YahChoPeeps

Yahweh's Chosen People

The blogger known as Librarian has been posting long sections of excellent books like Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People and Victor Kattan’s From Coexistence to Conflict.

The question he is looking to answer is “What is the cause of anti-Semitism?” He also words the question as “Why do some people ‘hate’ some other group of people?” Although he doesn’t have an answer to this question, he still assumes that it’s true.

In the second half of Logic is Your Friend, I examine Librarian’s post on The Anti-Semitism Reality? Its subtitle reads:

There's much hate toward people that were/are Jewish. I don't use the term, "the Jews", nor the Jewish people, because these collectives are not existential, they are instrumentalized to further hate.

His post What This Anti-Semitism Thread Is About has this subtitle:

Can we acknowledge there is anti-Semitism and then investigate what keeps it going? Now I am not assigning a blame but wish to see if there's a collective responsibility, or can I undo my part in it?

His Index Page for our Anti-Semitism Project is subtitled this way:

A small sized population claim a certain Religious Heritage, and they get singled out as a people of scorn. Hate goes dormant, but then comes alive again throughout history. WHY IS THAT?

Let’s dig into these questions.

---

who?

As readers know, my first step in every analysis is to define the question and every term within it. Who are we talking about?

Librarian states that ‘The Jews’ or ‘The Jewish People’ is hate speech, instrumentalized anti-Semitism. So the collective hatred can be named but the people can’t. That makes no sense.

The word Jew was not coined until the 18th century, yet anti-Semitism has been claimed to exist for three millennia. How do we refer to this group of people without a collective identity? There must be something that distinguishes them.

I’ve suggested Yahwists but it’s not worship of a god that’s the salient feature. Some identify as secular Jews and secular Zionists. The critical belief is that the person has a blood lineage that’s special to god, above all other people.

I’m going to use Yahweh’s Chosen People or YahChoPeeps.

---

what?

Librarian identifies the active verbs in anti-Semitism as hate and scorn. These are emotions. Labelling a single person, much less millions of people, as irrational and driven by their emotions is to insult them. It says that they are perpetual children, incapable of reason, idiotic. It claims moral superiority in using the word ‘hate’.

My definition of cold hatred is superiority; it only turns into hot hatred, or violence, when challenged. The accusation of hatred is an example of hatred—it demeans the character of the other instead of looking at their behavior and asking why? It assumes there is no ‘why,’ this is just how those people are (unlike the accuser).

A rational approach looks at the behaviors on both sides. In The Anti-Semitism Reality? Librarian formats a list of 359 expulsions with the first four Biblical. So we can rephrase Librarian’s question as “Why were YahChoPeeps expelled from different countries and societies around the world over the course of two millennia?”

---

why?

One answer is quoted by Laurent Guyenot in From Yahweh to Zion:

‘Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy, with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind,’ writes Leon Pinsker, a medical doctor. ‘As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.’

But maybe you’re someone who doesn’t believe in demons and incurable hereditary aberrations—presumably requiring the death of the whole of mankind to cure, other than YahChoPeeps.

---

zionism: the zombie of a dead idea

Another post from Librarian is Zionism and the Return to Palestine was a ‘Dead Idea’ by the 19th Century.

8. Zionism and the Return to Palestine was a “Dead Idea” by the 19th Century.

He presents compelling evidence that those who identified as Jews didn’t want to move to Palestine in the early 1900’s. It was forced immigration through pograms and closing all other borders. From these authors, British imperialists used the Jews to colonize Palestine for their own geopolitical ambitions. It was Christian Zionists who created Jewish Zionism. Rothschild was ‘hesitant’ about the idea but worried that unchecked Jewish immigration would injure the existing British Jewish community. Librarian ends:

WITHOUT BRITISH COLONIALISM, THERE WOULD BE NO ISRAEL TODAY.  So many researchers point to defects in the “Jewish character”, those toxic ideas of separatism and superiority preserved in Biblical texts, (that Jews wholeheartedly imbibe).  I acknowledge that toxic ideas are in the Bible, but I doubt that a whole Jewish population is infected by them. They are also in the Christian Bible.  Are the Christians infected by them? (By the superiority – YES).

I wholeheartedly agree with his last line.

---

toxic corners

I asked:

Could you define anti-Semitism how you mean it, Librarian? And perhaps who you mean when you say 'THE JEWS'. I think that you and I agree there is no unified genetic people that ties back to ancient Judea but has spread around the world in the last two millennia. And I'm certain we agree that no people are genetically predisposed to nefarious intentions.

The only thing that unifies those who currently identify as Jews is a story. My intent is to show that story is both false and written with nefarious intent, to manipulate those who believe it into nefarious actions. Those stories, without a doubt, are the cause of present-day atrocities. Those who believe the stories need support to recognize they're being manipulated.

We agree, I'm sure, that there are present-day atrocities being committed by those who identify as Jews against Palestinians. One of those stories was keeping me awake last night and haunting my dreams. If these are not a 'people' with nefarious intent (and I don't think that's true of anyone) what do you see as the cause?

He answered:

My investigation is aimed at breaking some of the stereotypes that are attached by people who use the term "the Jews". Those stereotypes are what I call anti-Semitism, even if they somehow seem positive attributes. I will never use that collective term myself, (which doesn't exist).

All of civilizations are built on various stories. That's no different for anyone. Most of those stories have their "toxic corners", some are more blatant than others. I like to look at individual people as life-affirmative and life-denial, meaning those that build (on something) and those that destroy (most everything). …

Guyenot says that his book is a critique of toxic ideas, (stereotypes), and that lies come first. It’s only by exposing the lies that the violence will end. I don't exactly agree. He exposes plenty of lies, but on UNZ, it fires up his commenter's into even more disdain, or more sureness that their pre-existing anti-Semitism is right.

I see him as building hate. I don't say intentionally, but that is the result. Well-meaning authors have to be cognizant of how their work is being received. It is not a path I would choose. …

Western populations may think that world peace will bring prosperity to all, but it won't. Your prosperity is based on world turmoil, and the more the better. This is the ugly truth, and we are all into denial about it. THIS IS THE CAUSE that you seek.

The Balfour Declaration was Jewish Hate, because it manipulated the Jewish for purely British colonial ends. …

It seems that Librarian is saying no generality can be made about ‘the Jews,’ even to use the term. But there can be no questioning of anti-Semitism, which means anyone who talks about the Jews as a group, even in positive terms.

I don’t think anyone who reads me denies the role of the West in creating world turmoil. Nor the centrality of the City of London and British imperialism. I don’t see those as mutually exclusive with the complicity of the YahChoPeeps.

---

wherefore the Balfour?

Was the Balfour a manipulation of the Jews by British imperialists? I commented:

The question it leaves open is "Who instigated the Balfour Declaration?" Your premise is that it was specifically named British imperialists with political motives. They initiated it as a bribe in the hopes that Jewish Zionists would use their influence on the side of Britain in the war.

While British figures are named, and you don't assume that the man or woman on the London street shared in these manipulations, it's juxtaposed against 'the Jews' as in "the Jews showed little inclination to migrate," showing they had no interest in the Balfour. 'The Jews' are seen as a people without leadership or elites. No political or imperial motives are attributed to individual Jews.

The first victims of the Balfour were not the Palestinians but the Germans. They were betrayed from within Germany—that's confirmed by historical documents presented after the end of the war in order to lay claim to Palestine when land was being divvied up. Judea called itself a nation when it declared war on Germany in 1933. That's not something that can be done without an internal authority system. Here is a lengthy quote from Benjamin Freedman's speech:

"World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

"Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her— and after that, starvation.

"At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

"Now Germany—not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

“While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and—I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible—the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war."

"In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey."

"Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain—that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine—should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

"However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that—I don't know how many here remember it—the United States, which was almost totally pro-German—totally pro-German—because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

"The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers—the German-Jews—Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

"Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

"Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room."

I concluded that Freedman was in a position to know the truth and had nothing to gain by saying this, in fact, lost all his savings by trying to get this word out. To say that British imperialists instigated this would need to refute his documents showing that Jewish Zionists went to the British War Cabinet with this proposal.

Julius Skoolafish has also posted recently on Benjamin Freedman:

How The World Was Fooled - That Benjamin H Freedman Speech

---

girls will be gulled

Librarian replied:

That's quite a write-up you gave to Benjamin Freedman. He must have been convincing. Wikipedia says he was a Holocaust denier, and vocal anti-Zionist. I scanned his speech. For me it was pretty crude and full of assertions. He claims Judea declared war on Germany in 1933, but most of the speech is about before WWI.

He says "the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet, (before the Balfour Declaration). Names he mentions are German industrialists and bankers, Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Nahum Sokolow a Hebrew, Mr. Rathenau, Mr. Balin, Mr. Bleichroder, the Warburgs. Were these all Zionists? Remember that Zionist plans were dead in the water because there were no people that wanted to move there.

Then these combined with the British Zionists went to the war cabinet. Who were they? Theodor Herzl was Austro-Hungarian. Rothschild was a reluctant Zionist, only trying to protect the Jews already in England. Herbert Samuel, Chiam Weizmann, Sir Eric Cassel (?) Who else? What are the names of the English Zionists pre-1917? Please make a convincing case.

So this little group claims they have the power to control America, because THE JEWS, run the United States, and they will do what these Zionists (we) dictate. So lets have the names of THE JEWS that run America? There was Felix Frankfurter and Justice Louis Brandeis. He drops names like Henry Morgenthau, Sr. and then he says Freedman himself sat at the negotiating table, where President Wilson proved clueless on what was going on, (kind of like Biden I guess)?

I will remind you that at this exact time the book "the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" came out, its Russian author Sergyei Nilus, (New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000), (‘International sales of the pamphlet were astronomical during the 1920s and 1930s; Henri Rollin, the French scholar of anti-Semitism, called the Protocols the most widely distributed book in the world other than the Bible, and its distribution was accompanied by a mountain of secondary literature comprising well more than one thousand titles’). They were published in English as late as the 1970's, 50 years after it's proven a forgery.

(‘One would normally expect the mysterious rulers to be called Elders of Jewry or Elders of Israel. There must be some reason why they bear the absurd name of Elders of Zion, but that was their target.)

Was Turkey reading this book, was Iran, or India, or China, the Japanese? NO, Only Europeans and Americans have rabid anti-Semitist's.

All these men (especially Churchill), Balfour and others, believed these allegations were true at the time. (Benjamin Freedman too.) The Protocols were a forgery of an earlier book published in France entitled, ‘Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu; or, the Politics of Machiavelli in the Nineteenth Century’, {which had nothing to do with the Jews}. If you go through the two books line by line you will find many paragraphs directly copied. …

Anyone who claims that Jews run the world and we will deliver any policy that you desire if you just "give us" Palestine, is really the epitome of idiocy, not to say epitome of anti-Semitism. Please see my post number 9 for more clarity.

So Librarian begins by calling me gullible and ends by calling my ideas “the epitome of idiocy, not to say epitome of anti-Semitism.” For contrast, here are segments of comments Nefahotep posted to Librarian:

First, I would say the key to "re - cognize" and "re - collect" the events that may have taken place in ancient times, is Linguistics. … Such as the real name of the Hebrew: Habiru or Hapiru or Apiru.

Semitism itself is a system of slaves and masters from the most ancient attestations. The Canaanites were bequeathed by Noah to Shem to be his slaves. To be Anti Shemite is to be against that system of slaves and masters.

… usually those stories were written long after the events they describe, yet are used to justify the claims of Empire and the construction of a Control Prison called "Hierarchy." Etymology: from Greek Roots: Hieros (“sacred”) and archein (“rule” or “order”)

My theory is these "Habiru" were the same ones known in Sumeria as Šagašu, meaning trespassers because they were wanderers that were not welcome. They became the "Shepards" the Egyptians had reason to fear.

… that includes their very secretive Parasitic Culture which also includes its own Psychopathy. It's basically a "Cult." One lady posted a very strong worded article in 2016 about why she left the Cult. https://mondoweiss.net/2016/10/why-i-left-the-cult/

I believe that people are essentially morally equal, when "Bad" things happen, systems are to blame and those can be changed.

… the reason for the emphasized violence and superiority in the Hebrew stories is because the whole story of Shemitism is one about Masters and Slaves.

Hating someone or something is like taking Poison and expecting the other person to die.

Originally, with barter there was always a slight advantage from one side or other, this imbalance was only there to keep the relationship of exchange going. One person would get a "Barter - Gain" (Bargain) the other would try to get the upper hand next time; however, there was no third party or Ususrer.

Librarian’s responses began:

Hello Nefahotep, and thanks for introducing me to your stimulating research. … I'd like to thank you for your comprehensive reply.

And he continues in respectful terms, which may not have been the case if those ideas had been credited.

---

a nation, a genealogy, a historical narrative or a religion?

In his post, Every Human Being Has a Story, Librarian presents the intro of Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People. Shlomo says that Judaism is "an important belief-culture" and "appealing religion that spread widely until the triumphant rise of its proselytizing rivals, Christianity and Islam and then, despite humiliation and persecution, succeeded in surviving into the modern age.."

So he places the locus of anti-Semitism in other people (not just institutions of power), who have an irrational bias and hostility against others who worship differently. But he also places the locus of the problem within a Judaism that confuses itself as a nation, a genealogy and a historical narrative, rather than a religion.

I look at Yahwism as a belief in a sociopathic god with a twisted morality where ethnic purity justifies the most morally reprehensible behaviors. It's appealing in the way that superiority always is, whether that's 'chosen people' or 'American exceptionalism.' There is no common ethnicity, only people who've been taught that it's their right to rule over others.

a new rule

I’d like to end with a new rule:

To find the good in heresies, read their detractors.

To find the bad in religions, read their scriptures.

Often, all that still exists of burned ‘heretical’ scriptures is the refutation against them, yet reading between the lines, you can tell that they’re loving and inclusive. On the flip side, one of my challenges is to open the Old Testament at random and see if you can find a page without something morally revolting. If your scripture celebrates deceit, enslavement, dismemberment, rape, incest, imperialism and genocide down to the suckling babe, why look any further for why societies would evict the YahChoPeeps?

On the last page of From Yahweh to Zion, after 490 pp of evidence, Laurent Guyenot concludes:

As a collective entity, the Jewish people has always behaved like a sociopath among other peoples. Many Jews, of course, have resisted that collective mind frame. But most have been bred into it for generations—not just by their parents, but by their tribal god, the fake Yahweh. Today’s Jews cannot be blamed for having inherited as sacred text the most extraordinary hoax in all human history. As children of a psychopathic god, they are his first victims. But although no one is responsible for the faith he has grown up with, everyone, at some stage, should take responsibility for it.

---

a segue for the curious

For your amusement, on a different topic, my first episode on Librarian also answered Winston Smith. He tricked me into responding again because he reincarnated as Thought Criminal 1984. That assumes this is a ‘he’ and not an insult bot. Here’s our exchange on my last video, The Great Displacement:

ThoughtCriminal_1984:

Your state of the union speech at the end.... that sound's lovely, but does this only occur after you've forcefully removed the homeless people from your area? It's strange watching you claiming to be caring on one hand and then on the other talk about the forceful removal of those you deem unworthy of that same community spirit and love...

Tereza:

Where do I claim to be caring, ThoughtCriminal? To me, the purpose of gov't is NOT to take care of people but to enable people to take care of themselves and their own. You can't have it both ways.

If 'caring' means providing for other people's needs, how many people are you capable of caring for? How many people do you currently care for? All that 'caring' means to you is shifting the responsibility to provide for others onto other people. Isn't that the opposite of actually caring for them, in any tangible way?

If you take the term 'caring' as anything other than lip service, you first need to limit the people you take responsibility for. Taking care of one person responsibly, as in raising a child, is a difficult task. Instead of supporting parents in that task, our system forces them to serve the rich.

My system gives families and communities the means to care for their own. Your system shirks that responsibility and places it on others.

ThoughtCriminal_1984:

a sister and brotherhood that takes care of each other... except if you're homeless, then YOU Tereza or your commonwealth will forcibly remove you from her area.. come on Tereza, how come you're so ardent in your refusel to see the hypocrisy and dichotomy of these two positions.

Tereza:

you never answered the question of how many people you physically take responsibility for. How many sisters and brothers do you care for? And who would be homeless if you hadn't taken them in? Your logic and style of accusation seem eerily similar to Winston Smith.

ThoughtCriminal_1984:

I have children, but have taught them to be physically responsible for themselves, I still provide care for them obviously as they are children, I will continue to provide the required care, guidance and knowledge so that they themselves can take care of themselves completely and then hopefully pass that onto their children...

You're still ignoring the reality that you make claims of being caring and anti superiority on one hand and espousing dictatorial ideas and machinations on the other.... I'm not accusing you of anything Tereza, I'm pointing out the absurdly hypocritical and antithetical points you continually espouse... the fact you don't address these points and instead obfuscate the conversation highlights your unwillingness to confront the cognitive dissonance of these two positions...

Tereza:

okay, I'm going to address you as Winston since you're clearly the person I already made a whole episode about. So you and I care for others who are our children. You don't take responsibility for random strangers who are homeless. Correct?

Please find and quote where I claim to be caring. If I thought I was more caring than other people, I'd be claiming moral superiority, yes? I don't claim that. I believe that everyone has the same capability that you and I have to take care of our own children, if the system was changed.

But I've already been through pointing out your insults. It clearly had no effect.

ThoughtCriminal_1984:

I've already pointed you to where you made the claim your system will allow everyone to be more caring... you make statements about those in Palestine and their ordeal, showing you care for others, then make statements such as "I'd ship the homeless back to where they came from". These two ways of thinking are absolutely antithetical to one another...

This isn't about claiming moral superiority. You're claiming actual superiority, as in your life in the area you live in, has more value than the homeless people you want to ship to wherever... If you can't see that, then I can't help you...

I'm not sure whether you do think you care for others more or not... however, you clearly have a hard time dealing with genuine constructive dialogue. You also clearly have trouble being logically or rationally consistent in your ideas and principles. You also like to ascribe strawman arguments to other people rather than address their points of criticism....

Tereza:

Saying that my system would allow communities and families to care for their own is the exact opposite of saying that I care more than others. I believe those in Palestine are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves if a psychopathic system wasn't killing them and stealing their land. And perhaps those people should be sent back to where they came from.

Why do you feel that communities and families have no desire to care for their own children, even if they had the means? My system gives them the means but you think it's okay that they've put their mentally ill and substance abusers on buses, as is termed Greyhound therapy?

And why do you assume there are no homeless that would come back here? The value of every place is in its people. You say that those who were born here have no right to come back, no right to live here, but anyone who comes from elsewhere to live on the streets has to be provided housing because it's okay for their communities to evict them.

But I'll let you have the last word. Have at it.

ThoughtCriminal_1984:

you're actually displaying selfish and narcissistic tendencies... I wonder why your marriage ended in divorce....

And that, my friends, is why I tell women that:

Love the person, challenge the ideas. Women are good at the first but not the second. Men are good at the second but not the first. If we’re going to get out of this rat race, we need to be doing both. I’m on a mission to make women more argumentative and claim logic as their friend. And perhaps a mission to make men less judgmental, which is to say more loving. I look at two discussions on moral superiority and semantics of anti-Semitism to make my point.

For my daughter's 32nd birthday, I talk about the dispersal of friends out of California for houses, replacing those who left their hometowns to find jobs. I feminize my historical and Biblical analysis by telling the stories, including ‘In Memory of My Best Friend Jumana’ by Ghaydaa Owaidah. From my book, How to Dismantle an Empire, I explain why we are all precariots, as the Greeks termed themselves under IMF austerity. And how community is being killed by a thousand contactless cuts.