REC #2 HATONN
SUN., JUN. 26, 1994 11:41 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 314
SUN., JUN. 26, 1994
NAMES TO NOTE IN THIS OFFERING
N. deB. KATZENBACH
There are lots of others but THESE are some of the ongoing USURPERS of your nation and freedom--DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE!
DIRECT SEQUENCE: THE USURPERS, Part 1:
CHAPTER I: A.D. 1968
The Year 1968, which Americans expect to end in victory for some party or independent group among us, began with defeat and humiliation for us all. In a previously unparalleled insult to the American flag, the Russian puppet government of North Korea [H: Isn't it INTERESTING that you again, today, have such big happenings and near war--in Korea? These things are IMPORTANT, readers.] seized a vessel of the United States Navy on the high seas and haled it captive into Wonsan harbor. The eighty-three members of its crew (except one or two who were perhaps lucky to be killed in the encounter) were imprisoned and charged with being spies--an offense traditionally punishable by death, and in the Orient commonly an occasion for ingenious torture.
In the United States instant popular outrage at the enemy action was soon frustrated by the ambiguous conduct of our own government. Spokesmen for the Johnson Administration immediately admitted that the captured vessel, the U.S.S. Pueblo, had been indeed an "electronic intelligence" ship, in plain English, a spy ship. This admission at once virtually precluded any possibility of "the immediate release of the vessel and her crew" which Secretary of State Dean Rusk said the Administration was working to obtain. As if to guarantee the failure of any such effort, Secretary Rusk said, "We would like to see the Russians give us some help in this."
From the outset of the Pueblo incident, Washington's position was in effect: (1) we were indeed trying to spy on Russian-dominated North Korea, (2) we hoped the Russians would be good enough to help us get our spy ship back. It is rather as if a policeman tried to investigate the activities of a housebreaker and then begged the gangleader to make his man give back the flashlight he had snatched in the scuffle. The simile is hardly dignified; neither was the conduct of the Johnson Administration, nor Secretary Rusk's language. To reporters Rusk said, "My advice to the North Koreans is to cool it." This advice had as little effect on the Russian puppets in Pyongyang as if it had indeed come from a San Francisco hippy.
Out of the legal cul-de-sac in which the United States was placed by the Administration's admission that the function of the Pueblo was espionage, out of the official weakness exhibited in throwing ourselves on the mercy of Moscow (hardly noted for mercy), Americans in midwinter 1968 could do little more than puzzle over the questions generated by the bizarre event. These questions included:
(1) Why did the Pueblo not acquire sufficient intelligence in time to take evasive action? Should not the officers in command of such a ship be the last to rely on artificial conventions such as the 12-mile limit for security, and be guided by real knowledge of real enemy capabilities and intentions? How on Earth can an ultrasophisticated instrument of an ultrasophisticated intelligence agency let itself be taken by surprise?
Since "intelligence" covers intent as well as ability, it may be said that Commander Lloyd M. Bucher had no reason to suspect that the North Koreans would attack the Pueblo. Russian "trawlers" prowl continually in American waters without our attacking them--though we know that they too are in reality electronic intelligence ships. There are several reasons that the U.S. Navy doesn't apprehend Russian "trawlers"; one is that we are supposed to be afraid of the consequences. Why were not the Russian-dominated North Koreans afraid of the consequences of seizing the Pueblo? What gave them the confidence to twist the nuclear American tiger by the tail? Did they have advance assurance that the operation would be as painless for them as in fact it turned out to be? [H: Is it possible that the United States was surrendered to the Soviets well over 29 years ago instead of 9? Ponder it!]
(2) If initial news reports were factual why was no armed resistance made to the North Korean attack on a vessel of the United States Navy? The Pueblo itself, according to first reports, offered no resistance. Armed with two or three .50 caliber machine guns (accounts vary), it kept them "under canvas" (TIME), "tied down with their muzzles pointing inboard" (NEWSWEEK). Speculation was that wounds suffered by four members of the crew resulted from efforts to destroy esoteric equipment on board rather than from fighting enemy boarders. Later accounts denied the complete passivity of Commander Bucher and his men; columnist Paul Scott said February 5 (thirteen days after the event) that according to official but confidential reports made to the National Security Agency and circulated "within the Navy", the Pueblo did fight back, that two attempts to board it were repulsed, that members of the crew were wounded by enemy gunfire, that the .50 caliber machine guns were used, but eventually put out of operation by enemy fire, and that only then, on the third attempt, did the North Koreans succeed in boarding and capturing the ship. But whether the officers and men of the Pueblo made a gallant defense or none, they could not and did not make an adequate one. The prize was towed to the Russian submarine base of Wonsan, Korea. All Americans who survived were imprisoned and charged with criminal "aggression" which was allegedly admitted by Commander Bucher in a broadcast. The broadcast was quickly branded as a fake by those who knew Bucher and knew the English language.
What is not open to question is that the Pueblo got no help from either the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Air Force. Navy fighting craft in the Far East were still too far from the scene. Why? The Air Force, with bases in both nearby South Korea (five to ten minutes jet flying time) and intermediate-range Japan (thirty to forty-five minutes flying time), was helpless, in part because planes otherwise suitable for such a mission were armed only with nuclear weapons--which the United States is committed not to use for any foreseeable reason, and which certainly would have been inappropriate for rescuing the Pueblo. This explanation of the Air Force's inactivity raises far more questions than it answers, one being: Do not available fighter planes have permanently installed weapons--machine guns, cannon, sidewinders--which would have been helpful in strafing the Pueblo's captors? If not, why not?
It is assumed for twenty years that American air and sea power are unrivaled in the world. Such a standard source of information as the Columbia Encyclopedia states soberly in the Third Edition (1963): "At the end of the Second World War... the United States emerged as the uncontested leader in world sea power." To be sure, Secretary of Defense McNamara had been in the Pentagon only two years when that was written, and Lyndon Johnson was not yet President. In the air, American primacy has been, also, taken for granted. Around 1955 there was talk by such as the Alsops of a Soviet buildup in strategic air power, but after Sputnik I (October 1957) wiseacres agreed that Russian success with missiles was due to their having bypassed development and construction of manned aircraft to concentrate on upping thrust and payloads for ICBM's. Whatever the merits of that speculation, there has been little or no pretense in recent years that Russian-manned aircraft matches ours, and in any case it was not an ICBM which was needed to protect the Pueblo. Actually, the Pueblo needed less air cover than we refused to give the Cuban freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs.
(3) Why was the Pueblo not scuttled, if necessary, to prevent capture? This is not just a matter of honor, though it is a matter of honor. The Pueblo carried some of the most advanced inventions in the field of electronic data collection; its crew were trained in operation of the instruments in initial evaluation and interpretation of the data--perhaps in more. The Pueblo represented a tremendous investment in brainpower. This is what made it such a prize for the Russians. [H: Perhaps you will now better understand WHY so many of the Korean POWs were taken to Russia?! And are STILL THERE--if alive. You might also note that these POWs on the helicopters shot down in Iraq--were some of these very men--scientific giants who COULD TELL ALL!] It should not be forgotten that it is the Russians who hold the Pueblo. Wonsan is in North Korean territory, but its harbor is important because it is a Russian submarine base, more important than Vladivostok. The Russian control of Wonsan harbor is more complete than our control of the Panama Canal, or of the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo, Cuba.
It is nonsense to say, as the news magazines have said, that Commander Bucher did not have time or opportunity to scuttle his own ship as he should have done. If he had the right training, the right equipment, and the right orders, he could have scuttled the ship--either literally and in toto, or effectively through destruct mechanisms in the ship's classified equipment. If he had sunk the ship, he and the crew might have perished with it. Sacrifices of that nature have been made before. One thinks of Thermopylae and of the Alamo. (One does not, however, demand such sacrifices; that they are voluntary is part of their heroism.) There is, from the military point of view, the consideration that men who are captured will be subjected to "brainwashing", including the most subtle forms of torture. They might rather die. It should be their choice.
(4) Why was the Johnson Administration's reaction to the Pueblo incident so slow, feeble, and ambiguous?
Walt Rostow, a former undercover chief for the CIA, now the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs, is said to have learned about 1:00 A.M., January 23, Washington time, of the Pueblo's capture, three hours earlier, noon Korean time. Although Secretary McNamara had been informed perhaps a half hour earlier, it was Rostow who, after mulling it over for an hour, broke the news to Johnson, calling him at 2:00 A.M.
TIME says that Johnson "stayed in bed but was briefed during the next four hours as additional details flowed in." NEWSWEEK rationalized, "Since there was little the President could do at that point, he went back to bed and catnapped until 6:30 A.M." Little the President could do?
By that time Commander Bucher and his men had been taken ashore at Wonsan, charged with crimes, and had their pictures taken, marching to jail with hands up. The photograph, distributed by TASS and cabled to the United States by the Associated Press, was just the image the enemy needed to offset the one of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima twenty-three long years before.
When Johnson finally got up that morning, he got busy. What did he get busy about? He tried to prevent Americans from "overreacting". That was the way in which many officials in Washington saw the problem--to restrain ourselves. Senator Mike Mansfield, the Majority Leader said: "We ought to keep our shirts on and not go off half-cocked until we know more." Senator John Stennis of Mississippi, a "hawk" and chairman of the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee said: "We must avoid precipitous and rash overreaction. We must proceed without panic."
We Americans have to be so careful! We don't know our own strength! We sure don't. Our armed forces are virtually paralyzed and our citizens don't know it. But North Korean estimates of their own strength seemed to be pretty good. They cheerfully sailed in and took the Pueblo!
Johnson consulted with Special Assistant Walt Rostow, and with Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, CIA Director Richard Helms, Under Secretary of State Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Nitze, and others. The results? Apparently none. That our government would take essentially no action shocked the nation.
Americans wanted a Teddy Roosevelt Percicaris-alive-or-Raisuli-dead ultimatum from the White House. But what did Lyndon Johnson do? He called up the Reserves and the National Guard. If the Starfighters and Thunder-chiefs in Korea at the time, if the nuclear-powered carrier Enterprise based in Japan and reportedly ordered pronto to Korean waters could not compel the respect of the Communists in East Asia, what could the National Guard with--shall we say--lesser equipment and not in battle condition be expected to do? As a response to the seizure of the Pueblo, the calling up of the Reserves and the Guard simply made no sense. [H: Looking back you can see that it made all the sense in the world--just as TODAY--it keeps the citizens IN LINE AND UNDER CONTROL. THAT IS WHY THERE ARE TROOPS ALL OVER YOUR NATION NOW--TO KEEP YOU-THE-PEOPLE UNDER CONTROL AS YOUR NATION IS HANDED OVER!]
(5) Why did the Johnson Administration tell the truth about the Pueblo's being a spy ship when it never tells the truth about anything else? The only consequence of such an unnecessary admission was to make the recovery of the vessel and the rescue of the men even more difficult.
Recapping our questions: (1) Why did the Pueblo let itself be attacked? (2) Why did none of the armed forces come to its rescue? (3) Why was the ship not scuttled, if necessary, to prevent capture? (4) Why was Washington so dilatory and ineffectual in its reaction? (Surely an underreaction.) (5) Why did Washington admit that the Pueblo was a spy ship?
The cynical answer to all these questions is that the Pueblo was deliberately delivered to the Soviets--with most of its equipment intact and most of its highly-trained crew in good health. One cannot accept such an answer, can one? If only it were not so hard to find another answer! [H: Can you see that in the opening of eyes and ears these things can now be realized as EXACTLY what they WERE--it should be getting easier for you citizens to recognize the ongoing pattern--for it is with you EVERY DAY!]
The Administration is anxious to prevent or curb "overreaction" by the American people. It is this country, the United States of America, which in the view of the Liberal Establishment represents the main threat to world peace. One face of the Establishment asserts with Presidential aspirant Robert F. Kennedy that the Vietnamese War itself is an example of American warmongering, while the other face, in the person of President Lyndon B. Johnson himself, tries to maintain that we are carrying on some kind of holding action, but also reassure the sophisticated that there is no intention of carrying things in Vietnam to the point of military victory. Indeed, one senses that the fighting in Vietnam is, among other things, a sort of therapeutic bloodletting, which may actually prevent the Americans from becoming involved in any more serious military venture. The Americans are to be kept occupied in Vietnam in the interests of Communist-aiding world "Peace".
The surrender or delivery of the Pueblo to the Russians entailed the risk that the American people would "overreact"; that they would insist upon a military victory in the Orient, and thus produce a loss of face for the Communists. But General Vo Nguyen Giap's "Tet" offensive throughout South Vietnam, striking simultaneously in dozens of cities--including Saigon with its airport, its docks, its character as the center of the American presence in Southeast Asia--this offensive took the American people's minds off the Pueblo by showing them they had more serious things to worry about. When the modern, presumably impregnable American Embassy was taken and held for hours by a handful of Viet Cong, when enemy rifle fire crashed through windows in General Westmoreland's "Pentagon East", when Marines and longshoremen on the Saigon docks were overpowered and supplies foraged by Viet Cong from American vessels--when all this and twenty-five other assaults, from the Mekong Delta in the South to the ironically named "Demilitarized Zone" (DMZ) along the 17th parallel in the North attacks were considered as probably mere diversions or feints to prepare for a more serious attack on the fortified United States base at Khe Sanh, Americans began to realize that their troops in South Vietnam have no secure base, no line of resistance or attack, no discernible objective. Perhaps what we have in Vietnam is half a million American hostages, armed expensively, but--deployed and curbed as they are from Washington--armed to no purpose, unless it be ultimately to supply General Giap. Giap once said--when fighting the French--that in technologically underprivileged Southeast Asia, "the sole source of supply could only be the battle front." We shall consider this very real possibility later in this book.
In those days, before Dien Bien Phu, even General Giap probably never dreamed how much richer the loot would be when the Americans came in force, never dreamed how in 1968 his "Tet" offensive might serve also the purpose of diverting attention from a ship named Pueblo. Giap probably never imagined that a "Pueblo", delivered to his Russian allies in the North, would represent a sophisticated triumph of logistics for "Peace". By heating up the situation in Vietnam, Giap "cooled it" in Korea, where the Russians now have the electronic gear of the Pueblo on ice.
Whittaker Chambers had a quote: Whatever does not destroy me makes me stronger. The Korean War and the Vietnamese War have not destroyed the United States, perhaps have made us stronger. If so, it can only be because we may have learned something. What can we have learned? Something like the following:
(1) that the Korean War is not over and that we have not yet won it. If the seizure of the Pueblo was on the level, then our Navy and Air Force are either incompetent or hamstrung from within. If, as seems more likely, the seizure was not on the level, then the Administration is not loyal;
(2) that Communism is a coordinated world enterprise, which can program action in one theater, such as Korea, to accomplish an objective in another, such as Vietnam. The sequence could be reversed;
(3) that American fighting men have no secure base in Vietnam--that our troops have not so much invaded and taken South Vietnam, as they have been surrounded and left as possible hostages in a hostile environment from which we shall be lucky if we can get them out--a la Dunkirk;
(4) that--since none of this was necessary but must have been planned, in part at least, in Washington, and perhaps elsewhere--only the blindest faith could continue to believe in the loyalty of the Administration in Washington.
The author of this book, who worked for six years in Washington in a sensitive government agency, does not believe that the top men in Washington are incompetent. I do not think, either, that many, if any, of these top men are traitors in the classical sense of simply betraying their own country, the U.S.A., to another country, say the U.S.S.R. I think that many of our top leaders in government and business have participated in a usurpation of power through which they hope to manage rather than represent the American people. I think further that they hope to participate in the management of the world, and that they do not envisage this as possible without ultimately merging with the Communist bloc.
If this line of thought is hard for you as an ordinary American to follow, I must say that the men of whom I speak are not ordinary Americans, though in dress and manner they may often appear so. They have as a rule abandoned what they tend to regard as archaic concepts, such as the "sacred honor" invoked by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. These modern Usurpers want us to think of them as "men of good will" in the service of "history". The Usurpers think of themselves as sophisticated, but I think they have failed to grasp, intellectually and morally, the true value of the American heritage.
By no means are all the Usurpers in the Johnson Administration. Both Johnson and Nixon differ from Kennedy in the so called controversy of the "hawks" and the "doves". Ironically, the "hawks" are at least as tame as medieval hunting falcons. They strike if their master commands; otherwise they sit tamely on the wrist.
Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, like Dean Rusk, may speak harshly of "Hanoi", or even "Peking". But they are ingratiating toward Moscow. They maintain a protective attitude toward Castro in Havana. Bobby would be as accommodating as they toward the Red Cubans and Russians; he would simply add consistency by selling out similarly to the Red Chinese and North Vietnamese.
The remedy for the situation is, in part, at hand. The year 1968 is an election year. At some time after November 5, 1968, we shall know whether the Usurpers of the type who are operating the present Administration are (1) to continue in power, or (2) to be replaced by Establishment substitutes, or (3) be replaced by more representative Americans. It is a challenging prospect. In 1806 an English poet, looking across the Channel at the rise of one of the most brilliant Usurpers of all time, considered the outlook for that administration which would guide his own country in its deadly struggle with Napoleonic imperialism. It was William Wordsworth who voiced hopes for Englishmen which Americans may feel today. And in his sonnet "November 1806" he also judged the whole tribe of men whose concept of government is to make an accommodation with "history", men such as those whom we must judge at the polls in November 1968. [H: Well, I'd certainly say man FAILED in the polls in 1968 and every time, again and again until such time as there can be no ability to overrule the polling technology.]
We shall exult, if they who rule the land
Be men who hold its many blessings dear,
Wise, upright, valiant; not a servile band,
Who are to judge of danger which they fear,
And honor, which they do not understand.
* * *
If man will "learn" he can overcome that which is brought against him. If he refuses to do so--he is destined and doomed to continue in enslavement.
I have kept you far too long at this, Dharma. I apologize but I can promise you, child, that there will be whatever energy, whatever is required to see through our task--shall come in some manner as man realizes the plight and fate if he changes not. We are writing the records for "history" as it MUST be--not according to the way we "wish it to be told." Thank you.
REC #3 HATONN
SUN., FEB. 17, 1991 11:58 A.M. YEAR 4 DAY 185
THE VATICAN OF JUDAISM
Editor's note: This is an excerpt from a letter to Dr. Goldstein LL.D., from Benjamin H. Freedman, Oct. 10, 1954, taken from Hatonn's writing in journal #25, BITTER COMMUNION, ALTARS OF HEMLOCK "AND A NEW RELIGION SHALL SWEEP ACROSS THE LANDS AND THE PEOPLE WILL BE DECEIVED..."
The eminent Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, the head of the The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, often referred to as the "The Vatican of Judaism", in his Forward to his First Edition of this world-famous classic "The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith", on page XXI states:
". . .Judaism. . .Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Midieval Rabbinism, and Midieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name. . .the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered. . .From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered. . .demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement. . ."
The celebrated Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in his great classic quoted from above traces the origin of the form of religious worship practiced today under the present name "Judaism", to its origin as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus. Rabbi Louis Finkelstein confirms what the eminent Rabbi Adolph Moses stated in his great classic "Yahvism, and Other Discourses", in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi H.G. Enelow, published in 1903 by the Louisville Section of the Council of Jewish Women, in which Rabbi Adolph Moses, on page 1 states:
"Among the inumerable misfortunes which have befallen. . .the most fatal in its consequences is the name Judaism. . .Worse still, the Jews themselves, who have gradually come to call their religion Judaism. . .Yet, neither in biblical nor post-biblical, neither in talmudic, nor in much later times, is the term Judaism ever heard. . .The Bible speaks of the religion. . .as ‘Torath Yahve', the instruction, or the moral law revealed by Yahve. . .in other places. . .as ‘ Yirath Yahve', the fear and reverence of Yahve. These and other appelations CONTINUED FOR MANY AGES TO STAND FOR THE RELIGION. . .To distinguish it from Christianity and Islam, the Jewish philosophers sometimes designate it as the faith or belief of the Jews. . .IT WAS FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, WRITING FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF GREEKS AND ROMANS, WHO COINED THE TERM JUDAISM, in order to pit it against Hellenism. . .By Hellenism was understood the civilization, comprising language, poetry, religion, art, science, manners, customs, institutions, which. . .had spread from Greece, its original home, over vast regions of Europe, Asia and Africa. . .The Christians eagerly seized upon the name. . .The Jews themselves, who intensly detested the traitor Josephus, refrained from reading his works. . .HENCE THE TERM JUDAISM COINED BY JOSEPHUS REMAINED ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN TO THEM. . .IT WAS ONLY IN COMPARATIVELY RECENT TIMES, AFTER THE JEWS BECAME FAMILIAR WITH MODERN CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, THAT THEY BEGAN TO NAME THEIR RELIGION JUDAISM." (emphasis supplied)
This statement by the world's two leading authorities on this subject clearly establishes beyond any question or any doubt that so-called "Judaism" was not the name of any form of religious worship practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus. The Flavius Josephus referred to in the above quotation lived in the 1st century. It was he who coined the word "Judaism" in the 1st century explicitly for the purpose recited clearly above. Religious worship known and practiced today under the name "Judaism" by so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world was known and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name "Pharisaism" according to Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, head of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and all the other most competent and qualified recognized authorities on the subject.
The form of religious worship known as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclusively upon the Talmud. The Talmud in the time of Jesus was the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, all rolled into one, of those who practiced "Pharisaism". The Talmud today occupies the same relative position with respect to those who profess "Judaism". The Talmud today virtually exercises totalitarian dictatorship over the lives of so-called or self-styled "Jews" whether they are aware of that fact or not. Their spiritual leaders make no attempt to conceal the control they exercise over the lives of so-called or self-styled "Jews". They extend their authority far beyond the legitimate limits of spiritual matters. Their authority has no equal outside religion.
The role the Talmud plays in "Judaism" as it is practiced today is officially stated by the eminent Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, , the Director of Interreligious Activities of the American Jewish Committee and the President of the Jewish Chaplains Association of the Armed Forces of the United States. In his present capacity as official spokesman for The American Jewish Committee, the self-styled "Vatican of Judaism", Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer wrote a most revealing and comprehensive article with the title "What is a Jew" which was published as a feature article in Look Magazine in the June 17, 1952 issue. In that article Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer evaluated the significance of the Talmud to "Judaism" today. In that illuminating treatise on that important subject by the most qualified authority, at the time, Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer stated:
"The Talmud consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and historical writings of the ancient rabbis. It is a compendium of law and lore. IT IS THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS." (Hatonn: Please obtain of copy of RAPE OF JUSTICE by Eustace Mullins--which can, I believe, be obtained through America West--to see just how far the judicial system is entangled and practices "law" by the rules of the "Talmud").
In view of this official evaluation of the importance of the Talmud in the practice of "Judaism" today by the highest body of so-called or self-styled "Jews" in the world it is very necessary at this time, my dear Dr. Goldstein, to inquire a little further into the subject of the Talmud. In his lifetime the eminent Michael Rodkinson, the assumed name of a so-called or self-styled "Jew" who was one of the worlds great authorities on the Talmud, wrote "History of the Talmud". This great classic on the subject was written by Michael Rodkinson in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise. In his "History of the Talmud" Michael Rodkinson, on page 70, states:
"Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, ON MORAL AND RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS, which were current in his time, and MUST HAVE BEEN REVOLVED BY HIM DURING THOSE THIRTY SILENT YEARS WHEN HE WAS PONDERING HIS FUTURE MISSION? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis ANSWER BY HOLDING UP THE TALMUD. Here, say they, is THE SOURCE FROM WHENCE JESUS OF NAZARETH DREW THE TEACHINGS WHICH ENABLE HIM TO REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD; and the question becomes, therefor, an interesting one TO EVERY CHRISTIAN. What is the Talmud? THE TALMUD, THEN IS THE WRITTEN FORM OF THAT WHICH, IN THE TIME OF JESUS WAS CALLED THE TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS AND TO WHICH HE MAKES FREQUENT ALLUSIONS. What sort of book is it?".
Stimulated by that invitation every Christian worth of the name should immediately take the trouble to seek the answer to that "interesting" question "to every Christian". My dear Dr. Goldstein, your articles do not indicate whether you have taken the time and the trouble to personally investigate "what sort of book" the Talmud is either before or after your conversion to Catholicism. Have you ever done so? If you have done so what is the conclusion you have reached regarding "what sort of book" the Talmud is? What is your personal unbiased and unprejudiced opinion of the Talmud? Is it consistent with your present views as a devout Roman Catholic and a tried and true, Christian? Can you spare a few moments to drop me a few lines on your present views?
In case you have never had the opportunity to investigate the contents of the "63 books" of the Talmud so well summarized by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer in his illuminating article "What is a Jew", previously quoted, may I here impose upon your precious time and quote a few passages for you until you find the time to conveniently investigate the Talmud's contents personally. If I can be of any assistance to you in doing so please do not hesitate to let me know in what manner you can use my help.
From the Birth of Jesus until this day there have never been recorded more vicious and vile libelous blasphemies of Jesus, of Christians and the Christian faith by anyone, anywhere, or anytime than you will find between the covers of the infamous "63 books" which are "the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish religious law" as well as the "textbook used in the training of rabbis". The explicit and implicit irreligious character and implications of the contents of the Talmud will open your eyes as they have never been opened before. The Talmud reviles Jesus, Christians and the Christian faith as the priceless spiritual and cultural heritage of Christians has never been reviled before or since the Talmud was completed in the 5th century. You will have to excuse the foul, obscene, indecent, lewd and vile language you will see here as verbatim quotations from the official unabridged translation of the Talmud into English. BE PREPARED FOR A SURPRISE.
In the year 1935 the international hierarchy of so-called or self-styled "Jews" for the first time in history published an official unabridged translation of the complete Talmud in the English language with complete footnotes. What possessed them to make this translation in English is one of the unsolved mysteries. It was probably done because so many so-called or self-styled "Jews" of the younger generation were unable to read the Talmud in the many ancient languages in which the original "63 books" of the Talmud were first composed by their authors in many lands between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D.
The international hierarchy of so-called or self-styled "Jews" selected the most learned scholars to make this official translation of the Talmud into English. These famous scholars also prepared official footnotes explaining passages of the Talmud where they were required. This official unabridged translation of the Talmud into English with the official footnotes was printed in London in 1935 by the Soncino Press. It has been always referred to as the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. A very limited number of the Soncino Edition were printed. They were not made available to any purchaser. The Soncino Edition of the Talmud is to be found in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library. A set of the Soncino Edition of the Talmud has been available to me for many years. They have become rare "collector's items" by now.
(Hatonn: Do you also see that it is up to you-the-people as to whether or not these Journals end up removed from the hands of the world population and fall among the "rare" publications accidentally missed in the mass destruction of the information? It is up to you, citizens of the world, as the world nears destruction at the hands of those who have stolen your very "Truth of God Creator". How can you know Truth if all documentation thereof is destroyed by the would be KINGS AND CONTROLLERS OF THE PLANET?)
The Soncino Edition of the Talmud with its footnotes is like a double-edged sword. It teaches the Talmud to countless millions of the younger generation of so-called or self-styled "Jews" who are not able to read the Talmud in the many ancient languages in which the Talmud was written by its authors between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D. It also teaches Christians what the Talmud has to say about Jesus, about Christians and about the Christian faith. Someday this is bound to back-fire. Christians will some day challenge the assertion that the Talmud is the "sort of book" from which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects". The rumbling is already heard in places.
(Hatonn: As you read the quotations, I want (especially you ones who objected to Germain and Hatonn using Bull-shit to see if a scribe would edit it out) to have you REALLY PAY ATTENTION AS WE PUT THIS INFORMATION INTO YOUR HANDS AND SEE IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THE CHRIST FRAGMENT OF GOD/CREATOR/CREATION WOULD LIKELY UTILIZE THESE TERMS.)
The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was "Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices" by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M. A., Litt, D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A., Ph.D., M.Sc., Jacob Schater, A. Mishcon, A. Cohen, M.A., Ph.D., Maurice Simon M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr., J. H. Hertz wrote the "Foreword" for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.
The following are but a few of the many similar quotations with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud, the "sort of book" form which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enable him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious" subjects:
(Book) Sanhedrin, 54b-55a: "What is meant by this?--Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2). What is the basis of their dispute?--Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."
(footnotes) "(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor, i.e. less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn. (emphasis is in original, Ed.)
(2) Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
(3) At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
(4) Lev. XVIII,22.
(5) Rashi reads ("xxx") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of ("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day, who commits etc. There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first--a male aged nine years and a day--refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning: because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable." (emphasis in original, Ed.)
Before giving any more verbatim quotations from the "sort of book" from which it is falsely alleged Jesus "drew the teachings which enable him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects" I wish to here again recall to your attention the official statement by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer in Look Magazine for June 17, 1952. In that official statement made by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer on behalf of the American Jewish Committee, self-styled "The Vatican of Judaism", informed the 20,000,000 readers of Look magazine that the Talmud "IS THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS". Please bear this mind as your read further.
Before continuing I wish also to call your attention to another feature. Confirming the official view of Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, the New York Times on May 20, 1954 ran a news item under the headline "Rabbis Plan a Fund to Endow Two Chairs". The news item itself ran as follows: "Special to the New York Times, Uniontown, Pa. May 19--Plans for raising $500,000. for the creation of two endowed chairs at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America were announced today at the fifty-fourth annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly of America. THE PROFESSORSHIPS WOULD BE KNOWN AS THE LOUIS GINSBERG CHAIR IN TALMUD. . .! This is further proof that the Talmud is not yet quite a dead-letter in the "TRAINING OF RABBIS". Is further proof needed on that question?
The world's leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic "The History of the Talmud" Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac Wise, states:
"With the conclusion of the first volume of this work at the beginning of the twentieth century, we would invite the reader to take a glance over the past of the Talmud, in which he will see. . .that not only was the Talmud not destroyed, but was so saved that NOT A SINGLE LETTER OF IT IS MISSING; and now IT IS FLOURISHING TO SUCH A DEGREE AS CANNOT BE FOUND IN ITS PAST HISTORY. . .THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence. . .IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH. . .The colleges for the study of the Talmud are increasing almost in every place where Israel dwells, especially in this country where millions are gathered for the funds of the two colleges, the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and The Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York, in which the chief study is the Talmud. . .There are also in our city houses of learning (Jeshibath) for the study of the Talmud in the lower East Side, where many young men are studying the Talmud every day."
********Dharma, there is something wrong with your computer keyboard--write no more until it is checked and cleared. We will take a respite while this is taken care of, please.********