Why Netanyahu Gave Pope Francis His Father’s History of the Spanish Inquisition, Tablet Magazine:
Understanding the book’s unique argument enables us to understand why Netanyahu chose to give such an ostensibly undiplomatic gift to the Pope. The Times recounts:
As a historian, Mr. Netanyahu reinterpreted the Inquisition in “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain” (1995). The predominant view had been that Jews were persecuted for secretly practicing their religion after pretending to convert to Roman Catholicism. Mr. Netanyahu, in 1,384 pages, offered evidence that most Jews in Spain had willingly become Catholics and were enthusiastic about their new religion.
Jews were persecuted, he concluded — many of them burned at the stake — for being perceived as an evil race rather than for anything they believed or had done. Jealousy over Jews’ success in the economy and at the royal court only fueled the oppression, he wrote. The book traced what he called “Jew hatred” to ancient Egypt, long before Christianity.
In other words, Ben Zion Netanyahu’s argument shifted the root blame for the Inquisition from religion to ingrained racial animus–from the spiritual to the secular. If one was going to give the pope a book about the Inquisition, then, this would be the one. Moreover, not only does the book’s revisionist reckoning partially absolve Christianity for Spanish persecution of the Jews, it offers a contemporary message of pressing relevance. At a time when Christian anti-Semitism has receded–evidenced not least by the friendly relations between the Vatican and the state of Israel–secular and racial forms of anti-Semitism have been on the rise, particularly in Europe, where a nearly a quarter of Jews say they are afraid to publicly identify as Jewish. The anti-Semitism diagnosed by Ben Zion Netanyahu is alive and well.
In other words, the diagnosis of the jews is that racial animus comes entirely from the goyim. This “unique argument” is the same double-talk that Douglas Rushkoff spews.
In trying to shift the root blame away from their parasitism, and particularly to their White hosts, jews try to have it both ways on race. They insist race doesn’t exist and the jews aren’t biologically distinct. Yet by invoking racial animus to explain “anti-semitism” they are implicitly acknowledging the reality of race and their biological distinctiveness.
Setting aside the self-serving jewish double-talk, “anti-semitism” is best understood as anti-parasitism. It has been the historic reaction of a variety of hosts to jewish infiltration, manipulation and exploitation.
In trying to shift the root blame away from their parasitism, and particularly to their White hosts, jews try to have it both ways on race. They insist race doesn’t exist and the jews aren’t biologically distinct. Yet by invoking racial animus to explain “anti-semitism” they are implicitly acknowledging the reality of race and their biological distinctiveness.
As Bob Dylan puts it:
“If you got a slave master or Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. That stuff lingers to this day. Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood.”
OK, good to know that the Tablet is a Scum Jewish rag. Second thing to note is that the main author of this yellow, chicken fat article is a Jew, named Yair Rosenberg.
Thirdly, contemporary Jews never were, and never will be ethnically, racially, or religiously connected to the Jews of the Bible- whether O.T. or N.T.- except for their own admission as being descended from the Edomite/Idumean Pharisee party that Christ denounced as sons of their father, Satan.
Other than that, it’s a useless article and a mish-mash of half-truths. And what the Papists do, is clearly of no concern to real Christians. – Fr. John+
Bibi’s father hated Arabs: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/israel-could-only-survive-by-killing-all-the-arabs-netanyahus-father.html
“Moreover, not only does the book’s revisionist reckoning partially absolve Christianity for Spanish persecution of the Jews, it offers a contemporary message of pressing relevance.”
A slightly different take:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/30/the-principles-of-benzion-netanyahu/
“As with the Nazis who followed centuries later, the attack on the former Jews was the result of racism, not religious extremism.”
You pious Christians didnt want conversos. You are evil nazis.
No double-talk. Stick it to Pope Francis and remind him his following was no better than the nazis.
“The principles of a belief in the right of the Jews to their homeland and the need to defend them against the unreasoning hatred of their enemies will not die with Benzion Netanyahu. Nor should his son or any person of good will forget them.”
oh yeah… “never forget”.
“They insist race doesn’t exist and the jews aren’t biologically distinct.“
What about the Orthodox? Who’ll never let a non-Jew join? Will they fall back on the typical Lib braindead excuse of it it being due to Ignorance?
What Fr John said…
From that Mondoweiss link, regarding Netanyahu’s father:
He was a so-called revisionist Zionist, he was a disciple of Jabotinsky. And he thought the only way Israel could survive is, well he once told me, by killing all the Arabs.
Jabotinsky:
A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German custom, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-racial type are Jewish. … It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. … There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. … An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. … A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority.
Jabotisky’s zionism is essentially racial nationalism. The statement above is essentially an expression of rassenhygiene.
“What Fr John said…”
What Fr John said is a useless mish-mash of bald assertions. I regret allowing it through moderation, but I’ll take the opportunity to reiterate the point here.
The jews, who usually hide behind religion, are describing how their “new” view is that their jewishness and “anti-semitism” are about race. Of course they are, were, and always will be, whether or not those who put religion first want to accept it.
“Jews were persecuted, he concluded — many of them burned at the stake — for being perceived as an evil race rather than for anything they believed or had done.”
Is that statement libel or slander? I get the two confused.