Jew, Jew or Poo Poo?
By Willie Martin
Mr. Hughes, you folks never cease to call someone an anti-Semite
at the drop of a hat. How you can accuse me of being anti-Semitic is beyond
comprehenson, since the Jews are not Semitic at all; but are the descendants
of the ancient Khazar tribes from Eastern Russia and Western Mongolia.
The Semites are the White Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and
kindred peoples of the world.
Anti-Semitism: The word anti-Semitism
was an invention; H.H. Beamish, in a New York address, October 30 - November
1, 1937: "In 1848 the word anti-Semitic' was invented by the Jews to prevent
the use of the word Jew.' The right word for them is Jew'"
The White Race that is in India is the descendants
of Abraham from a union with his wife Keturah: Genesis 25:1-6: "Then again
Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran,
and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And Jokshan
begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim,
and Leummim. And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and
Abidah, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. And Abraham
gave all that he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, which
Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son,
while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country."
So we can see that Abraham had more sons by his concubines,
than just the six by Keturah which he sent east into what we now call India.
The history of the Jews of Russia can be traced in
the following encyclopedias and books. Just look up the word "Khazar" or
"Chazar" in these books and read where the Jews of today came from. It
certainly was not from Abraham as they lie and claim.
The History of The Jewish Khazars:
Encyclopedia Americana (1985):
The Bible relates that the Khazar (Ashkenaz) Jews
were/are the sons of Japheth not Shem: "Now these are the generations of
the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born
after the flood. The sons of Japheth;...the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz..."
Therefore, the Bible proves that the Ashkenaz Jews [Khazars] are not the
descendants of Shem and cannot be Semite.
Encyclopedia Britannica (15th edition):
Academic American Encyclopedia (1985):
Encyclopedia Americana (1985):
The Jewish Encyclopedia:
The Encyclopedia Judaica (1972):
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia:
The Outline of History. H. G. Wells, "It is
highly probable that the bulk of the Jew's ancestors 'never' lived in Palestine
'at all,' which witnesses the power of historical assertion over fact."
Facts Are Facts, By Benjamin Freedman.
Now I will present you with just a little of what the
Jews believe and teach about Christ and Christians. These are fully documented
and come from the Sonoco Edition of their bible, the Talmud. Things which
I don't believe you have even a clue of what you are talking about, for
I don't think you know anything about the Jews except what they have told
The American People's encyclopedia for 1954
Jewish Encyclopedia for 1925
The Encyclopedia Judaica,
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia:
Academic American Encyclopedia,
Deluxe Library Edition, Volume 12
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6
Collier's Encyclopedia, Volume 14
New Catholic Encyclopedia,
The Cadillac Modern Encyclopedia,
The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler
The Zionist Connection II, Alfred M. Lilienthal
The Talmud: In his lifetime
Michael Rodkinson, the assumed name of a "Jew" who was one of the world's
great authorities on the Talmud, wrote "History of the Talmud." This classic
on the subject was written by Michael Rodkinson in collaboration with the
celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise.
History of the Talmud: 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
EVALUATED BY HIM DURING THOSE THIRTY SILENT YEARS WHEN HE WAS PONDERING
HIS FUTURE MISSION (Christ, during these thirty years, had sailed to England
with His uncle, Joseph of Armatheia, where He built the first church in
England. It is known today as Glastenberry and the land it sits on has
never been taxed by the British Government. The Jews tried to destroy it
many years ago, but failed. Although badly damaged it still stands today)?
To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis ANSWER BY HOLDING
UP THE TALMUD...and the question becomes, therefore, 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."
Arsene Darmester in the book
"The Talmud" states: "Judaism finds its expression in the Talmud, it is
not a remote suggestion and a faint echo thereof, but it...has become incarnate,
in which it has taken form, passing from a state of abstraction into the
domain of real things. The study of Judaism is that of the Talmud, as the
study of the Talmud is that of Judaism...they are two inseparable things...they
are one and the same...the Talmud, is a complete expression of religious
movement, and this code of endless presumptions and minute ceremonials
represents in its perfection the total work of the religious idea...
The miracle was accomplished
by a book, The Talmud...The Talmud is composed of two distinct parts the
Mishna and the Gemara; the former the text, the latter a commentary upon
the text...term Mishna we designate a collection of decisions and traditional
laws embracing all departments of legislation, civil and religious...This
code, the work of several generations of rabbis...nothing can equal the
importance of the Talmud unless it be the ignorance that prevails concerning
This explains how it happens
that a single page of the Talmud contains three or four different languages,
or rather specimens of one language at three or four stages of degeneracy...many
a Mishna of five or six lines is accompanied by fifty or sixty pages of
explanation...is law in all its authority; it constitutes dogma and cult;
it is the fundamental element of the Talmud...
The daily study of the Talmud
which among Jews begins with the age of ten to end with life itself necessarily
was a severe gymnastic for the mind, thinks to which it acquired incomparable
subtlety and acumen...since it aspires to one thing: To establish for Judaism
a 'Corpus Juris Eccleiastict!'"
This is how the articles look in the Talmud itself:
Sanhedrin, 55b-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 guilty (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 beastally abused, whether naturally
or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."
"(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.
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.
At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
Lev XVIII, 22
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."
Sanhedrin, 55b: "A Maiden three
years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition (Sexual Intercourse),
and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.
The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she
defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that
upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted
"(2) His wife derives no
pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving.
(3) A variant reading of
this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden
to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
(4) By taking the two in
conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt
of violating the injunction 'to his wife but not to hisneighbor's wife'
is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse."
Sanhedrin, 69a: " 'A man'; from
this I know the law only with respect to a man: whence do I know it of
one aged nine years and a day who is capable of intercourse? From the verse,
And 'if a man'? (2)-He replied: such a minor
can produce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is like the seed
of cereals less than a third grown (3)."
'And' (') indicates an extension of the law, and is here interpreted to
include a minor aged nine years and a day.
Such cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow."
Sanhedrin, 69b: "Our rabbis
taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he
comitted the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai say, he
thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1).
Beth Hillel declare her fit...All agree that the connection of a boy nine
years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight
years is not (2); their dispute refers only
to one who is eight years old.
i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not marry (Lev XXL,7.).
so that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that
she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less than eight,
Beth Shammai agree that she is not."
Kethuboth, 5b: "The question
was asked: Is it allowed (15) to
perform the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16).
Is the blood (in the womb) stored up (17),
or is it the result of a wound? (18).
Lit., 'how is it'?
When the intercourse could not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf)
And the intercourse would be allowed, since the blood flows out of its
own accord, no would having been made.
Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be forbidden."
Kethuboth, 10a-10b: "Someone
came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi (and) said to him, 'my master
I have had intercourse (with my newly wedded wife) and I have not found
any blood (7). She (the wife) to him, 'My master, I am still a virgin'.
He (then) said to them; Bring me two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and
one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him (two such handmaids),
and he placed them on a cask of wine. (In the case of ) the one who was
no more a virgin its smell (1) went
through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the
smell did not go through (3). He (then)
placed this one (the young wife) also (on the cask of wine), and its smell
(4) did not go through. He (then)
said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7).
But he should have examined her from the beginning (8)."
i.e., the smell of wine.
One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi).
One could not smell the wine from the mouth.
i.e., the smell of wine.
To the husband.
The test showed that the wife was a virgin.
Why did he first have to experiment with the two handmaids."
Kethuboth, 11a-11b: "Rabba said,
It means (5) this: WHEN A GROWN UP MAN
HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A LITTLE GIRL IT IS NOTHING, FOR WHEN THE GIRL IS
LESS THAN THIS (6), IT IS AS IF ONE PUTS THE FINGER
IN THE EYE (7), BUT WHEN A SMALL BOY HAS
INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN UP WOMAN, HE MAKES HER AS A GIRL WHO IS INJURED
BY A PIECE OF WOOD.'"
Lit., 'here,' that is, less than three years old.
Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to
the little girl under three years."
Kethuboth, 11a-11b: "Rab Judah
said that Rab said: A SMALL BOY WHO HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN
UP WOMAN MAKES HER (as though she were ) INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD (1).
Althoughhe intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act,
nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."
Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act,
nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."
Hayorath, 4a: "We learnt: (THE
LAW CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE
WITH A WOMAN THAT A WAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT. But
why? Surely (the law concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding
to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain.
But, surely it is written, (1)- They might
rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden;
and in an unnatural way, however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted)
(3) even in the natural way (4)
alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5)
has reference to a menstruant woman only (6).
And if you prefer I might say: The ruling may have been that a woman is
not regarded as a zabah (7) except during
the daytime because it is written, all the days of her issue (8)."
"(13) Lev. XV, 28.
(14) Cf. supra p. 17, n.
10. Since she is thus Biblically considered unclean how could a court rule
that one having intercourse with her is exempt?
(15) Lev XX, 18.
Ibid. 13. The plural "xxxx" (Hebrew characters, Ed.) implies natural, and
Why then was the case of 'a woman who awaits a day corresponding to a day'
given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned,
would apply the same illustration.
The first stage of contact.
In the case of one 'who awaits a day corresponding to a day'; only consummation
of coition being forbidden in her case.
Cf. Lev XX, 18.
Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit.
A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation,
and is subject to certain laws of uncleanness and purification (Lev XV,
Lev XV, 26. Emphasis being laid on days."
Abodah Zarah, 36b-37a: "R. Naham
b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it
would cause defilement by seminal emission (2)
so that an
Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with
it...From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission?
From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then
capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said:
It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl
(communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day,
for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles
by a flux.
Even through he suffered from no issue.
Sotah, 26b: "R. Papa said: It
excludes an animal, because there is no adultery in connection with an
animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5)
asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there
is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou
shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6)
and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7)
and the wages of a harlot (8)
are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9)
- the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)...As
lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba,
it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies
(13). Abaye said to him, That is merely
an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a
wife to her husband) for an obscene act?"
She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act.
farausag near Baghdad v. BB. (Sonc. Ed.) p. 15, n.4. He is thus distinguished
from the earlier Rabbi of that name.
Deut. XXIII, 19.
Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association
is not legal a adultery.
If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an
animal, it could be offered.
Are an abomination unto the Lord (ibid).
Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbi.
In Num. V. 13. since the law applies to a man who is incapable.
Lev. XVIII, 22. The word for 'lying' is in the plural and is explained
as denoting also unnatural intercourse.
With the other man, although there is no actual coition."
Yebamoth, 55b: "Raba
said; for what purpose did the All-Merciful write 'carnally' in connection
with the designated bondmaid (9), a married
woman (10) and a sotah (11)?
That inconnection with the designated bondmaid (is required) as has just
been explained (12).
Here if you would like a hard copy of any of Willie Martin's books
That in connection with a
married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum (13).
This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him
who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed
membrum he is exonerated (14);
what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains (that for such
an act one is) guilty? The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with
a dead woman (15). Since it might have
been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her death, is described as his
kin (16), one should be guilty for
(intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are
taught (that one is exonerated).
Num. V, 13.
Since no fertilization can possibly occur.
Shebu., 18a, Sanh. 55a.
Even though she dies as a married woman.
In Lev. XXI, 2. where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a
priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers
to one's wife."
Yebamoth, 103a-103b: "When the
serpent copulated with Eve (14) with
lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16)
came to an end, the lust of idolators who did not stand at Mount Sinai
did not come to an end."
In the Garden of Eden, according to tradition.
i.e., the human species.
And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation."
Yebamoth, 63a: "R. Eleazar further
stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh (5)? This
teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found
no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
Gen. II, 23. emphasis on This is now."
Yebamoth, 60b: "As R. Joshua
b. Levi related: 'There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy
of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Ramanos who conducted
an enquiry and FOUND IN IT THE DAUGHTER OF A PROSELYTE WHO WAS UNDER THE
AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY (14),
AND RABBI DECLARED HER ELIGIBLE TO LIVE WITH A PRIEST(15)."
"(13) A proselyte under the
age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.
And was married to a priest.
i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband."
Yebamoth, 59b: "R. Shimi b.
Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry
a priest (4). Likewise it was taught: A
woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being (5),
though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning (6),
is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest (7).
Even a High Priest. The result of such intercourse being regarded as a
mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured
hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either.
If the offense was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning.
In the absence of witnesses and warning."
Yebamoth, 12b: "R. Bebai recited
before R. Naham: Three (categories of) woman may (7)
use an absorbent (8) in their marital
intercourse (9), a minor, a pregnant woman
and a nursing woman. THE MINOR (10) BECAUSE
(otherwise) SHE MIGHT (11) BECOME PREGNANT, AND
AS A RESULT (11) MIGHT DIE...AND WHAT IS THE
AGE OF SUCH A MINOR? (14). FROM THE
AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS AND ONE DAY UNTIL THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY.
ONE WHO IS UNDER (15), OR OVER
THIS AGE (16) MUST CARRY ON
HER MARITAL INTERCOURSE IN THE USUAL MANNER."
(so Rashi. R. Tam; Should use, v.Tosaf s.v.)
Hackled wool or flax.
To prevent conception.
May use an absorbent.
Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death.
When no conception is possible.
When pregnancy involves no fatal consequences."
Yebamoth, 59b: "When R. Dimi
came (8) he related: It once
happened at Haitalu (9)
that while a young woman was sweeping the floor (10)
a village dog (11) covered her
from the rear (12)
and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.
From Palestine to Babylon
(Babylonian form for Aitulu, modern Aiterun N.W. of Kadesh, v. S. Klein,
Beitrage, p. 47).
Or 'big hunting dog' (Rashi), 'ferocious dog' (Jast.), 'small wild dog'
A case of unnatural intercourse.
Kethuboth, 6b: "Said he to him:
Not like those Babylonians who are not skilled in moving aside (This means
a man who has intercourse with a virgin in such a way that he does not
destroy her maiden head). (7),
but there are some who are skilled in moving aside (8).
If so, why (give the reason of) 'anxious.? (10)
for one who is not skilled. (Then) let the[m] say: One who is skilled is
allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not skilled
is forbidden? Most (people) are skilled (11).
Said Raba the son of R. Hanan to Abaye' If this were so, then why (have)
why (have) a sheet? (13)-
He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary)
perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens of her virginity) (14).
i.e., having intercourse with a virgin without causing a bleeding.
Thus no blood need come out, and 'Let his head be cut off and let him not
die!' does not apply.
If the bridegroom is skilled in 'moving sideways.'
He need not be anxious about the intercourse and should not be free from
reading Shema' on account of such anxiety.
Therefor the principle regarding 'Let his head be cut off and let him not
die!' does not, as a rule, apply.
The groomsmen testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V.
infra 12a. If the bridegroom will act in a manner that will cause no bleeding,
the groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity.
To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf. Deut.XXII,17.
It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause bleeding
but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was not a virgin;
for this reason the above mentioned provisions are necessary. Where however
he moved aside and made a false charge as to her virginity, the bride can
plead that she is still a virgin (Rashi)."
Super Spy wrote:
Okay, I kept my mouth shut. I sat here and read tedious monotonous
list after list of etymological substance that seems to only further obfuscate
an already complex issue. I even looked at the identity Website,
and am currently picking through some things on it.
But come on. With all due respect (which I'm not sure is much),
your faith seems more based on Jew bashing than anything else. Your
anti-Semitic ravings of your Website and flashy generalizations are just
garbage, and very disrespectful of an entire group of people.
You walk around with your Greek transliterations (and especially your
half truths), only barely covering the intolerant, throughly unsubstantiated
sludge you're dishing out. SOME of your points made on your emails MIGHT
have been interesting, if not so covered up with hasty generalizations
and false linkage via arbitrary standards to other entities.
I'm tempted to say please pardon my harsh tone. But I'm
not going to. Those that know me, know I have plenty of disagreements
with conventional Christians and with some of the stuff I've seen on this
list. But this is pretty far, even for what I've seen. Jews caused
the civil war? All pagan Gods can be traced to Baal? Those
fooleries I could deal with... but your Website? Completely ludicrous.
This is balley-hoo. And pathetically indefensible as a position.
I've read your Website, and found SO much Anti-Semitic nonsense that if
I were you , I'd be ashamed to open my mouth.
I hope that everyone on this list has the good sense to go to this man's
site, and the site of his he links "http://www.jewwatch.com".
Look over it before you believe ANYTHING this man says, especially the
parts about the holocaust.
Mr. Martin, if you think it is so defensible... you might want to get
it ready. Because if you keep throwing out such inflammatory and
ridiculously overblown false information, I'm going to start asking you
for a defense, point by point. Without all of the unnecessary obfuscation.
And I'm going to counterdrill you on each and every point. So please
- choose your words with caution. I think your attempts to stereotype
all Jews and their place in history only shows you to be a hate monger
- and foolish.
Bradley S. Hughes, Esq.
Watch - Willie Martin