise alien "converts" let alone dabblers and new-ageists - for a very serious reason to do with what their religion allows. They don't recognise alien pretences at "expertise" either.

- Fraudsters/charlatans and even semi-trained=half-baked religion-salesmen do exist in Daoist society too in the modern era. These are ethnic Chinese of Daoist origins/ancestry who treacherously sell I mean "train" aliens in any Daoist practices they may know - but they are specifically avoided and not recognised by traditional Daoists, and are instead seriously considered as doing great harm (on a large scale).

- Traditional Daoists are known to be willing - again, for a reason* - to destroy their religion and its practices rather than let it fall into the hands of the aliens and all others unworthy.

Fortunately, the Daoist Gods have apparently built a defence-mechanism into the Daoist ritual practices/religion <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' /> Further, the Daoist Gods themselves are - as they needs must be* - the guardians of their religion: it seems they also *actively* help protect the religion from dabblers, who are apparently led around the more they would dabble <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



* It's because Daoism is a VERY powerful religion <- in the sense that I imagine Hindoos might use that word in such a context (I'm being deliberately vague in wording, read between the lines).





Anyway, it's a common theme among aliens to try and take the theism out of heathenisms prior to ingesting 'acceptable' parts of that heathenism for their own purposes and ideologies. (I'm just surprised any Jews would be into doing such things though.)
  Reply
#11
The great English historian Edward Gibbon describes some of these which took place in the first and second centuries A.D.:



From the reign of Nero (54-68) to that of Antoninus Pius (138-161) the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives, and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government but of human kind.



In Cyrene they massacred 220, 000 Greeks; in Cyprus 240,000, in Egypt a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawn asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies. (History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter XVI)
  Reply
#12
It is certainly not love for the Jews on the part of the masses of Germans and Americans which maintains this support for Israel. It is instead a combination of two things: first, the enormous financial and political power of the Jews of the United States, the latter exercised primarily through the dominant Jewish position in the controlled news media; and second, the influence of a relatively small but vocal and well-organized minority of Jew-worshipping Christian fundamentalists, who accept at face value the Jews’ claim to be the divinely ordained rulers of the world.



And the diaspora would survive little more than a generation, were it not for the Jewish consciousness, the concept of Zion. It is this alone which keeps the dispersed Jews from becoming assimilated by their Gentile hosts, for the Jewish consciousness inevitably raises a barrier of mutual hatred between Jews and Gentiles.



How can a Jew of the diaspora, who is taught from the cradle that he belongs to a “chosen race,” do other than despise the goyim around him, who are not even considered human beings by his religious teachers? How can he do other than hate them for holding back him and his fellow Jews from the world dominion which he believes belongs rightfully to the Jewish nation? And how can Gentiles fail to sense this contempt and hatred and respond in kind?



Action and Reaction. In recapitulation, the dynamic of the interaction between Jew and Gentile is this: as soon as the Jews have infiltrated a Gentile land in sufficient numbers so that their organized efforts can be effective, they begin exploiting and manipulating. The more wealth and power they accumulate, the more brazenly and forcefully they attempt to accumulate still more, justifying themselves all the while with the reminder that Yahweh has promised it all to them anyway.



Any tendency to empathize or identify with their hosts is kept in check by a nonstop recitation of all the past wrongs the Gentile world has done them. Even before anti-Semitism exists in reality, it exists in the Jewish imagination: the Gentiles hate them, they believe, and so they must stick together for self-protection.



Sure enough, before the Jews’ solidarity has a chance to erode appreciably, the Gentiles are hating them. The Gentiles react to the Jews mildly at first and then with more and more resentment and energy as the Jewish depredations continue. It is this action-reaction combination, the hatred and counter-hatred, which keeps the Jews from being absorbed into the host nation.



Finally there is an explosion, and the most nimble Jews flee to begin the cycle over again in another Gentile land, while the slow ones remain to suffer the pent-up fury of their outraged hosts. The memory of this explosion is assiduously cultivated by the surviving Jews and becomes one more grudge they bear against the Gentile world. They still remember and celebrate the explosions of the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans, and two dozen other Gentile peoples over the last 35 centuries or so, exaggerating their losses and embellishing the details every time in order to make the memories more poignant, while the Gentiles in each case forget within a generation or two.



These periodic outbursts against the Jews have actually served them doubly well: not only have they been invaluable in maintaining the Jewish consciousness and preventing assimilation, but they have also proved marvelously eugenic by regularly weeding out from the Jewish stock the least fit individuals. Jewish leaders, it should be noted, are thoroughly aware of the details of this dynamic. They fully recognize the necessity of maintaining the barrier of hatred between their own people and the rest of the world, just as they understand the value of an occasional explosion to freshen the hatred when assimilation becomes troublesome.
  Reply
#13
[Rome and the Middle Ages]. The blame for the decay of the Roman world has often been placed on the Jews. Indeed, some especially brazen Jewish writers have proudly accepted that blame and have even boasted that Christianity was invented deliberately by zealous Jews to further subvert and weaken the Roman Empire.



The truth of the matter, however, is that, so long as Roman society was healthy and the Roman spirit strong and sound, both were immune to Jewish malice and Jewish scheming. It was only after Rome was no longer Roman that the Jews were able to work their evil there.



After the old virtues had already been largely abandoned and the blood of the Romans polluted by that of a dozen races, the Jews, of course, did everything to hasten the process of dissolution. They swarmed over decaying Rome like maggots in a putrefying corpse, and from there they began their infiltration of the rest of Europe.



Thus, the Jews established themselves in every part of Europe over which Rome claimed dominion, and, wherever they could, they remained after that dominion ended. Except in the Mediterranean provinces and in Rome itself, however, their numbers remained relatively small at first.



Despising farming and all other manual activity, they engaged almost exclusively in trade and finance. Thus, their presence was confined entirely to the towns, and even a relatively large commercial center of 10 or 15 thousand inhabitants might have no more than a few dozen Jews.



Even their small numbers did not prevent nearly continuous friction between them and their Gentile neighbors, however. As Europe’s population, commerce, industry, and wealth grew during the Middle Ages, so did the numbers of Jews everywhere and with them the inevitable friction.



Everyone has heard of the wholesale expulsions of Jews which occurred in virtually every country of Europe during the Middle Ages: from England in 1290, from Germany in 1298, from France in 1306, from Lithuania in 1395, from Austria in 1421, from Spain in 1492, from Portugal in 1497, and so on. What many do not realize, however, is that the conflict between Jew and Gentile was not confined to these major upheavals on a national scale. Hardly a year passed in which the Jews were not massacred or expelled from some town or province by an exasperated citizenry. The national expulsions merely climaxed in each case a rising popular discontent punctuated by numerous local disturbances.
  Reply
#14
[Rome and the Middle Ages]. The blame for the decay of the Roman world has often been placed on the Jews. Indeed, some especially brazen Jewish writers have proudly accepted that blame and have even boasted that Christianity was invented deliberately by zealous Jews to further subvert and weaken the Roman Empire.



The truth of the matter, however, is that, so long as Roman society was healthy and the Roman spirit strong and sound, both were immune to Jewish malice and Jewish scheming. It was only after Rome was no longer Roman that the Jews were able to work their evil there.



After the old virtues had already been largely abandoned and the blood of the Romans polluted by that of a dozen races, the Jews, of course, did everything to hasten the process of dissolution. They swarmed over decaying Rome like maggots in a putrefying corpse, and from there they began their infiltration of the rest of Europe.



Thus, the Jews established themselves in every part of Europe over which Rome claimed dominion, and, wherever they could, they remained after that dominion ended. Except in the Mediterranean provinces and in Rome itself, however, their numbers remained relatively small at first.



Despising farming and all other manual activity, they engaged almost exclusively in trade and finance. Thus, their presence was confined entirely to the towns, and even a relatively large commercial center of 10 or 15 thousand inhabitants might have no more than a few dozen Jews.



Even their small numbers did not prevent nearly continuous friction between them and their Gentile neighbors, however. As Europe’s population, commerce, industry, and wealth grew during the Middle Ages, so did the numbers of Jews everywhere and with them the inevitable friction.



Everyone has heard of the wholesale expulsions of Jews which occurred in virtually every country of Europe during the Middle Ages: from England in 1290, from Germany in 1298, from France in 1306, from Lithuania in 1395, from Austria in 1421, from Spain in 1492, from Portugal in 1497, and so on. What many do not realize, however, is that the conflict between Jew and Gentile was not confined to these major upheavals on a national scale. Hardly a year passed in which the Jews were not massacred or expelled from some town or province by an exasperated citizenry. The national expulsions merely climaxed in each case a rising popular discontent punctuated by numerous local disturbances.
  Reply
#15
Bred to Business. In addition to the benefits of racial solidarity, the Jews were probably better businessmen, on the average, than their Gentile competitors. The Jews had been bred to a mercantile life for a hundred generations. The result was that all the business—and all the money—of any nation with a Jewish minority tended to gravitate into the hands of the Jews. The more capital they accumulated, the greater was their advantage, and the easier it was to accumulate still more.



Of course, the Jews were willing to share their wealth with their Gentile hosts—for a price. They would gladly lend money to a peasant, in return for a share of his next crop or a lien on his land; and to a prince, in return for a portion of the spoils of his next war. Eventually, half the citizens of the nation were hopelessly in debt to the Jews.



Such a state of affairs was inherently unstable, and periodic explosions were inevitable. Time after time princes and people alike found that the best way out of an increasingly tight financial squeeze was a general burning of the Jews’ books of account—and of the Jews too, if they did not get out of the country fast enough. The antipathy which already existed between Jews and Gentiles because of the Jews’ general demeanor made this solution especially attractive, as did the religious intolerance of the times.



One would think that one episode of this sort in any country would be enough for the Jews, and that they would thenceforth stay away from a place where they were so manifestly unwelcome. But they could not. Any country in Europe temporarily without a Jewish minority to soak up the country’s money like a sponge had an irresistible attraction for them. Before the embers of the last general Jew-burning were cool, other Jews were quietly sneaking in to take the place of the ones who had been slaughtered.



The great 19th-century Russian writer Nikolai Gogol embodied this extraordinary Jewish peculiarity in a character in his Taras Bulba, the story of a Cossack chieftain. The character, Yankel, is one of a group of Jewish, merchants and their dependents who have attached themselves to the Cossacks’ camp. One day the Cossacks rid themselves of the Jewish pests by throwing them all in the Dnieper and drowning them—all except Yankel, who hides beneath a wagon.



While the massacre is taking place, Yankel trembles in fear of being discovered. As soon as it is over and things have quieted down again, he creeps from his hiding place. The reader expects that Yankel will then waste no time putting as much distance between himself and the Cossacks as possible. But, no; Yankel instead rushes to set up a stall and begin selling gunpowder and trinkets to the men who have just drowned his kinsmen. His eagerness to resume business seems doubled by the fact that now he has no competitors.
  Reply
#16
The Jews were often able to ameliorate their situations greatly during the Middle Ages by establishing special relationships with Gentile rulers. They served as financial advisers and tax collectors for the princes of the realm and of the Church, always ready with rich bribes to secure the protection of their patrons when the hard-pressed common folk began agitating against them. They made themselves so useful to some rulers, in fact, that they were favored above Christian subjects in the laws and decrees of those rulers.



The Frankish emperor Charlemagne was one who was notorious for the favors and privileges he bestowed on the Jews, and his successor followed his example.



The medieval Church was at least as much at fault as the royalty in showing favor to the Jews. There were exceptions to the rule, however: several Church leaders heroically stood up for the common people and condemned the Jews for exploiting them. One of these was Agobard, a ninth-century bishop of Lyons.



Agobard lost his struggle with Louis, but his efforts had a long-range effect on the conscience of many of his fellow Franks. Despite the enormous financial power of the Jews and the protection their bribes bought them, they were continually overreaching themselves: whenever they were given a little rope, they eventually managed to hang themselves. No matter how much favor kings, emperors, or princes of the Church bestowed on them, the unrest their usury created among the peasants and the Gentile tradesmen forced the rulers to slap them down again and again.
  Reply
#17
The hatred between Jews and Gentiles was so intense by the 12th century that virtually every European country was obliged to separate the Jews from the rest of the populace. For their own protection the Jews retreated into walled ghettos, where they were safe from the fury of the Gentiles, except in cases of the most extreme unrest.



And for the protection of the Gentiles, Jews were obliged to wear distinctive clothing. After the Church’s Lateran Council of 1215, an edict forbade any Jew to venture out of the ghetto without a yellow ring (“Jew badge”) sewn on his outer garment, so that every Gentile he met could beware him.



But these measures proved insufficient, for they failed to deal with the fundamental problem: so long as the Jews remained Jews, there could be no peace between them and any other people.



Edward the Great. In England, for example, throughout the 13th century there were outbreaks of civil disorder, as the debt-laden citizens sporadically lashed out at their Jewish oppressors. A prominent Jewish historian, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews (Knopf, 1965), tells what happened next:



At last, with the accession of Edward I, came the end. Edward was one of the most popular figures in English history. Tall, fair, amiable, an able soldier, a good administrator, he was the idol of his people. But he was filled with prejudices, and hated foreigners and foreign ways. His Statute of Judaism, in 1275, might have been modeled on the restrictive legislation of his contemporary, St. Louis of France. He forbade all usury and closed the most important means of livelihood that remained to the Jews. Farming, commerce, and handicrafts were specifically allowed, but it was exceedingly difficult to pursue those occupations.



Difficult indeed, compared to effortlessly raking in capital gains! Did Edward really expect the Jews in England to abandon their gilded countinghouses and grub about in the soil for cabbages and turnips, or engage in some other backbreaking livelihood like mere goyim? God’s Chosen People should work for a living?



Edward should have known better. Fifteen years later, having finally reached the conclusion that the Jews were incorrigible, he condemned them as parasites and mischief-makers and ordered them all out of the country. They were not allowed back in until Cromwell’s Puritans gained the upper hand 400 years later. Meanwhile, England enjoyed an unprecedented Golden Age of progress and prosperity without a Jew in the land.



Unfortunately, the other monarchs of Europe, who one after another found themselves compelled to follow Edward’s example, were not able to provide the same long-term benefits to their countries; in nearly every case the Jews managed to bribe their way back in within a few years.
  Reply
#18
Zahir Jan Mohammed writes that one of the key figures behind cancelling of Modi visa were Jews



Rajiv Malhotra writes that Wendy and most of her followers are Jews



and Martha Nussbaum is now a jew



So why are Jews going out of the way to screw Hindus ?
  Reply
#19
[quote name='Kowshika' date='18 February 2014 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1392670313' post='117050']

Zahir Jan Mohammed writes that one of the key figures behind cancelling of Modi visa were Jews



Rajiv Malhotra writes that Wendy and most of her followers are Jews



and Martha Nussbaum is now a jew



So why are Jews going out of the way to screw Hindus ?

[/quote]



1. Martha Nussbaum



Uh, as Kowshika already KNEW (so why pretend otherwise): Martha Nussbaum was already discussed by others right here on IF, See posts 112, 113 and 114 of india-forum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/987-western-indologists/page__view__findpost__p__91255

where they showed that she's a christian, a WASP in fact.



Dhu's post 112 quoted the following:

[quote name='dhu' date='02 December 2008 - 05:31 AM' timestamp='1228175626' post='91255']

Quote:Nussbaum is Christian, not Jewish, and is married to Amartya Sen. It is the Marxist-Missionary axis in action. The Sanathana Dharma is their primary intellectual enemy since Islamic metaphysics is primitive even by Abrahamic standards.
[/quote]

Hauma replied in #113:

[quote name='Hauma Hamiddha' date='02 December 2008 - 07:38 AM' timestamp='1228183243' post='91261']

While she is a Christian-Marxist saboteur, I think she is not Sen's wife (unless something very recently happened). Sen's wife is a Rothschild ... and this connection is also not without significance. Nussbum is only a collaborator of Sen.[/quote]

And Rudradev continued with more detail in #114:

[quote name='rudradev' date='17 December 2008 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1229489872' post='91921']

No, Nussbaum was never married to Sen, but was no mere collaborator either. She was his wh0re.



From http://www.robertboy...p?article_id=55



(this article is a must-read if we're going to deconstruct Martha Nussbaum effectively and publicly... so please contain your nausea at its slavishly fawning admiration of her, and read it through).





<< In 1986 Nussbaum was invited by the economist Amartya Sen (the 1998 Nobel

laureate with whom she was then romantically involved) to work with the United

Nations World Institute for Development Economics Research. Their aim was to

find alternatives to the dominant theories of international development: one,

the economist's view that a country's G.N.P. is the only reliable measure of

social, economic and political progress; two, the relativist position that

Westerners must refrain from judging foreign cultures.
>>



[color="#0000FF"]This cow has consistently approached every project with one angle in mind... to loudly justify her despotic entitlement, as a WASP Westerner, to pass judgement on those poorer and browner than herself.



And yes, she IS a WASP...[/color]



<< Nussbaum's "aristocratic" lineage derives from her mother's family, which

traces its roots back to the Mayflower. Her father, George Craven, was a

conservative Southerner who became a prosperous lawyer in the trusts and estates

division of a large Philadelphia firm.
>>



[color="#0000FF"]She married one Alan Nussbaum, and though they were divorced in 1987, she still hangs on to the name, and pretends in public to a Jewish religious affiliation. Clearly she feels more comfortable dispensing her racist and cultural-supremacist diatribes from behind the shield of an assumed "minority" persona, rather than her own Aryan antecedents. It would appear she is too "Craven" to own up to her true heritage of bigotry-- and must instead use a Jewish identity to conceal her sniping.[/color][/quote]



And just to add: just because Alan Nussbaum was allegedly "Jewish" means nothing. Jews don't marry goys. (Such a marriage is not even recognised in Judaism.) So the evangelically christian Japethite Martha Nussbaum - a goy - didn't marry a Jew.



www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/148995/jewish/On-Intermarriage.htm

Quote:The Basis



The primary source upon which the prohibition for a Jew to marry a non-Jew is based is to be found in the Bible (Deut. 7:3): "You shall not marry them (the gentiles, about which the Bible speaks in the previous verses), you shall not give your daughter to their son and you shall not take his daughter for your son."



The reason for this prohibition is clearly spelled out in the following verse: "Because he will lead your son astray from Me and they will serve strange gods…" ("Strange gods" can also be interpreted to mean those ideals and ‘isms’ that do not conform to the dictates of the Torah, and before which one bows his head and dedicates his heart and soul.)

[color="#800080"](Like christianism, with its strange non-existent gawd.)[/color]



It is clear then, that we are not dealing here with racial discrimination which is borne of a personal and subjective attitude that the Jew has vis-à-vis the gentile. What we are talking about here is an objective, Divine command that is accompanied by an explanation. If your son will marry a non-Jewish woman, the children born of this union are no longer considered to be your children. In the event that your daughter marries a non-Jew, inevitably your grandchildren will stray very far from the path of Judaism even though they will still be considered Jewish.





Taking into account the primary responsibility that the Jew has to fulfill the precepts of the Torah, it is evident that it is mandatory that Jews marry within the faith, because if not, it will be impossible to continue fulfilling the obligation that one has to manifest Divinity in this world which is possible only by fulfilling G-d’s will. Intermarriage is a clear contradiction to G-d’s stated will.



In order to better understand this issue, we must clarify another point. Not only is it prohibited for a Jew to marry a non-Jewess, it is impossible for a Jew to marry a non-Jewess. It is possible for them to live together, it is possible for them to cohabitate, it is even possible for them to procreate, but there is no possibility for marriage to take place.



[color="#0000FF"]BTW, I read that Jews have a word of insult (eminently suited to Nussbaum!) for any non-Jewess who dates or marries a Jew: "shiksa", which comes from the Hebrew for "hateful abomination". Sounds about the right word for Martha Nussbaum at least: Martha "The Shiksa (aka Hateful Abomination)" Nussbaum.[/color] Note: I'm not the one saying this, it happens to be factually true as per Jews, who are the authority on the matter. (Her divorcing Alan Nussbaum later doesn't matter, as the term holds good from the moment of her illegal association with the poor man onward, for the fact that she as a goy had led some Jewish man away/astray from the behaviour enjoined in Judaism.)



Hindus should make her famous by that name. :evil chuckle:





2. Wendy (The Paedophile) Doniger



How can Doniger actually be Jewish qua religion? Her ethnic roots may be Jewish - i.e. her ancestors may have been at some point - but it is hardly her own religion. [color="#0000FF"]No actually Jewish person - who are hardcore monotheists, who would *never* be collecting let alone housing "idols" for whatever purposes - would do this:[/color]



rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/fwd-do-western-religious-scholars-err.html

Quote:Though such violence hasn't occurred in the United States, Western scholars have felt the effects of India's new politics. In her Hyde Park home Doniger displays her Indian art collection—colorful tapestries, bronze sculptures including dozens of Ganeshas, and paintings adorn every surface. "A lot of these things you couldn't buy in India now," she says, noting that some pieces she bought in the 1960s have become antiques, which today India, like many countries, protects from exportation. But unlike art, ideas don't get stopped at the border. - University of Chicago Magazine, December 2004

Note how she admits she's a thief of Hindoo vigrahas and got away with the vigrahas she illegally procured only because Hindoo vigrahas weren't protected by laws back then.

Note also how the UoC ragazine pretends that alien=terrorists should have the right to continue stealing "importing" Hindoo "art" (vigrahas): that it's "India's new politics" that has stopped Paedophile-Wendy from "collecting" (thieving) Hindu "antiques".



Hindus have EVERY RIGHT - and really *should* - take back every stolen sacred Hindoo vigraham and artefact from any western site they can find it: Remember Always you have the moral right. One day we'll make it the Legal Right. Until then, take it back whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself (or create an opportunity). It's not called stealing if it's yours in the first place. It's called taking things back, "impounding" illegally stolen goods etc. Possession being 9/10ths of the law works both ways, right?

The US and UK is where lot of our sacred Hindoo stuffs have been hoarded by aliens=terrorists who pretend they have an "equal" or even a "greater" "right" to these things.

And the thought of thieves like Wendy "The Paedophile" Doniger possessing our moorties of our Gods boils my blood even more. (And people actually promote highly dangerous new agey Indians trying to teach "Hindu art appreciation" to aliens, which will only result in even more aliens getting into the business of poaching our sacred moorties etc.)



[color="#0000FF"]To get back to the issue at hand, the purpose of posting the excerpt excerpt was to point out that no *Jew* would ever possess "idols".

- Doniger only has Jewish *ancestry*, like Lenny Kravitz the christian has some Jewish ancestry (but is not Jewish, being a christian - as Jews point out). Or many other cases of modern christo-terrorists who claim Jewish ancestry and call themselves "Jewish christians" (=an oxymoron, as clearly stated by the only legitimates: the actual Jews).

- Christians however do often possess "idols" that they've stolen from heathens: for one thing, they famously take over heathen sites and install christian churches there, and they inculturate so you see catholic ashrams have giant shapes pretending to be Shivalingas but with vampire-stakes/crucifixes hidden in them, and finally, christians like to possess heathen "idols" to "exorcise" them. Also didn't the christists declare that when early christoterrorists carved a cross on Aphrodite amalgata they had made these "christian"?[/color]





3. Wendy's Spawn/"Wendy's Children"



[quote name='Kowshika' date='18 February 2014 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1392670313' post='117050']Rajiv Malhotra writes that Wendy and most of her followers are Jews[/quote]

Malhotra always stops short of attacking christianism/christians (the usual Indian American NRI methodology is to speak of "evangelicals" to avoid blaming jeebus/christianism/christians) but has no problem insinuating Judaism.



Let's have the list of Wendy's "followers" (aka spawn) then, to work out what their *religion* is. No namecalling without evidence.



Though at least "Jeffrey Kripal" - a gypsy, from what I think I heard - can hardly be a Jew. (Since it's not a religion that accepts converts either, as far as I know.)





4. This question:

[quote name='Kowshika' date='18 February 2014 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1392670313' post='117050']So why are Jews going out of the way to screw Hindus ?[/quote]

[color="#0000FF"]Which Jews was that, then?[/color]



Now, it's a fact that Orthodox Judaism DOES NOT LIKE heathenisms. But that's not the point in question. You claimed there were actual Jews that were part of the attack on Hindus - not impossible - but you have to first prove that Jews are actively going after Hindus. I've seen no instance yet.



In contrast, *christians* (including cryptochristians like Martha Nussbaum) are going after Hindus. BTW, I suspect Nussbaum may even be an anti-semite - she may not have divorced Alan Nussbaum amicably, which would be consistent if she retained hsi name for decoy purposes as Rudradeva stated: after all, christians often try to get Judaism blamed by others for christianism's dirty work. It's a christian anti-semitism tactic that muslims nowadays also use.



(There are of course leftists of Jewish ancestry - who are not Jewish, who are anti-Israel and anti-Hindu. But these hardly serve as evidence for Jewish people joining the christo-attacks attacking Hindus, but are rather evidence of leftists of the world having a common agenda with christianism.)





Now, if there *are* any practising Jews out there in America that actually do not feel positively inclined towards Hinduism in particular, I have to wonder if it's for the same reason that Kowshika had earlier complained about: something about the fact that more Indians are intermarrying with Jews. I can see how any non-proselytising religion can see this as a threat, not just Hindus but Jews.



Jews can easily resolve this by making a unified statement with Hindus though: both religions can issue the statement that Jewish-Hindu marriages will not be recognised by either religion and such weddings/rites may not be performed by Hindus or Jews, and is not in any way sanctioned.



Alternatively, any Jewish bitterness could stem from the fact that that new age missionary Indian cult called "ISKCON" (the one with the non-existent deity called Hare Christna which their leader Prabhupada specifically identified with jeebusjehovallah and not with any Hindu Gods) that is converting not just Jews in the west but Hindus in India too to "ISKCONism", a native-looking variant of jeebusjehovallah-monotheism.



Hindus could minimise the threat to Hindus and Jews - of further Jewish people's "conversions" to Hindu religion - if Hindus were to announce that "Alien Converts To Hindu Religin Are NOT Allowed (Please Go Away)". Though this is not specifically directed at Jews, since Euro-western converts are even more of a dabbling nightmare and occur in greater numbers besides.

(BTW, if any Jewish person wanted to join a heathenism they can always try their own ancestral ones, instead of running after Hindu religion which is *not* their ancestral religion, just as it is not the ancestral religion of western people.)



But - typically - modern Hindus dearly want to play religion salesmen and so insist on trying to make converts among people to the north-west, and won't learn any time soon.
  Reply
#20
Felice D. Gaer (born 1946) is an American expert on human rights and a longstanding member and the former chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.



Gaer directs the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights of the American Jewish Committee, which conducts research and advocacy to strengthen international human rights



-



She is one of the leads in the anti-Modi visa group



--



The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) led the charge against Modi. "The State Department revoked his visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which prohibits foreign government officials who are 'responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom' from obtaining US visas," said the USCIRF. "We have not seen changes that would warrant a policy reversal," said Commission Chair Felice D Gaer in 2008. "As official bodies of the government of India have found, Narendra Modi is culpable for the egregious and systematic human rights abuses wrought against thousands of India's Muslims. Mr Modi must demonstrate to the State Department and to the American people why he - as a person found to have aided and abetted gross violations of human rights, including religious freedom - should now be eligible for a tourist visa."
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)