Hot & Cold Hatred

violence & its justification

Hatred comes in two forms: at its most volatile, blasts of hot violence, at its most stable, frozen layers of status quo. It’s only when the status quo becomes unstable that it becomes hot hatred. The explosively violent ex- of my neighbor would plead, “Why won’t you stay down?” It was her getting up that required him to beat her down again.

This is the situation in Palestine today. The frozen form of hatred calls it Israel, solidifying the violence with a name change. There, it’s all covered up. What would have been crimes under Palestinian law are now Israeli laws that criminalize Palestinians. What a clean white sparkling blanket! Nothing to see here!

But the fires of self-righteous anger need to be stoked and at the ready. This is done through keeping the flame of victimhood alive. It’s a tricky thing to commit horrific violence while maintaining the other to be bereft of morals and decency. Projection is your friend! Take anything you’re doing and reverse that as what they’re trying to do.

This double standard of morality might require a scripture to induce cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. The first lesson is you can’t trust your own mind. What seems to be immoral on the surface could be what God wants. There’s no logic to God, only authority and obedience.

The second lesson is when you succeed, by whatever means, it’s ‘cause God has your back. Wealth is God’s stamp of approval. But if you fail, it’s because people hate you for no reason. Any criticism of your actions is religious intolerance, even if your religion is based on excluding other races as impure.

In this episode, I’ll give some examples of this in history and the current situation.

---

In my last article, I mentioned that “severe prohibitions on sex are really about the enslavement or repression of women.” This was after my conversation with a Hasidic Rabbi in Empire & Religion. In clarifying the Talmud on sex with children, he wrote:

… the rabbis then made a decree that non-Jews should be viewed as ritually impure, in order to create an additional barrier and taboo against such intermingling. And they extended this even to children, apparently because such behavior was common enough in the surrounding culture of the day that they saw fit to extend their decree to the underage …

This indicates that child rape was ‘common enough in the surrounding culture,’ but something a Jew would never do. That accuses other cultures of the most immoral act possible. In case Jews might be tempted, the rabbis decreed non-Jews ritually impure ‘to create an additional barrier and taboo against such intermingling.’ So the cure for not raping children is to not let your kids be around non-Jewish children.

According to Michael Lesher, this hasn’t worked. He’s written Sexual Abuse, Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities:

This book—the first of its kind—analyzes how and why cases of child sexual abuse have been systematically concealed in Orthodox Jewish communities. The book examines many such cover-ups in detail, showing how denial, backlash against victims, and the manipulation of the secular justice system have placed Orthodox Jewish community leaders in the position of defending or even enabling child abusers.

The book also examines the generally disappointing treatment of this issue in popular media, while dissecting the institutions that contribute to the cover-ups, including two—rabbinic courts and local Orthodox "patrols"—that are more or less unique to Orthodox Jewish communities.

Finally, the book explores the cultural factors that have contributed to this tragedy, and concludes with hopes and proposals for future reform.

I ‘happened’ on this book title at the end of Michael Lesher’s article in The Truthseeker called I’m a Jew & I’m NOT a Genocidal Racist—Why do Israel “Supporters” Keep Telling the World that I Am? I also recommend reading that. Although I’d demur that in this article, Lesher is objecting to the hot version of hatred—genocidal violence—but is okay with hatred served cold in the status quo and scriptures.

---

Is it contradictory for someone who espouses to be a Jew to say he isn’t racist, when the central tenet of the religion is not ‘intermingling’ with other races? In Zionism, Anti-Semitism and Racialism, Ron Unz writes:

Many years ago, on some website somewhere I came across a very insightful comment regarding the obvious connection between “anti-Semitism” and “racism,” which our mainstream media organs identify as two of the world’s greatest evils. Under this analysis, “anti-Semitism” represents the tendency to criticize or resist Jewish social cohesion, while “racism” represents the attempt of white Gentiles to maintain a similar social cohesion of their own. To the extent that the ideological emanations from our centralized media organs serve to strengthen and protect Jewish cohesion while attacking and dissolving any similar cohesion on the part of their Gentile counterparts, the former will obviously gain enormous advantages in resource-competition against the latter.

Unz describes how:

Ironically enough, Israel today is one of very few countries with … strictly racially-based criteria for citizenship status and other privileges, with the Jewish-only immigration policy now often enforced by DNA testing, and marriages between Jews and non-Jews legally prohibited. A few years ago, the world media also carried the remarkable story of a Palestinian Arab sentenced to prison for rape because he had had consensual sexual relations with a Jewish woman by passing himself off as a fellow Jew.

Since Orthodox Judaism is strictly matrilineal and controls Israeli law, even Jews of other branches can experience unexpected difficulties due to conflicts between personal ethnic identity and official legal status. The vast majority of the wealthier and more influential Jewish families worldwide do not follow Orthodox religious traditions, and over the generations, they have often taken Gentile wives. However, even if the latter had converted to Judaism, their conversions are considered invalid by the Orthodox Rabbinate, and none of their resulting descendants are considered Jewish. So if some members of these families later develop a deep commitment to their Jewish heritage and immigrate to Israel, they are sometimes outraged to discover that they are officially classified as “goyim” under Orthodox law and legally prohibited from marrying Jews.

---

Unz gives a fascinating history of Zionism. Its founder was Theodore Herzl who claimed that the anti-Semitism he witnessed in France during the Dreyfus Affair convinced him that Jews could not live among Gentiles. Albert Lindemann’s book, The Jew Accused, gives more context:

…the notorious Dreyfus affair of late 19th century France [is] probably one of history’s most famous anti-Semitic incidents. Although he concludes that Captain Alfred Dreyfus was very likely innocent of the charge of espionage, he notes the seemingly strong evidence that initially led to his arrest and conviction and finds—contrary to myth-making by numerous later writers—absolutely no indications that his Jewish origins played any role whatsoever in his predicament.

However, he does note some of the underlying social context to this fierce political battle. Although only one Frenchman in a thousand was Jewish, just a few years earlier a group of Jews had been the leading culprits behind several huge financial scandals that had impoverished large numbers of small investors, and the swindlers afterward escaped any punishment by means of political influence and bribery. Given this history, much of the outrage of the anti-Dreyfusards probably arose from their fears that a Jewish military spy from a very wealthy family might be able to walk free using similar tactics, and the public claims that Dreyfus’s brother was offering enormous bribes to win his release certainly strengthened this concern.

Wikipedia notes that Herzl himself believed Dreyfus to be guilty. But due to international pressure, Dreyfus was released and “his persecutors politically broken.”

---

After Herzl’s death, Russian Jews under the Czar became Zion’s primary support base. Russian Chaim Weizmann arranged the 1917 Balfour Declaration and he served as the first president of Israel in 1949. Lindemann also sheds new light on Russian Jews:

The famous Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 was obviously the result of severe ethnic tension in that city, but contrary to the regular accusations of later writers, there seems absolutely no evidence of high-level government involvement, and the widespread claims of 700 dead that so horrified the entire world were grossly exaggerated, with only 45 killed in the urban rioting. Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, later promoted the story that he himself and some other brave Jewish souls had personally defended their people with revolvers in hand even as they saw the mutilated bodies of 80 Jewish victims. This account was totally fictional since Weizmann happened to have been hundreds of miles away when the riots occurred. …

For related reasons, international outrage was often focused on the legal confinement of most of Russia’s Jews to the “Pale of Settlement,” suggesting some sort of tight imprisonment; but that area was the traditional home of the Jewish population and encompassed a landmass almost as large as France and Spain combined. The growing impoverishment of Eastern European Jews during that era was often assumed to be a consequence of hostile government policy, but the obvious explanation was extraordinary Jewish fecundity [birth rate], which far outstripped that of their Slavic fellow countrymen, and quickly led them to outgrow the available spots in any of their traditional “middleman” occupations, a situation worsened by their total disinclination to engage in agriculture or other primary-producer activities. Jewish communities expressed horror at the risk of losing their sons to the Czarist military draft, but this was simply the flip-side of the full Russian citizenship they had been granted, and no different from what was faced by their non-Jewish neighbors.

Certainly the Jews of Russia suffered greatly from widespread riots and mob attacks in the generation prior to World War I, and these did sometimes have substantial government encouragement, especially in the aftermath of the very heavy Jewish role in the 1905 Revolution. But we should keep in mind that a Jewish plotter had been implicated in the killing of Czar Alexander II, and Jewish assassins had also struck down several top Russian ministers and numerous other government officials. …

As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia’s very rapidly growing Jewish population and its governing authorities, he cannot avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish reputation for bribery, corruption, and general dishonesty, with numerous figures of all political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice. The eminent American sociologist E.A. Ross, writing in 1913, characterized the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms.

---

Certainly these are actions taken by individuals who are a minority of Jews. But are they then denounced by the rest, saying “You’re giving us a bad reputation?” Or are those acts defended or covered up by the community, like the child sex abuse?

We know that the Bolshevik Jews, after leaving Russia, were taken in by Germany before WWI. In another Substack, someone disagreed with my ‘opinion’ that Germany had won WWI in two years so I wanted to cite the source: Max Igan on The Truth about Balfour’s Time Bomb: the Other Side of the News at around 34:30. He states:

When you look at WWI and WWII, which was really one war with a ceasefire in the middle of it … Austria declared war and Germany had to go along with it because of treaties. Germany won that war in about two years. England had about two weeks worth of food and water left and Kaiser Wilhelm said, ‘Let’s just end the war. Let’s just stop fighting about all this and go home. No reparations, just agree to disagree and go back to the way things were.’ Essentially, unconditional surrender on both sides, which is a good thing because England was about to crumble.

A few years before WWI, the Bolshevik Jews had been chased out of Russia and had nowhere to go. The German people had taken them in. … But in WWI, the Jews of Germany contacted the Jews of England and said, ‘Tell England not to surrender. If we get the United States involved, the US will defeat Germany. We can get the US involved but if we do that, you have to give us Palestine. And that was the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was sent in 1917. Palestine had been part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 yrs until that same year. Two months after it was sent, the US entered the war because of the staging of the false flag event of the Lusitania. Without this deception, there would have been no continuation of WWI, no starvation blockade on the Germans to force them into the harsh and genocidal Treaty of Versailles, there would have been no WWII. And there would have been no Israel to try to start WWIII. Can there be any crime against humanity greater than deceiving nations into wars?

---

To compare the behavior of Jews in Russia with those who immigrated to the US, Unz linked Ross’ 1914 book, The Old World in the New with chapters on each race of immigrants, describing strengths and tendencies. On the Hebrews he writes:

In his defense of Flaccus, a Roman governor who had “squeezed” his Jewish subjects, Cicero lowers his voice when he comes to speak of the Jews, for, as he explains to the judges, there are persons who might excite against him this numerous, clannish and powerful element. With much greater reason might an American lower his voice to-day in discussing two million Hebrew immigrants united by a strong race consciousness and already ably represented at every level of wealth, power, and influence in the United States. …

The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way. The fact that pleasure-loving Jewish business men spare Jewesses but pursue Gentile girls excites bitter comment. The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other. Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.” …

Pent within the Talmud and the Pale of Settlement, their interests have become few, and many of them have developed a monstrous and repulsive love of gain. When now, they use their Old-World shove and wile and lie in a society like ours, as unprotected as a snail out of its shell, they rapidly push up into a position of prosperous parasitism, leaving scorn and curses in their wake. …

Most alarming is the great increase of criminality among Jewish young men and the growth of prostitution among Jewish girls. Says a Jewish ex-assistant attorney-general of the United States in an address before the B’nai B’rith: “Suddenly we find appearing in the life of the large cities the scarlet woman of Jewish birth.” “In the women’s night court of New York City and on gilded Broadway the majority of street walkers bear Jewish names.” “This sudden break in Jewish morality was not natural. It was a product of cold, calculating, mercenary methods, devised and handled by men of Jewish birth.” Says the president of the Conference of American Rabbis: “The Jewish world has been stirred from center to circumference by the recent disclosures of the part Jews have played in the pursuance of the white slave traffic.”

---

The cornerstones of my belief system are that all people are inherently good and, when they behave badly, systems are to blame. All systems can be changed and all communities are equally capable of self-governance. I refuse to believe in any religion that contradicts these cornerstones.

Judaism is not a race but a religion, and a religion is a system of ideology and morality that can be changed, can be chosen or unchosen. Several versions coexisted in first century Judea. The Shemite rabbis collaborated with Rome in the destruction of Jerusalem and its people. They preserved the Torah with its God-given right to enslave the descendants of Ham and take the land of Canaan. They kept alive the Davidic dynasty of rulers. They kept scriptures that blame women for their own rapes and make intermarriage the greatest offense to God.

This is a cult of superiority, not a religion. This is hatred served cold. I highly recommend the rest of the Unz article, including the Lindemann book Esau’s Tears. On the current hot hatred, he shows Scott Ritter’s forensic evidence that 80% of the Israelis killed on October 7th were airstrikes by the IDF. Hamas didn’t have weapons that could incinerate cars.

The IDF was on the scene, however, preventing cars from escaping a half-mile from the parking lot. Unz cites a detailed article that the maximum Israeli civilian deaths that day by Hamas were 119 and the minimum Israeli civilian deaths that day by the IDF were 126. So even in the worst attack on Israel, the IDF killed more of their own civilians than did Hamas.

An Israeli Cabinet Member was suspended for suggesting that Israel should drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza but the criticism was that he’d revealed Israel’s illegal nuclear arsenal, not that he wanted to nuke two million people. Yet Netanyahu is suggesting the same action by invoking Amalek from the Torah, where God says:

Now go and smite Amalek, 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.

With 200,000 footmen and 10,000 men from Judea, Saul obliterates Amalek down to the last newborn baby but spares the king. When he brings the king to Samuel, Samuel hacks the king to pieces and therefore gets the blessing denied to Saul for his ‘mercy’.

What we know from the Bible is what the Hebrews say they’ve done—committed genocide, the most inexcusable act of aggression possible. We don’t know that any justification of it is true, whether the behavior of the Amalekites or a voice for God. But we know for certain what the ancient Hebrews brag about in their scripture.

---

Believing other people are out to get you, which justifies getting as much as you can, is no way to live. Which comes first, the people against you or the behavior? The relationship of the Jews to the countries who hosted them was parasitic, as stated by E.A. Ross, taking wealth out and monopolizing it. That’s how the Jews, who were 1% of the German population, extracted one-third of German wealth after the onerous conditions that were imposed after WWI, due to the Balfour subterfuge.

If anyone questions the history of WWII and Germany’s treatment of the Jews, they are considered apologists and collaborators, no matter what historical sources they cite. In Germany and other countries, they can be imprisoned for it. They are considered collectively guilty for what they could have known and preemptively guilty for even examining the facts.

Why isn’t this same standard applied to Jews who don’t want to know their own history? Are they not also apologists and collaborators if they protect as heroes those who’ve caused the deaths and impoverishment of millions?

---

It’s an important distinction between how someone behaves—which can change—and who they are—which cannot. To say the Jews had a parasitic relationship to their hosts, which is very evident in Palestine, is not to say Jews are parasites. It’s to say the behavior is immoral no matter what a scripture or Rabbinic authority excuses.

The European diaspora has had a parasitic relationship to the world justified by the cold hatred embedded in Judeo-Christianity, on who is a real person and who’s not. As someone raised in that tradition and a citizen of the US, I’m responsible for knowing the true history of Christinity, colonization and enslavement. Otherwise, I’m a part of perpetuating it.

The immorality of Judaism towards the other is embedded in the parasitic organizations of the WEF, IMF, WHO, World Bank and the child rape blackmail that gives power over presidents and kings. I suggest we all become the alternate version of Jews as zealots and Sadducees, rejecting the Torah, the Bible, and the right of anyone to rule over us, or any God who tells us we’re special or to smite without mercy. I’ll be the first to join you.

---

For more, here is:

Looks at Israel's attack on Palestine through the lens of Vanessa Beeley, Mnar Adley, Daniel McAdams, Ramzy Baroud and James Corbett. Delves into two videos by Max Igan on Israeli False Flag and The Truth about Balfour's Time Bomb. Asks whether this spells the end, not of Palestine, but of Israel.

I start with Chris Hedges on Israel and examine stories from the Torah/ OT on younger sons usurping the inheritance through trickery and deceit, from Cain & Seth to Ishmael & Isaac to Esau & Jacob. Rabbinical Judaism in 70 CE sides with the Roman Empire against the anti-imperial rebels, and Josephus sees Africa and Egypt as the descendants of Ham, destined to be slaves. I cite a little-known documentary called The 13 Sugar Colonies and quote from the Talmud on what is permissible.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. —Lucius Annaeus Seneca In this episode, I’ll ask if Judeo-Christian scriptures are a 2000 yr psyops by and for empire. I'll look at why that question matters and why religion vs. no religion is a false dichotomy. And I’ll end with a conversation with a Hasidic Rabbi regarding Hebrew scriptures.

I analyze Yuval Noah Harari's "This is a War on the Mind & Soul" and compare two older Jordan Peterson interviews of Benjamin Netanyahu in "Whose Land is It Anyway?" and Maajid Narwaz's response to it. I also list over a dozen recent articles that counter the recent propaganda.