The Ass in the Lion’s Skin

Sand Historie

O​-​D​-​I​-​N​.org, Redaktionen, 23. december 2016.


This arti­c­le (history from a small book) is in Eng­lish and begins right after the intro­duction in Danish.

[Den føl­gen­de engel­ske ori­gi­nal­tekst, der hid­rø­rer fra et lil­le 50 siders hæf­te med tit­len “The Gre­at Jewish Masque” og under­tit­len “The Ass in the Lion’s Skin” [Æslet i Løve­ham], blev udgi­vet i 1936 fra for­la­get Bri­tons i Lon­don. For­fat­te­ren er os end­nu ube­kendt, men pågæl­den­de har haft et bety­de­ligt kend­skab til reli­gions­hi­sto­rie og den klas­si­ske ver­dens­hi­sto­rie i øvrigt. Man­ge af påstan­de­ne i den­ne tekst er ble­vet veri­fi­ce­ret af sene­re viden­ska­be­li­ge erken­del­ser. Vi har bibe­holdt de oprin­de­li­ge infor­ma­tio­ner, side­tal og instruk­tio­ner fra den nye­re ame­ri­kan­ske udgi­vel­se af hæf­tet.
Ind­hol­det beskri­ver, som tit­len lader ane, hvor­dan jøder­ne gen­nem deres histo­rie har til­pas­set deres for­tid og fortje­ne­ster efter eksi­ste­ren­de for­bil­le­der. At tale om en selv­stæn­dig jødisk kul­tur er som at tale om klas­sisk jødisk kunst (ikke eksi­ste­ren­de), efter­som stør­ste­delen er plagi­e­ret fra andre, ikke mindst fra det baby­lon­ske rige. Med et dansk udtryk — så frem­stil­ler den nuvæ­ren­de jøde­dom i bed­ra­ge­risk omfang sig selv i lån­te fjer. Vær­di­en af at have en histo­rie, der ikke ude­luk­ken­de beskri­ver noma­dens liv som para­sit på det ene vel­fun­ge­ren­de sam­fund efter det andet, har natur­lig­vis betyd­ning, når man skal desig­ne en glor­vær­dig iden­ti­tet og en kun­stig stat som Israel.]

The Ass in the Lion’s Skin or The Gre­at Jewish Masque* (1936)

Docu­men­ted Histo­ri­cal and Bibli­cal Facts

Publis­hed by
The Bam­boo Delight Com­pa­ny
P.O. Box 2792,
Sara­to­ga, CA 95070 USA
Cover Drawing by A.W. Mann

*) Masque also mask, n. 1. A dra­ma­tic entertain­ment usu­al­ly based on a myt­ho­lo­gi­cal or alle­go­ri­cal the­me, popu­lar in England in the 16th and 17th cen­turi­es. 2. A dra­ma­tic ver­se com­po­si­tion writ­ten for a masque pro­duction. 3. A masque­ra­de.

Publisher’s Note

The arti­c­le pre­sen­ted in this pamp­hlet under the tit­le, The Ass in the Lion’s Skin, is the work of a scho­lar who­se iden­ti­ty, we regret, is not known to us.
The ori­gi­nal copy which came into our pos­ses­sion car­ri­es no iden­ti­fi­ca­tion marks as to who the aut­hor might have been nor any indi­ca­tion of the pla­ce of ori­gin. [He was pro­bably Eng­lish, howe­ver, sin­ce the spel­ling is Eng­lish Stan­dard and the inter­nal com­men­ts indi­ca­te that it was writ­ten at a time when England was still the pro­tecto­ra­te of Palesti­ne.] Nevert­he­less the con­tents of this work, which undoub­ted­ly rep­re­sents the result of seve­ral years of deep Histo­ri­cal and Bibli­cal stu­dy, appears to us so important that in spi­te of its con­tro­ver­si­al cha­ra­cter inso­far as the Fun­da­men­ta­list School of Thought is con­cer­ned, it was deci­ded to issue it in its pre­sent form after it first appea­red on the pages of the semi-mont­hly publi­ca­tion, the “Ame­ri­can Gen­ti­le”.
Some of the Eng­lish Stan­dard pun­ctu­a­tions have been upda­ted to Ame­ri­can Stan­dard so as to be bet­ter under­stood by an Ame­ri­can audi­en­ce but this has been kept to a mini­mum so as to retain the ori­gi­nal Eng­lish fla­vor of the essay. The Ame­ri­can Peop­le owe a gre­at deal of gra­ti­tu­de to the Eng­lish aut­hor of this pie­ce not only for his deep under­stan­ding of the sub­ject but for his Eng­lish sen­se of humor, as well.

Sour­ce: Jan Lam­bre­cht, History Reviewed Chan­nel.


The Ass in the Lion’s Skin or The Great Jewish Masque

Docu­men­ted Histo­ri­cal and Bibli­cal Facts

Good woods burn silent­ly, but thorns cra­ck­le loud­ly, crying out all the time ‘We are wood! We are wood!!”
— Old Per­si­an Saying.

The Jews, like other chil­dish peop­le, enjoy pre­ten­ding, and when pre­ten­ding brings them the tri­bu­te due to the cha­ra­cter assu­med, they revel in it.
In this way they have obtai­ned much cre­dit, which should not have been given to them.
They were first tri­ck­ed out in bor­rowed tra­di­tions and sup­plied with an enti­re­ly fal­se idea of them­sel­ves about 430 B.C.
Then com­men­ced the Gre­at Jewish Masque, a pre­ten­se which has been main­tai­ned to the pre­sent day.
In recent times it has never lack­ed sup­port. Inde­ed, Jewish pro­pa­gan­da has been so insi­dious and per­si­stent that volun­tary aid, in addi­tion to other kinds, has always been avai­lab­le. At a mere hint, trou­pes of hig­hly pla­ced car­pet-bag­gers don ass’s ears, or a long nose, and vie with each other, and with the kos­her mum­mers, in endea­vours to lead the rout.

The Masque, natu­ral­ly, is extre­me­ly popu­lar with the Jews. It appe­als to their vani­ty and pan­ders plea­sant­ly to their sel­feste­em. Spe­ci­al arran­ge­ments are made for them. And each may blow his own trum­pet con­fi­dent that his efforts will be sup­por­ted by blasts from the mas­sed sho­fers of the mana­ge­ment and che­ers from the claque.
Eve­ryt­hing pos­sib­le is done to keep the Jews in the Masque apart from other peop­le, sub­mis­si­ve to the will of the inter­na­tio­nal directors, and ent­hu­si­a­sti­cal­ly wor­king for the gre­a­ter glory of the show­men who use them.
The Jews are addi­cted to pro­pa­gan­da. From small begin­nings their pro­pa­gan­da, like their met­hods of sup­plying one ano­t­her with “infor­ma­tion,” has beco­me very ela­bo­ra­te. They them­sel­ves have fal­len victim to it; by it they flat­ter them­sel­ves, and, from long and admi­ring con­tem­p­la­tion of them­sel­ves in fan­cy dress, they have beco­me so infa­tu­a­ted that they have made a fetish of the object of their adora­tion and are unab­le to under­stand why mankind does not pau­se in its pur­su­its and join them in adu­la­tion.
They like to tell and be told of the “lofty ide­a­lism,” of the “spi­ri­tu­a­li­ty,” and of the “unique­ness” of the Jews; and to pre­tend that the out­stan­ding per­so­na­li­ties of all time from Adam and Noah to Colum­bus and many of the Spa­nish Inqui­si­tors were Jews, even if they did not know it, to say not­hing of the red rulers of lat­ter day Rus­sia.
They feel gra­ti­fied, too, when they reflect that by this time near­ly eve­ry­bo­dy must be awa­re that eve­ry Jewess is “pret­ty,” and eve­ry Jew “a geni­us,” that all Jewish rab­bis are “lear­ned” and “gre­at scho­lars,” and that Jews in gene­ral are “cle­ver at busi­ness,” make good spou­ses, and are kind to ani­mals.
Con­ceits, such as the­se, do not call for com­ment.

Their accu­ra­cy is demon­stra­ted daily in the stre­ets, in the press, and in the law-courts.
Less veni­al, howe­ver, are the other boa­stings of the Jews, more espe­ci­al­ly as it is upon the­se that they base their claims to pre­fe­ren­ti­al tre­at­ment and spe­ci­al con­si­de­ra­tion.
When it is pre­ten­ded, for instan­ce, that the Jews are an unique and exce­e­ding­ly anci­ent race, and that they are the ori­gi­na­tors and sole pos­ses­sors of unique and ori­gi­nal tra­di­tions, wri­tings, cust­oms, rites, laws, and reli­gious tenets, peculi­ar to them­sel­ves alo­ne, and dif­fe­rent from and supe­ri­or to tho­se of all other peop­les, … inve­sti­ga­tion is invi­ted and, when underta­ken, at once expo­ses the hol­low­ness and effron­te­ry of the pre­ten­ce.
What the wor­ld would be like, if two or three other sects beca­me obses­sed with their own importan­ce, spi­ri­tu­a­li­ty, and unique­ness, and deman­ded a part of some popu­la­ted coun­try from which to infli­ct their ideas about them­sel­ves upon long suf­fe­ring huma­ni­ty, and, more­over, orga­nized them­sel­ves in order to do this effectu­al­ly, may be imag­i­ned.
The Jews are not, and have never been a race. They are a mix­tu­re of many races; the­re are lean lank Jews in Spain, fat short Jews in Bava­ria, red hai­red Jews in Rus­sia, and bla­ck Jews in Aby­s­si­nia and Mala­bar. Many Jews have bla­ck crinkly hair and thi­ck lips, der­i­ved from the Moors and the Negro­es; many have Semi­tic fea­tu­res, der­i­ved from the Bedou­in and the Pho­e­ni­ci­ans, whi­le others pre­sent Mongo­li­an traits. The socal­led “Jewish” nose is not Semi­tic; it has been der­i­ved from the Hit­ti­tes.
If the Jews were ever a nation with a langu­a­ge and tra­di­tions of their own, the pla­ce whe­re that nation lived, in anci­ent times, has yet to be discove­red.

Palesti­ne was never in the pos­ses­sion of the Jews. They were never masters of even the coun­try west of the Jor­dan, nor of the sea coast. Many Pho­e­ni­ci­ans and other Canaa­ni­tish cities were impreg­nab­le to Jewish stra­te­gy. The Jews occupied por­tions of the coun­try only, and even the­se they had to sha­re with the Canaa­ni­tes.
The san­ctu­a­ri­es of Palesti­ne, such as Bet­hel, Beers­he­ba, Gezer, Gibeon, Gigal, Hebron, Jerus­a­lem, She­chem, etc., were not Jewish holy pla­ces, but anci­ent san­ctu­a­ri­es of the Canaa­ni­tes “adop­ted” as such by the Jews, who, in most cases, “adop­ted” also the “hero” of the pla­ce.
Among the “her­o­es” thus “adop­ted” by the Jews were: Terah, the deer-god; Ram, the god of dark­ness; Abram, the beget­ting or fat­her-god of the dark heights, asso­ci­a­ted with the moon-god of Ur; Sara, the cloud-god­dess of the Caucasus, who was likewi­se asso­ci­a­ted with the moon; Esau, the goat-god; Jacob, the Her­mes-like pil­lar-god of Bet­hel; Laban, the whi­te one, lord of bri­cks and foun­da­tions, asso­ci­a­ted with the moon-god of Haran; Joseph, the divi­ning and inter­pre­ting god of the anci­ent Canaa­ni­tes; Nun, the fish-god of Nort­hern Palesti­ne; Dan, the jud­ging pole-star god of Sout­hern Ara­bia, who­se fema­le form was Dinah; Gad, a form of the bull-god; Israel, the Pho­e­ni­ci­an “Saturn,” to whom chil­dren were sacri­fi­ced; Lot, the con­ce­a­ling or vei­ling incen­se-god; Moab, the rain-god, fat­her of waters; Ashur, the Assy­ri­an archer-god; Saul, the Baby­lo­ni­an sun-god, who came to Palesti­ne, the land of the sons of the ass, to find his father’s asses; Ram­mah, the storm­god; and many others such as Ish­ma­el, Isaac, Leah, Rebec­ca, Debo­rah, and Sam­son, as well as com­po­si­te “her­o­es” such as Moses, David, Bat­hs­he­ba (the daugh­ter of the Moon-god), and Solo­mon, besi­des frag­men­tary “her­o­es” such as Est­her, Mor­decai, Rafa­el, and Asmo­deus, etc. Having “adop­ted” what they did not under­stand, the Jews beca­me mud­d­led, not only with regard to “her­o­es,” but also in

con­nection with cust­oms, histo­ri­es, beliefs, and sites. Thus the Jews do not know the real site of Mount Zion, nor, appa­rent­ly, why they are unab­le to iden­ti­fy it.
Sinai is not the moun­tain of Jehovah, but, as its name implies, of the Baby­lo­nish moon-god Sin, “Lord of Law,” and, espe­ci­al­ly, “Lord of Hosts” who­se ter­ri­tory, also, is the desert or wil­der­ness of Sin, and who­se wors­hip dates from at least 4,200 B.C.
Jeri­cho is not the city of delight­ful odours and Palm tre­es, but is the yel­low moon city; and the Jor­dan is the yel­low moon river.
Jerus­a­lem, on the other hand, even if in later times its women did wear “cres­cents,” is not a “moon city,” it is not old enough; nor, as is pre­ten­ded, is it the abo­de of pea­ce; but it is, as its name implies, the city of “Uru,” the plague-god, the war-god and “Salem,” the sun-god (in his male­vo­lent and destructi­ve role as god of the dead and lord of Hell).
Abdul Shi­pa, who was Gover­nor of Jerus­a­lem about 1430 B.C., sta­tes, in a let­ter to his overl­ord Amenop­his IV of Egypt, that Jerus­a­lem, or “Urus­a­lem” is the city of Beth Ninip and of Uras, the god of war, who­se name the­re was Salem.
Uru was a disea­se-demon and god of the pesti­len­ce befo­re he beca­me a god of war, and Salem, or Sha­lem, has been iden­ti­fied with Set, Israel, Saturn, Adar, Dio­nysus, etc.
In anci­ent times, as might be expected from the many caves and caverns found in the vici­ni­ty, the­re was in the distri­ct whe­re Jerus­a­lem now is, a temp­le of Ninip, the Baby­lo­ni­an cre­at­ing god who let loo­se the Flood.

To Ninip the swi­ne was sacred, and, there­fo­re, taboo to his wors­hip­pers. Ninip, like Dio­nysus, was a lord of the under wor­ld and of “the spi­rits of the earth” befo­re he beca­me a sungod, and the rock Sak­hra (Sak­hra was the mot­her of the sungod) with the cavern or “well of spi­rits” bene­ath it, is to the Jews the most sacred part of Jerus­a­lem. Here they say is the “Hou­se of the Lord God,” here they pre­tend was the Holy of Holies of the temp­le sup­po­sed to have been built by Solo­mon, and here “the pesti­len­ce was stay­ed” !
Pigs ente­red into the rites and myt­hs of Ado­nis, Attis, Tam­muz, Set, Seme­le, Deme­ter, Rim­mon, Dio­nysus, etc., as well as of Ninip, and were often cast into caverns as a sacri­fi­ce. In the cavern at Gezer, which is not far from Jerus­a­lem, many pig bones have been found.
By the Egyp­ti­ans’ pigs were sacri­fi­ced only to “Bac­chus” and the moon-god.
The Hare, which is taboo to the Jews and the Hot­ten­tots, is asso­ci­a­ted with both the moon-god and the plague-god, and so is the mou­se, which the Jews used to eat, as well as swine’s flesh, sacri­fi­ci­al­ly (Isai­ah 66–17).
The Jews pre­tend that Jerus­a­lem dates from the time of David but it has yet to be pro­ved that the­re ever was a Jewish King David. Jerus­a­lem pos­ses­ses not a sing­le relic of eit­her David or Solo­mon, nor of the temp­le which it is pre­ten­ded Solo­mon, the wise fish-god of the Assy­ri­ans, built on the “sun-rock” the­re.
The so-cal­led “Stab­les of King Solo­mon” are vaul­ted foun­da­tions of Roman mason­ry and of the church of St. Mary, built by Justi­ni­an about 529 A.D.
Jerus­a­lem was not built by the Jews; the city and its name Urus­a­lem were in use long befo­re the Jews “adop­ted” them.
Sar­gon of Akkad incor­pora­ted Palesti­ne in his Empi­re about 2,800 B.C. and from the twen­ty-third cen­tury B.C. to the fif­te­enth, Palesti­ne was under Baby­lo­ni­an suze­rain­ty. 

It was paying tri­bu­te to Baby­lon about 1780 B.C. From 2,200 B.C. to after 1,400 B.C. Palesti­ne, thus, remai­ned under the influ­en­ce of Baby­lo­ni­an cul­tu­re and Baby­lo­ni­an lite­ra­tu­re.
From the fif­te­enth cen­tury B.C. to the tenth, Palesti­ne was a provin­ce of Egypt. And after the tenth cen­tury B.C., Palesti­ne was a vas­sal of Assy­ria until 608 B.C.
Egyp­ti­an bow­men were sta­tio­ned in Jerus­a­lem in the reign of Amenop­his III, and des­pat­ches dat­ing from about 1,430 B.C.
from the Gover­nors of Jerus­a­lem to their suze­rain Amenop­his IV, have been found.
The rule of Ram­ses II exten­ded for more than 100 miles bey­ond Jerus­a­lem. And Ram­ses III records that about 1,275 B.C., he pur­su­ed his ene­mies as far as Alep­po and Car­che­mish.
He does not men­tion any such peop­le as the Jews who still have to explain when and whe­re their alle­ged exo­dus took pla­ce.
In 925 B.C. Shas­hanq I of Egypt mar­ched on Palesti­ne and sack­ed Jerus­a­lem.
In the mean­ti­me Assy­ria had beco­me a gre­at power and by 877 B.C. Ashur­na­zir­pal, who had made his name a ter­ror, was hunting lions and other ani­mals in the Leba­non. In 842 B.C. his son Shal­ma­ne­ser II was recei­ving tri­bu­te from Palesti­ne, which was twi­ce over­run by his troops.
In 795 B.C. Adad-nira­ri III swept through Palesti­ne and impo­sed taxes and tri­bu­te upon its peop­le.
Accor­ding to the Jews’ own sto­ri­es, the alle­ged king­dom of David bro­ke up imme­di­a­te­ly after the death of his son Solo­mon (despi­te the pro­mi­se of their god Jehovah that it would con­ti­nue fore­ver) and the Jewish peop­le split into two factions.

The­re were never, of cour­se, at any time real­ly “twel­ve tri­bes” of Jews. The phra­se “the twel­ve tri­bes of Israel” has the same sig­ni­fi­can­ce as the phra­se “the twel­ve labours of Her­cu­les.”
The only sub­di­vi­sions of the Jews which have been tra­ced with any degree of certain­ty are a group cal­led “the sons of the jack­ass,” (Hamor), and a “post-exi­lic” clan cal­led Bene Parosh, “the sons of the flea”.
Nevert­he­less, accor­ding to the Jews’ own sto­ri­es the­re were twel­ve tri­bes of Israel” and after the death of their king Solo­mon, the­se divi­ded into two factions; a lar­ger known as “Israel,” which con­si­sted, it is said, of “ten tri­bes” who occupied the coun­try about She­chem and wors­hip­ped a gol­den calf at Dan and at Bet­hel; and a smal­ler known as “Judah,” which, it is said, con­si­sted of “two tri­bes,” who occupied the coun­try about Jerus­a­lem, whe­re they wors­hip­ped a bra­zen ser­pent.
The­se factions, alt­hough each was distra­cted with inter­nal dis­sen­tions, were con­ti­nu­al­ly bick­e­ring and quar­rel­ling with each other and with their neig­h­bours, so that Tig­lat­hpi­le­ser III found it neces­sary to deal with both. In 738 B.C. he levied tri­bu­te on the lar­ger faction, and in 732 B.C. he recei­ved homa­ge and tri­bu­te from the smal­ler.
Being utter­ly unre­li­ab­le and untrustwort­hy, the­se peop­le were con­stant­ly giving troub­le and about 726 B.C. Shal­ma­ne­ser IV had to take puni­ti­ve mea­su­res against the lar­ger group, again.
The Jews avoi­ded punis­h­ment by offe­rings of money and fair pro­mi­ses but it beca­me evi­dent that they were all the time intri­gu­ing with his ene­mies. And Shal­ma­ne­ser IV again inva­ded the coun­try, and car­ri­ed away the “king” into cap­ti­vi­ty.
His troops remai­ned in Palesti­ne until, in 721 B.C., his suc­ces­sor Sar­gon II car­ri­ed away both the gol­den cal­ves and the “ten tri­bes,” and toget­her they vanis­hed from the page of history.

Though not­hing more is ever heard of the “ten tri­bes” cal­led “Isra­e­li­tes,” (sin­ce they were distri­bu­ted among other peop­les and enti­re­ly assi­mi­la­ted), the “two tri­bes” cal­led “Jews” con­ti­nu­ed to give troub­le to their Assy­ri­an overl­ords. No pro­mi­se or oath was bin­ding to them, and in 712 B.C. they were again intri­gu­ing with the ene­mies of Assy­ria. In the fol­lowing year Sar­gon II over­ran their ter­ri­tory and infli­cted a heavy fine. About 700 B.C., for pre­ci­se­ly similar rea­sons, his son Sen­na­cherib rava­ged Palesti­ne and exa­cted cost­ly tri­bu­te.
By 675 B.C., howe­ver, the Jews seem to have for­got­ten this pain­ful expe­ri­en­ce, and Esar­had­don found it neces­sary to inva­de the coun­try again. He had no soo­ner been mol­li­fied by spe­cious pro­mi­ses, than, for the cust­o­mary rea­sons, he was for­ced to return. He car­ri­ed away the “king” in chains, cast him into pri­son for a time as a les­son and sett­led stran­gers in the coun­try about Jerus­a­lem.
He was, howe­ver, unab­le to stop the plot­ting of the Jewish “pri­ests”, who have always been the brin­gers of mis­fortu­ne upon their fol­lowers. During the ensu­ing half-cen­tury the ter­ri­tory occupied by what was left of the “two tri­bes,” fell into its accu­st­o­med sta­te of disor­der. Human sacri­fi­ces were offe­red and bit­ter reli­gious feuds pro­secu­ted.
Accor­ding to the Jews’ own sto­ri­es, it was during this peri­od that the much bepra­i­sed Josi­ah is sup­po­sed to have “reig­ned” at Jerus­a­lem.
Rea­red by the Jewish pri­ests, who had mur­de­red his predecessor’s son, he deve­l­oped into a fana­ti­cal bigot. The flat­te­ry evo­ked by his reli­gious exploits appa­rent­ly tur­ned his head, for in 608 B.C., he obstructed the march of the Egyp­ti­an army and was kil­led. For his inter­fe­ren­ce the King of Egypt, upon his return from Assy­ria, loo­ted Jerus­a­lem which remai­ned his vas­sal until 605 B.C. when it beca­me tri­butary to Baby­lon once more.
The Jews con­ti­nu­ed their usu­al tacti­cs, and in 597 B.C., Nebu­chadrezzar came down to Jerus­a­lem and car­ri­ed away its wealt­hier inha­bi­tants to Baby­lon.

But wit­hin a few years the Jews were again plot­ting with the ene­mies of their suze­rain. In 587 B.C., Nebu­chadrezzar, losing patien­ce, mar­ched on Jerus­a­lem and bur­ned and razed it. He took away the king in chains and also a gre­at many more of its peop­le as cap­ti­ves. In 582 B.C., the aut­ho­ri­ties in Baby­lon found it neces­sary to deport a third batch of the “Jews.”
The­se three gre­at her­ds of cap­ti­ves from Jerus­a­lem remai­ned in Baby­lo­nia toget­her with thous­ands of other pri­so­ners from all parts of the Near East for half a cen­tury.
This “exi­le” was pro­fi­tab­le to the Jews. They found it so advan­ta­geous that, when they recei­ved per­mis­sion to lea­ve Baby­lon, less than 43,000 elected to return to Jerus­a­lem. And 80 years elap­sed befo­re the second and much smal­ler group could be per­su­a­ded to lea­ve Baby­lon for Jerus­a­lem.
Notwit­h­stan­ding this, the Jews are under gra­ve suspi­cion of having intri­gu­ed with the Per­si­ans to accom­plish the down­fall of Baby­lon. Many peop­le belie­ve that the favour shown the Jews by Cyrus in 538 B.C. was bought by their ser­vi­ces in spre­a­ding sedi­tion, etc., wit­hin the city whi­le the Per­si­an troops were still out­si­de. If this is so, and the aut­ho­ri­ties are cor­rect who hold that the dis­af­fection of the com­mon peop­le in Baby­lon was due lar­ge­ly to the mono­t­hei­stic ten­den­cies of the Court and the ari­sto­cra­cy, the Jews must have been eit­her oppo­sed to mono­t­hei­sm, at that time, or guilty of doub­le trea­che­ry.
Tho­se Jews who did return to Jerus­a­lem found the coun­trysi­de occupied by the unfortu­na­te peop­le plan­ted the­re by Esar­had­don. In order to obtain shel­ter and rea­dy-made homes, many of the Jews inter­mar­ri­ed with the­se unsu­specting peop­le, who recei­ved the Jews kind­ly and even offe­red to assist them in rebu­il­ding Jerus­a­lem.

The Jews, howe­ver, having establis­hed them­sel­ves in the coun­try, repu­di­a­ted the­se offers of help with scorn and con­tu­me­ly; and, later, in 458 B.C., cele­bra­ted the arri­val of the second hor­de of “Zio­ni­sts” from Baby­lon by dri­ving out of the distri­ct all non-Jewish wives and their chil­dren.
Meanwhi­le Jerus­a­lem was still in ruins and the “retur­ned Jews” refu­sed to live in it. Now, howe­ver, they were for­ced to do so by their pri­ests who pla­ced guards at the gates and lock­ed in the unwil­ling citizens at night.
Later the­se first “Zio­ni­sts” were requi­red to coo­pe­ra­te in certain cru­de resto­ra­tions and rough buil­ding. Most of their clum­sy efforts were soon swept away but by 430 B.C. the Masque had been star­ted and the “adop­tion” of holy pla­ces, her­o­es, tra­di­tions, and reli­gious tenets pro­ce­e­ded apa­ce. The immi­grants had brought with them a mud­d­led idea of the Baby­lo­ni­an calen­dar, the Baby­lo­ni­an system of nume­ra­tion, weights, mea­su­res, and money, and also such scraps of myt­ho­lo­gy, ritu­al, sacred wri­tings and phi­los­op­hy, etc.. as they had been able to absorb or obtain. “History” began to be fabri­ca­ted and sacred wri­tings to be adap­ted; and the result of the­se equi­vo­cal labours have come down to the pre­sent day.
Of the history of the Jews during the 600 years fol­lowing the fall of Baby­lon and their com­ing under the Per­si­an rule, litt­le reli­ab­le infor­ma­tion is avai­lab­le.
Their own hig­hly colou­red sto­ri­es … of their spi­ri­tu­a­li­ty, lofty ide­a­lism, patri­o­tism, endu­ran­ce, fear­less valour, feats of arms, her­oism, and nobi­li­ty of cha­ra­cter, etc. … plen­ti­ful­ly inters­per­sed with mira­c­les, are unsup­por­ted. None of their con­tem­pora­ri­es seem to have been awa­re of the pro­di­gy in their midst, nor even to have liked or respected the Jews. On the con­trary, by the Assyrian’s and the Medes, “the Jews were dee­med the vilest of all peop­les.” And among the Gre­eks and the Romans they arou­sed dis­li­ke and con­tempt.

Marcus Aure­li­us said he was “sick of the filt­hy noi­sy Jews.
No other history cor­ro­bo­ra­tes the Jewish tales which are suspi­cious­ly like and appear to have been for­med in the same unscru­pulous man­ner as tho­se in the Books of Jos­hua, Est­her, Judith, Dani­el, etc., which likewi­se, were put toget­her during this peri­od.
The “won­der tales” of the rene­ga­de Jew, Josep­hus, who lived at ease among the Romans and wro­te in Gre­ek, are untrustwort­hy.
It seems, howe­ver, that by about 350 B.C. the Jews had so ange­red their well-dis­po­sed Per­si­an masters that the lat­ter plun­de­red part of Palesti­ne and car­ri­ed off many Jews as cap­ti­ves.
In 332 B.C., the Jews came under the Gre­ek rule. And in 320 B.C., Pto­le­my took Jerus­a­lem and car­ri­ed away a num­ber of Jews to Egypt. Palesti­ne remai­ned under the Pto­le­mies for near­ly a cen­tury. But by 246 B.C., the coun­try had rever­ted to its accu­st­o­med sta­te of anar­chy and disor­der.
In 198 B.C., the Jews made sub­mis­sion to Antio­chus III but owing chie­fly to the jea­lou­sies of the Jewish pri­ests and their own reli­gious feuds, the sta­te of Palesti­ne did not improve.
From 175 B.C., Jerus­a­lem espe­ci­al­ly seems to have suf­fe­red through the gre­ed and bruta­li­ty of two Jews who adop­ted the Gre­ek names of Jason and Menelaus and made the city a bone of con­ten­tion until it was sack­ed by Antio­chus IV in 169 B.C.
In 168 B.C., Antio­chus IV tri­ed to establish a uni­form reli­gion throug­hout his domain, but the Romans were anta­go­ni­stic to him and encou­ra­ged eve­ryt­hing that would embar­rass Syria.
This enab­led the Jews to revolt in 167 B.C. With the influ­en­ce of Rome against her and preoc­cupied with other troub­les, Syria was unab­le to deal effectu­al­ly with the Jewish insur­rection, which con­ti­nu­ed with varying suc­cess until about 146 B.C.

The Jews, howe­ver, lack­ed the abi­li­ty to govern them­sel­ves, and jea­lou­sies, dis­sen­tions, bri­gan­da­ge and civil war spe­e­di­ly brought Palesti­ne to such disor­der that it beca­me neces­sary for the Romans to inter­fe­re. In 63 B.C., Pom­pey took Jerus­a­lem by assault and laid the Jews under tri­bu­te to Rome.
Like the Gre­eks, the Romans soon discove­red that the Jews were tireso­me sub­jects. They cre­a­ted a com­mu­ni­ty wit­hin a com­mu­ni­ty, lived in a sta­te of cea­se­less fri­ction with their nonJewish neig­h­bours, and were con­stant­ly las­hing them­sel­ves into a fren­zy over bar­ba­rous cust­oms and ideas which appea­red ridi­culous to the pra­cti­cal Roman mind.
Nevert­he­less the Romans gran­ted to the Jews many pri­vil­e­ges and immu­ni­ties, all of which the Jews abu­sed. And from 63 B.C. until they were final­ly quel­led by Hadri­an in 135 A.D., (except during the reign of Her­od) the history of the Jews is main­ly a record of rebel­li­on against Roman rule.
Her­od, who­se fat­her had been poi­so­ned by the Jews, was appo­in­ted King by the Romans. He cap­tu­red Jerus­a­lem in 37 B.C. He dis­per­sed the bands of rob­bers and bri­gands which infe­sted Palesti­ne and inau­gu­ra­ted an era of com­pa­ra­ti­ve pea­ce and order. Betwe­en 19 and 9 B.C., Her­od built for the Jews the only admirab­le pla­ce of wors­hip they have ever pos­ses­sed.
Sin­ce the Jews had no archi­tec­tu­re of their own, Herod’s temp­le was built in the Gre­ek sty­le, but, no expen­se or pains were spa­red by Her­od to ensu­re that its con­struction should be car­ri­ed out with meti­culous regard for the reli­gious sus­cep­ti­bi­li­ties of the fana­ti­cal Jews and for the tra­di­tions which they pre­ten­ded were theirs — even to the pla­cing of a gre­at vine bea­ring clusters of gra­pes under a gol­den hea­ven (the sym­bol of Dio­nysus) over the entran­ce.

It was cha­ra­cte­ri­stic of the Jews that, whi­le they have never tired of boa­sting of the mag­ni­fi­cen­ce of the struc­tu­re, they would not allow its buil­der to enter the more sacred parts of the buil­ding. They have never evin­ced the sligh­test fee­lings of gra­ti­tu­de to Her­od and have never even men­tio­ned his name if this could be avoi­ded. The prin­cip­le rea­son for this atti­tu­de seems to be … Her­od was not a Jew.
Her­od died in 4 B.C., and imme­di­a­te­ly the Jews rebel­led again.
Bands of rob­bers and marau­ders, led by sla­ves and pre­ten­ders, sprang up in dif­fe­rent parts and plun­ged Palesti­ne into the tur­moil to which it was accu­st­o­med. Order was resto­red by the Romans. But in 6 A.D., the Jews rebel­led again, appa­rent­ly becau­se they objected to the Roman met­hod of taking a census.
The pra­cti­cal com­mon sen­se and easy-going tole­ran­ce of the Romans was hate­ful to the Jews; whi­le, to the Romans, the Jews see­med a race of bigo­ted fana­ti­cs who­se dire and cre­dulous super­sti­tion ren­de­red them the impla­cab­le ene­mies not only of the Roman Gover­n­ment but of all mankind.
An unchan­ging cha­ra­cte­ri­stic of the Jews, too, has been their unfai­ling suc­cess in ear­ning dis­li­ke of the peop­les among whom they have sett­led. Soo­ner or later all the­se peop­les have come to regard the Jews with extre­me dis­fa­vor. So it was with the Assy­ri­ans, the Medes, and the Gre­eks, and so it was with the Romans.
By 19 A.D. the num­ber of Jews in Rome had beco­me very lar­ge. As they insi­nu­a­ted them­sel­ves among all clas­ses, espe­ci­al­ly among the women — exploi­ting frail­ties, cre­duli­ty and vice — they beca­me unpo­pu­lar. When their dis­ho­ne­st and dis­re­putab­le acti­vi­ties came under the noti­ce of the Emperor, he enli­sted 4,000 Jews and sent them to gar­ri­son Sar­di­nia.
About 39 A.D. their geni­us for exci­ting dis­li­ke, led, in Ale­xan­dria whe­re they were very numerous, to blood­s­hed.

Among the pri­vil­e­ges gran­ted to the Jews by the Romans was per­mis­sion to meet toget­her, a liber­ty frequent­ly denied after the establis­h­ment of the empi­re to the Romans them­sel­ves.
This immen­se con­ces­sion was abu­sed by the Jews as was the lati­tu­de allowed their tea­chers of reli­gion.
The Jewish tea­chers of reli­gion used the fre­edom allowed them to turn the syna­gogu­es into schools of sedi­tion. From child­hood, the ignor­ant and fana­ti­cal Jews were trai­ned by them to hate the adhe­rents of all other sects, whi­le visions of wor­ld domi­na­tion and wor­ldwi­de empi­re were kept con­stant­ly befo­re them. And a well-orga­nized system of secret inter­com­mu­ni­ca­tion was main­tai­ned.
At the very time that the Ary­ans were refi­ning and puri­fying their own reli­gion, and prea­ching good-will to all men, the rab­bis were inculcat­ing amongst the Jews an inten­se hatred of the Gen­ti­les and all their wor­ks. It was an act of diso­be­di­en­ce to the Jewish law, they taught, to hold any inter­cour­se wha­te­ver with non-Jews. All Gen­ti­les, said the rab­bis, were base-born, and all non-Jewish women were uncle­an. To mar­ry a nonJewish woman was a hei­nous offen­ce; the chil­dren born of such an alli­an­ce were bastards, and could have no inhe­ri­tan­ce.
It defi­led a Jew, the rab­bis said, to sit at tab­le with non-Jews, or to enter a Gentile’s hou­se, which was to be regar­ded as a fold for catt­le is regar­ded. Jews were for­bid­den to coun­sel or to befri­end a non-Jew. And any bene­fits con­fer­red upon a Jew by a non-Jew were, it was taught, no bet­ter than serpent’s poi­son.
The Gen­ti­les are not human beings, asser­ted the rab­bis, nonJews are mere­ly beasts, they are God’s ene­mies and when they make inqui­ri­es of a Jew respecting his reli­gion, it is the Jew’s duty to answer with a sup­pres­sed cur­se, and to give a fal­se expla­na­tion. It is writ­ten, the rab­bis poin­ted out, “Eve­ry goy who stu­di­es Tal­m­ud, and eve­ry Jew who helps him in it ought to die,” and “Tho­se who do not own Torah and the prop­hets must all be kil­led” … open­ly whe­re no risk is incur­red, and whe­re the­re is, by arti­fi­ces.

This depra­ved sta­te of the Jewish mind was kept hid­den, as far as pos­sib­le, from the Romans. Inf­la­med by the tea­chin­gs of the syna­gogue and gre­e­dy for wor­ld domi­na­tion, the Jews bro­ke out into one insur­rection after ano­t­her, usu­al­ly simul­ta­neous­ly in dif­fe­rent parts of the Empi­re on each occa­sion.
Thus about 65 A.D. the Jews rebel­led again, and having over­run the ill-pro­tected rural distri­cts of Palesti­ne, they directed their efforts against the small Roman gar­ri­son. The Romans were so few in num­ber that they agre­ed to sur­ren­der on con­di­tion that they be allowed to wit­hdraw from Palesti­ne. The Jews agre­ed to the­se terms, and rati­fied their agre­e­ment by solemn oath, but, imme­di­a­te­ly the Romans laid down their arms, they were base­ly mas­sa­cred by the Jews, Accor­ding to the Jews’ own sto­ri­es, the Romans died wit­hout asking for mer­cy but der­i­ding the san­cti­ty of Jewish oat­hs whi­le, it is said, pun­gen­cy was added to their remarks by the fact that the mas­sa­cre took pla­ce on the Jewish Sab­bath.
Palesti­ne must be rid of non-Jews, said the Jews, and whe­re­ver they out­num­be­red the Gen­ti­les they per­pe­tra­ted revol­ting mas­sa­cres; as a result, from about 66 to about 69 A.D., a sta­te of anar­chy and blood­s­hed, extra­or­di­nary even for Palesti­ne, pre­vai­led. In 70 A.D. Titus bur­ned Jerus­a­lem and razed it.
By the first cen­tury B.C. the Masque was alre­a­dy well orga­nized, and it con­ti­nu­ed to dis­play gre­at acti­vi­ty for near­ly 200 years. The later sta­ges of this acti­vi­ty showed remar­kab­le simila­ri­ties to tho­se of the Masque as it exists today. It dif­fe­red, of cour­se, in detail. For examp­le, the Jews of that time con­stant­ly pre­ten­ded that their num­bers were gre­a­ter than they actu­al­ly were, whe­reas they now con­stant­ly pre­tend that their num­bers are smal­ler than they are. And they also, in tho­se days, devo­ted much time to pro­se­ly­tizing, espe­ci­al­ly among the women of other peop­les; but the poli­cy was the same.
The num­ber of Jews living in other coun­tri­es was alre­a­dy gre­at, and soon increa­sed until they by far out­num­be­red the popu­la­tion of Palesti­ne. 

And the “Jews of the Dis­per­sion” beha­ved very much as their suc­ces­sors do today.
The overt­hrow of all Gen­ti­le insti­tu­tions was belie­ved to be immi­nent; the Mes­si­ah was con­fi­dent­ly expected; and the assump­tion, by the Jews, of the Empi­re of the Wor­ld and of Domi­na­tion over all the non-Jewish peop­les of the Earth was impa­tient­ly awai­ted.
From the time of Pto­le­my to the third cen­tury A.D., a gre­at many Jews, chie­fly tho­se of Ale­xan­dria, devo­ted them­sel­ves to the extra­or­di­nary task of for­ging texts and other wri­tings to sup­port and strengt­hen the Gre­at Masque and Jewish pre­ten­sions.
Detri­ba­li­sed Jews such as Phi­lo (who frequent­ly rea­ched heights of which the rab­bis of Palesti­ne had never drea­med) and Josep­hus (who, accor­ding to his own wri­tings, was a very resour­ce­ful and remar­kab­le man) made pro­pa­gan­da open­ly and unas­ha­med. But others, equal­ly sly but less pert, adop­ted more insi­dious met­hods. The­se usu­al­ly put forward their ideas under the clo­ak of some distingu­is­hed name.
Thus, books were circu­la­ted bea­ring the names of myt­hi­cal per­so­na­ges or of peop­le who, alt­hough they were well known, had never writ­ten a line.
Newly com­pi­led lite­rary pro­ductions were put forward as wri­tings of the gre­a­test antiqui­ty. Ver­ses were for­ged and phi­los­op­hers had fat­he­red upon them wri­tings which rep­re­sen­ted them as taking a pro­fo­und inte­r­est in the Jewish scrip­tu­res. Poets were fal­se­ly rep­re­sen­ted as being deeply impres­sed by the Jewish reli­gion. And ora­c­les were deceit­ful­ly quo­ted as pre­di­cting a migh­ty desti­ny for the Jews.
For­ge­ry, inde­ed, beca­me a sci­en­ce among the Jews … the only one. Among the many ficti­tious com­po­si­tions for­ged by the Jews about this time, was the so-cal­led “let­ter of Aristeas.”

Orp­heus was drag­ged into the ser­vi­ce of the Jews. Hesi­od and Homer were made to sing of the Jewish Sab­bath. And Aes­chylus, Euri­pi­des, and Sop­ho­c­les were made to avow Jewish ideas of God; whi­le a most impu­dent for­ge­ry of the Jews out­si­de Palesti­ne was a lar­ge Col­lection of the Sibyl­li­ne Ora­c­les. The pri­va­te man­ner in which the Sibyl com­mu­ni­ca­ted coun­sel and war­ning to men, ren­de­red her an admirab­le instru­ment in the hands of the Jewish pro­pa­gan­dists. By them, she was trans­for­med into a prop­he­tess of Jehovah — ter­rib­le wars and dre­ad­ful cala­mi­ties were fore­told, after which, it was said, the Jews would assu­me the supre­ma­cy and lead the nations into a bles­sed era of uni­ver­sal pea­ce, etc., etc.
In spi­te of all this men­da­ci­ty and art­ful­ly dis­gu­i­sed pro­pa­gan­da, and of the bare­faced attempts of Phi­lo and the alle­go­ri­cal school to foist Jewish tales upon the Gre­eks, the Jews con­ti­nu­ed to be regar­ded with con­tempt by the Gre­eks and the Romans who laug­hed at their vain-glo­rious pre­ten­sions and flat­ly refu­sed to take part in the Masque.
The pre­ten­sions of the Jews to an honou­rab­le and remo­te antiqui­ty, for examp­le, were ridi­cu­led. For the Jews to pre­tend that the gifts of civi­liza­tion were made through their instru­men­ta­li­ty was, said the Gre­eks and the Romans, preposte­rous.
What, it was asked, had the Jews done for art, lite­ra­tu­re or sci­en­ce? Inste­ad of being the tea­chers of Pla­to and the Gre­ek phi­los­op­hers as the Jews impu­dent­ly pre­ten­ded they had been, it was poin­ted out that the Jews were bar­ba­ri­ans when Gre­ek cul­tu­re had ari­sen. And that of all the hor­de of small peop­les, shif­ting from sla­ve­ry in one coun­try to ser­vi­tu­de in ano­t­her, the Jews were the least pro­ducti­ve and the poo­rest in civi­liza­tion.
The Jews, the Gre­eks and the Romans insi­sted, were the des­cen­dants of the dregs of the Egyp­ti­an popu­la­ce, a despi­cab­le rabb­le, suf­fe­ring from lepro­sy and “a pesti­len­ti­al disea­se which dis­fi­gu­red the body,” uncle­an and disea­sed moral­ly as well as phy­si­cal­ly.

Jerus­a­lem, they poin­ted out, was a refu­ge for “the scum and the refu­se” of all the adjo­i­ning nations. The Jews, they said, offe­red human sacri­fi­ces (like the wors­hip­pers of Israel and Saturn, who­se “day” the Jews kept holy) and were “a peop­le of unbrid­led lust,” “tain­ted with execrab­le kna­ve­ry.”
Meanwhi­le, the Jews dis­si­mu­la­ted and secret­ly deter­mi­ned to make ano­t­her attempt to exter­mi­na­te their non-Jewish fel­lowci­tizens.
When the exi­gen­cies of the Part­hi­an war had deple­ted the Eastern Provin­ces of Roman troops in 116 A.D., a sud­den precon­cer­ted upri­sing of the Jews took pla­ce, cha­ra­cte­rized by revol­ting atro­ci­ties. Huma­ni­ty is sho­ck­ed at the hor­rid cru­el­ties which the Jews com­mit­ted in the cities of Egypt, and Cyprus, and in Cyre­ne whe­re they dwelt in trea­cherous fri­ends­hip with the unsu­specting inha­bi­tants.
In Cyre­ne the Jews mas­sa­cred 220,000 Gre­ek and Roman citizens; in Cyprus 240,000; and in Egypt a very gre­at mul­ti­tu­de. Whe­re­ver the Jews out­num­be­red the rest of the popu­la­tion and their upri­sing was suc­ces­sful, the Jews beha­ved in the most revol­ting man­ner. Many of their Gen­ti­le neig­h­bours they sawed asun­der, in emu­la­tion of their myt­hi­cal King David. And they lick­ed up and smea­red them­sel­ves with the blood and devou­red the flesh of their victims and twi­sted the entrails of the non-Jews about their bodi­es.
After this exhi­bi­tion of their “spi­ri­tu­a­li­ty” the Jews were for­bid­den to set foot on the island of Cyprus; and Cyre­ne had to be re-colo­ni­sed.
This out­bre­ak was sup­pres­sed by Roman rein­for­ce­ments under Tubro, des­pat­ched by Tra­jan. And the Jews lear­ned once again that, howe­ver suc­ces­sful their secret machin­a­tions might be, the fren­zied onrush of Ori­en­tal fana­ti­cism was una­vai­ling against the cool bra­ve­ry of disci­pli­ned Roman troops.

Tra­jan died in 117 A.D. and was suc­ce­e­ded by his rela­ti­ve Hadri­an, and once more the Jewish agi­ta­tors beca­me acti­ve.
Rebel­li­on was encou­ra­ged by the sta­te­ment that it was unlaw­ful to pay taxes to a Gen­ti­le master. Flat­te­ring pro­mi­ses were made that a conque­ring Mes­si­ah would soon appear and invest the favouri­tes of Jehovah with the Empi­re of the Earth and domi­na­tion over all the non-Jewish peop­les.
This pro­pa­gan­da pro­du­ced an extra­or­di­nary fer­ment among the cre­dulous Jews, who, it is said, had their fana­ti­cism still furt­her stir­red up by a rab­bi cal­led Aki­ba. Thus, accor­ding to the Jews’ own sto­ri­es (after the Jews had been thrown into ano­t­her paroxysm of fana­ti­cal fren­zy by the fact that Hadri­an had issu­ed edi­cts against muti­la­tion and circumci­sion and, about 130 A.D., had orde­red Jerus­a­lem to be rebu­ilt in Roman sty­le) it was by anno­un­cing him­self as their long expected Mes­si­ah that a man cal­led, appa­rent­ly Simon, attra­cted fol­lowers.
His name does not appear in Roman records. And it is not known whet­her he was a fana­tic or an impo­stor. But he was imme­di­a­te­ly acclai­med as the long expected Mes­si­a­nic King by the rab­bi Aki­ba who beca­me his armour-bea­rer.
The Roman for­ces in Palesti­ne were, as usu­al, small. And a “holy war’’ against the Romans being pro­clai­med, near­ly all the Jewish towns which had no Roman gar­ri­son joi­ned the “Mul­lah,” who was thus enab­led to per­secu­te cru­el­ly the Chri­sti­ans who refu­sed to fol­low him, to kill many Jews suspected of desi­ring to live at pea­ce with Rome, and to rai­se a for­mi­dab­le revolt.
To his adhe­rents this rebel Mes­si­ah seems to have been known as Bar Coche­ba, “the son of the star,” but by the rab­bis he was cal­led Bar Cozi­ba, “the son of deceit.”

Severus, recal­led from Bri­tain by Hadri­an, quel­led this rebel­li­on, and the Jews were for­bid­den to set foot in Jerus­a­lem, which beca­me a Roman town.
Under suc­ce­e­ding emper­ors, the Jews, taking advan­ta­ge of the faci­li­ties affor­ded by the caves and caverns of Palesti­ne for lea­ding a law­less life, some­ti­mes cau­sed dis­tur­ban­ces. But the­se, alt­hough pro­fes­sed­ly patri­o­tic, were main­ly out­bre­aks of bri­gan­da­ge and never assu­med a serious aspect.
Some peop­le imag­i­ne that about 135 A.D. the Jews were scat­te­red abro­ad by some myste­rious agen­cy, which, sin­ce then, has pre­ven­ted their return to Palesti­ne. This absurd super­sti­tion is encou­ra­ged by the Masque, and by the mis­le­a­ding phra­se “the dis­per­sion of the Jews.”
Many Jews were car­ri­ed off by their conquer­ors, of cour­se, to such pla­ces as Baby­lo­nia, Gre­e­ce, Ale­xan­dria and Rome. But a far lar­ger num­ber of Jews left Palesti­ne of their own accord and for their own gain. This was so, espe­ci­al­ly, during the lat­ter sta­ges of Per­si­an rule; and later, when the Gre­eks offe­red spe­ci­al indu­ce­ments to occupi­ers of new colo­nies. And among the very lar­ge num­ber of Jews who emi­gra­ted for their own bene­fit, must be inclu­ded all tho­se Jews who left Palesti­ne becau­se of the see­m­ing­ly end­less disor­der and anar­chy main­tai­ned the­re by the few who pre­fe­red to remain.
Sin­ce the first cen­tury A.D. the “Jews of the Dia­spora” — that is, the Jews who pre­fer to live out­si­de Palesti­ne — have always been much more numerous than tho­se who have had to live in Palesti­ne. But the Jews out­si­de could have “retur­ned” to Palesti­ne if they had desi­red to do so.
The pro­hi­bi­tion by Hadri­an against their pre­sen­ce in Jerus­a­lem soon lap­sed. And alt­hough it was revi­ved by both Con­stan­ti­ne and Omar, it never applied to the other parts of Palesti­ne.

The truth is that Palesti­ne fell a victim to Jewish lust for wor­ld power, to reli­gious­ly foste­red hatred, and to sel­fish gre­ed. After rui­ning her, the Jews aban­do­ned Palesti­ne.
The Masque, howe­ver, the Jews did not aban­don; its acti­vi­ties may be tra­ced in many coun­tri­es at many peri­ods of history.
Par­ti­cu­lar­ly notewort­hy are its pha­ses of feve­rish acti­vi­ty towards the end of the eigh­te­enth and nine­te­enth cen­turi­es, and in the first few deca­des of the nine­te­enth and twen­tieth cen­turi­es A.D.
Palesti­ne was never a desirab­le pla­ce in which to live, until Gre­at Bri­tain, at the expen­se of many Bri­tish lives and much Bri­tish trea­su­re, made it so. And even now, though Bri­tish citizens are taxed to main­tain and Bri­tish sol­di­ers die to guard this Zio­nist toy, it fails to attra­ct the Jews.
In spi­te of the fact that Palesti­ne has been inve­sted by the Jewish Masque with an enti­re­ly ficti­tious value (or per­haps becau­se of it), the Jews of today show no gre­a­ter eager­ness to return than did their pro­to­ty­pes in Baby­lon when the Masque began.
It is not known what langu­a­ge was spo­ken by the Jews in anci­ent times. The Jews like to pre­tend that the ori­gi­nal spe­ech of mankind was Hebrew and that they ori­gi­na­ted it. But Hebrew is not even as old as Ara­bic, and it is not Jewish. Even the word “Hebrew” is not Jewish.
Hebrew is a patois of the despi­sed Canaa­ni­tes. It is a mix­tu­re of frag­ments bor­rowed from all the langu­a­ges spo­ken by the peop­le with whom the Can­na­ni­tes came in con­ta­ct, expres­sed in an alp­ha­bet bor­rowed from the Pho­e­ni­ci­ans, about 800 B.C.
This alp­ha­bet and the Hebrew voca­bu­lary are imper­fect.
Anci­ent Hebrew had neit­her vowels nor pun­ctu­a­tion marks nor any divi­sion betwe­en words or betwe­en sen­ten­ces. Whi­le some of its con­so­nants are so like others that mista­kes in rea­ding occur repe­a­ted­ly.

Inde­ed, it is aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve­ly sta­ted that some 800,000 various rea­dings of the con­so­nants in sur­vi­ving manuscripts (which are not very old) have been coun­ted. Copies vary so much that it is impos­sib­le to say which is the cor­rect ver­sion.
Apart from this dif­fi­culty with the con­so­nants, the value of any essay on sci­en­ti­fic, legal, histo­ri­cal, or reli­gious sub­jects, writ­ten in anci­ent Hebrew, may be demon­stra­ted by set­ting out in like man­ner (wit­hout vowels, and wit­hout pun­ctu­a­tion marks, or divi­sions betwe­en words or sen­ten­ces) a few para­grap­hs from any modern book.
Hebrew has been “a dead langu­a­ge” sin­ce the fourth cen­tury B.C., so that on acco­unt of the imper­fections of its writ­ten form, no one knows how it should be pro­no­un­ced. Sin­ce, howe­ver, it has been resusci­ta­ted and beco­me part of the Masque, the Jews are tin­ke­ring at it and no doubt, in time, when vowels and a suf­fi­ci­en­cy of arti­fi­ci­al words have been added, it may beco­me almost as use­ful as the pid­gin Ger­man, known as Yid­dish, which is spo­ken by most Jews today.
Nowa­days, Yid­dish is com­mon­ly writ­ten in Hebrew cha­ra­cters.
This ser­ves seve­ral pur­po­ses — tho­se who know Hebrew but not Yid­dish can­not read it; and tho­se who know Yid­dish but not the Hebrew cha­ra­cters can­not read it. It looks like Hebrew, and so plea­ses the less educa­ted Jews, and flat­ters their vani­ty.
For cen­turi­es the Jews of Palesti­ne spo­ke Ara­maic. And both the Jerus­a­lem and the Baby­lo­ni­an Tal­m­uds are writ­ten in a mix­tu­re of Ara­maic and Hebrew. Many Jews, appa­rent­ly, were unab­le to under­stand even this mix­tu­re, and so trans­la­tions and expla­na­tions, cal­led Tar­gums, were made for the more ignor­ant Jews, who seem always to have found langu­a­ge dif­fi­cult.

Notwit­h­stan­ding this dif­fi­culty of langu­a­ge, it is pre­ten­ded that the Jews are the ori­gi­na­tors and pos­ses­sors of an unique lite­ra­tu­re of ine­sti­mab­le antiqui­ty; all lite­ra­tu­re which is a vast sto­re­hou­se of know­led­ge, sci­en­ce, law, poe­try, history, and reli­gion, and which is wit­hout an equal among the lite­ra­tu­res of the wor­ld.
Upon exa­mi­na­tion, howe­ver, the­se claims are found to be exag­ge­ra­ted. The Jewish wri­tings are not unique, except in this: that they do not pre­sent a sing­le ori­gi­nal fea­tu­re. The langu­a­ge employ­ed, the sty­le, mode of pre­sen­ta­tion, the metre, the man­ner in which what is writ­ten is set out (for examp­le the system of pla­cing the tit­le and the first words), many of the phra­ses, simi­les, sen­ten­ces, and even who­le por­tions of wor­ks, may be shown to have been “adop­ted” from the wri­tings of the Baby­lo­ni­ans and other peop­les. For instan­ce, just as the 23rd Psalm may be shown to have ori­gi­na­ted in Baby­lo­nia, so many ver­ses of the 104th Psalm are almost word for word the same as tho­se of one of the hymns writ­ten by Akh­na­ton, who reig­ned over Egypt from 1385 to 1375 B.C.
“Hal­le­lujah” is pla­ced at the begin­ning and end of many Psalms in exa­ct­ly the same way as the anci­ent Gre­eks used to pla­ce “Eleleu­le” at the begin­ning and end of the much older hymns to Apol­lo.
Nor are the Jewish wri­tings old. The Jews, if the­re were any then, did not pos­sess the art of wri­ting befo­re, at the ear­liest, 900 B.C. Hen­ce no Jewish “docu­ment” can be much older than 800 B.C. That is to say, more than four thous­and years after the deeply reli­gious Psalms of the ear­li­er Akka­di­ans had been writ­ten … the Jews were lear­ning to wri­te!
In the Bri­tish Muse­um are pre­ser­ved inscrip­tions recor­ding the expe­di­tions of Sar­gon I of Akkad, and his son Naram-Sin, to Sinai and to Palesti­ne, which Sar­gon I incor­pora­ted in his Empi­re. The­se inscrip­tions were made about 2800 B.C. … the same peri­od as that in which Naram Sin laid a pave­ment in the Sout­hea­stern temp­le court at Nip­pur.

At Nip­pur have been found more than 30,000 con­tra­cts and acco­unts, some of which likewi­se date from the fourth mil­le­ni­um B.C., in addi­tion to some 3,000 lite­rary texts, many of which date from the Sume­ri­an peri­od. Here no less than twen­ty-one dif­fe­rent stra­ta rep­re­sen­ting dif­fe­rent peri­ods of occu­pa­tion have been noted and the pave­ment laid by NaramS­in has been uncove­red. The time which elap­sed betwe­en the laying of this pave­ment, about 2,800 B.C. and ear­ly Arab times, is rep­re­sen­ted by thir­ty-six feet of supe­rim­po­sed debris, but it lies thir­ty feet above the vir­gin soil !!
The Jews own sto­ri­es, too, provi­de a side­light on the “high antiqui­ty” of their scrip­tu­res. Thus the Jews assert that pre­ci­se­ly 100 years after the “ten tri­bes” had been car­ri­ed away, the­re occu­red the out­stan­ding event which made glo­rious the reign of the pri­est-rid­den Josi­ah. In 622 B.C., his pri­ests sud­den­ly “found” the “Book of the Law”! Appa­rent­ly, in spi­te of its pre­ten­ded age, no dif­fi­culty was expe­ri­en­ced in rea­ding it for the king, the high pri­est, and the peop­le, were all ali­ke asto­nis­hed at its con­tents. In order to be qui­te sure that the book “found” was real­ly the word of their god, Jehovah, they asked a woman cal­led Hul­dah, “the wea­sel,” and she said it was and that ended the mat­ter.
Hen­ce it is evi­dent that the “ten tri­bes” never heard of this “Book of the Law,” and that less than 40 years befo­re tho­se that were left of the “two tri­bes” were them­sel­ves car­ri­ed away to Baby­lon, the lat­ter were still ignor­ant of its exi­sten­ce and of its con­tents.
The Jews pos­sess no ori­gi­nal docu­ments of any kind whatso­e­ver. The see­ker after the­se is patient­ly remin­ded that the ori­gi­nals, … inclu­ding the Deca­logue and the Tar­gums of Onke­los and Joh­nat­hon, … all of which were tra­ced by the fin­ger of the god of the Jews, were all destroy­ed when Jerus­a­lem was sack­ed.

It is explai­ned, howe­ver, that this makes no dif­fe­ren­ce worth men­tio­ning sin­ce they were all com­ple­te­ly “resto­red,” about 149 years afterwards, by a pri­est cal­led Esra or Esdras, about 444 B.C.
Thus what must be regar­ded as the second edi­tions of the god­gi­ven ori­gi­nals should date from about 444 B.C. But even this is not so. Mis­fortu­nes befell the­se also. And “chan­ges and addi­tions” con­ti­nu­ed to be made in them until 287 A.D., when some of the latest edi­tions were trans­la­ted into Gre­ek and so assu­med a fixed form. Other ver­sions did not beco­me fixed until they were trans­la­ted into Lat­in about 401 A.D.
The suc­ces­sors of Ezra col­lected toget­her such wor­ks on history and reli­gion and such songs and sayings as they could obtain, and “adap­ting” the­se to suit their own pur­po­ses, added the “modi­fied” ver­sions to the “wor­ks” of Ezra. In cour­se of time, the Jews came to regard some of the­se books as sacred, but they were not agre­ed as to which were sacred and which were not. The Ale­xan­dri­an Jews adop­ted books into the sacred groups which the Jews of Jerus­a­lem did not.
This dif­fe­ren­ce of opi­ni­on lasted until the second cen­tury A.D., when all the books which are com­pri­sed in the “Old Testa­ment” acqui­red “divi­ne aut­ho­ri­ty.” It is not known, howe­ver, exa­ct­ly how or when the can­non of the “Old Testa­ment” was for­med.
The Jews like to pre­tend about the­se wri­tings that Moses wro­te all the laws, David all the Psalms, Solo­mon all the Proverbs.
But the books them­sel­ves fail to sup­port this idea. In eve­ry case they prove to be the work of many wri­ters. And, more­over, proof is requi­red that the repu­ted aut­hors ever lived among the Jews sin­ce near­ly all of them are “com­po­si­te her­o­es,” made appa­rent­ly, by the Jews who made the books.

In addi­tion, the books of the Torah, and the others, show numerous con­tra­di­ctions, and con­tain dif­fe­rent sto­ri­es relat­ing to the same thin­gs, but disa­gre­e­ing with each other. For examp­le, in Gene­sis XX a tale is told of Abra­ham which in Gene­sis XXVI is told of Isaac; and no less than six acts attri­bu­ted to Moses are later ascri­bed to Jos­hua, who, of cour­se, is a “myth-dup­li­ca­te” of Moses.
Deu­te­ro­no­my was not writ­ten until near­ly a thous­and years after Moses is sup­po­sed to have lived. And lar­ge por­tions of Gene­sis, Exo­dus, Num­bers and Levi­ti­cus were not com­pi­led until after the “two tri­bes” had been depor­ted to Baby­lon. The Psalms are among the most recent­ly com­pi­led books of the “Old Testa­ment”. Not one Psalm was com­po­sed by David; some are of the Gre­ek peri­od. Proverbs, the Song of Solo­mon, and the Wis­dom of Solo­mon owe not­hing to Solo­mon, who, if he lived among the Jews befo­re 900 B.C., would not have been able to read or wri­te. The­se books were put toget­her more than 500 years after Solo­mon is sup­po­sed to have reig­ned.
The book of Jos­hua is an examp­le of how the Jews manu­fa­c­tu­red fal­se history out of the popu­lar myt­hs of other peop­les to increa­se their own pre­sti­ge. It is the work of seven or eight wri­ters.
The books of Isai­ah and Jud­ges are each the work of some half-a-dozen wri­ters. And the book of Dani­el is an examp­le of the man­ner in which the Jews con­fu­sed and fal­si­fied history to furt­her their own ends. It was writ­ten for the pur­po­ses of pro­pa­gan­da, to stir up rebel­li­on and gain adhe­rents for the revolt of 167 B.C. against Gre­ek rule. That is to say, it was writ­ten about 350 years after the time in which it pre­tends to have been writ­ten and long after the events “prop­he­sied” in it had taken pla­ce. In spi­te of this, the writer’s know­led­ge of history was remar­kably inac­cu­ra­te. Alt­hough it is pre­ten­ded that the book was writ­ten at a time when the Gre­eks were not yet known, it con­tains a num­ber of Macedo­ni­an words, and refers to events which occu­red in the peri­od of Gre­ek rule over the Jews.

The history con­tai­ned in Jewish books, such as Est­her, Judith, etc. is unsup­por­ted. The wri­ter of Judith knew litt­le geo­grap­hy and less history. The anci­ent tra­di­tions were syste­ma­ti­cal­ly alte­red by the Jews and applied to them­sel­ves. The story of Job is not Jewish. It was “adop­ted” from a Baby­lo­ni­an ori­gi­nal.
Psalm after Psalm may be shown to have been copied from a Baby­lo­ni­an ori­gi­nal.
Whi­le the Jews were enga­ged in put­ting toget­her questio­nab­le books like Judith, Mac­ca­be­es, the Wis­dom of Solo­mon, and the Psalms of Solo­mon — about 100 B.C., wri­ters like Vir­gil, Hora­ce, Cice­ro, Ovid, Lucre­ti­us, and others, had appea­red in Rome, to say not­hing of the wri­ters of the Gre­eks and the Ary­ans; whi­le the wor­ks cata­logu­ed under the name, “Zor­oa­ster”, in the library of Ale­xan­dria, con­tai­ned two mil­li­on lines!
The oldest Jewish manuscripts belong to the tenth cen­tury A.D., and are neit­her ori­gi­nal nor aut­hen­tic. Each is the work of many wri­ters and has been edi­ted, and re-edi­ted many times.
The tales and legends of the Jews are not their own. In near­ly eve­ry case the Jews have “adop­ted” them from their masters or their neig­h­bours.
Thus the first eight chap­ters of Gene­sis were made from frag­ments adap­ted from the wri­tings of Baby­lo­nia. The sto­ri­es of the Cre­a­tion, the Gar­den of Eden, Lilith, Adam and Eve, the Tree of Life, the Ser­pent, the Temp­ta­tion, the Fall of the Cheru­bim, the ten Ante­di­l­u­vi­an patri­ar­chs, the Tower of Babel, Noah, the Flood, the Ark, the Dove, the Oli­ve branch, the Raven, Noah’s sacri­fi­ce, the Rain­bow, the Covenant, etc., etc., were all “adop­ted” from the Baby­lo­ni­ans. All the­se sto­ri­es had been cast into poe­tic form and writ­ten down in Baby­lo­ni­an thous­ands of years befo­re the Jews appea­red.

The sto­ri­es of Abraham’s sacri­fi­ce, Jacob’s wre­st­ling, Jacob’s so-cal­led “lad­der” (which was a Baby­lo­ni­an “Zig­gu­rat”), Joseph in the pit, Potiphar’s wife, the infan­cy of Moses, his won­der-wor­king rod, the con­test of the Magi­ci­ans, the Plagu­es of Egypt, the divi­ding of the waters, the pil­lar of fire and pil­lar of smo­ke or cloud, the striking of the rock, the moun­tain of the god enve­l­oped in mist and emit­ting thund­er and ligh­t­ning, the tab­les of the law, Moses’ shin­ing face, his horns, his lea­ding a gre­at mul­ti­tu­de, his name, his bra­zen ser­pent (a bra­zen cobra was discove­red recent­ly at Gezer), etc., Aaron’s breast­p­la­te, the gol­den calf, the sedi­tion of Kora, making the sun and moon stand still, the slaying of the dra­gon by Jehovah (Isai­ah, 11, 9, and Psalms, LXXIV, 13, etc.). Samson’s locks, Sam­son and the lion, the witch of Endor, David and Bat­hs­he­ba, the wis­dom of Solo­mon, the jud­g­ment of Solo­mon, his harem, his pala­ces, his Temp­le and gor­geous court, etc., orde­al by drinking holy water, etc., can all be shown to have been der­i­ved from the folkl­o­re of peop­les very much older than the Jews.
An examp­le of the way in which the Jews beca­me mud­d­led, through “adop­ting” tales, etc., they did not under­stand, is the Jewish story of the baby Uni­corn which splas­hed along in the wake of the ark to which it was tied by its horn. In the ori­gi­nal story, which was old befo­re the­re were any Jews, the ark was towed to safe­ty by a “gre­at fish” (evi­dent­ly a kind of Narwhal) by a cab­le tied to its gre­at tusk or “horn.”
Moses, David, and Solo­mon were never lea­ders of the Jews.
The­se are all “com­po­si­te” or “pat­chwork” figu­res made of “frag­ments” which were, for the most part, old befo­re the Jews “adop­ted” them in order to give gre­a­ter veri­si­mi­li­tu­de to their boa­stings about their “won­der­ful and age-old past”.
Thus, “Moses” was made by the Jews from Baby­lo­ni­an ori­gi­nals to which they added tales from Egypt and Ara­bia. Whet­her or not the Baby­lo­ni­an ori­gi­nals are to be iden­ti­fied with Dio­nysus, few unpreju­di­ced inve­sti­ga­tors will deny that the acts of “Moses” are mere­ly a later ver­sion of the acts of Dio­nysus. 

In view of the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of “Moses” with Dio­nysus, it is inte­r­e­sting to note that the Gre­eks and the Romans asser­ted that when Antio­chus ente­red the inner­most shri­ne of the god of the Jews, he found the­re­in “a sto­ne ima­ge of a man with a thi­ck beard sit­ting upon an ass, and hol­ding a book in his hands”. This ima­ge, they asser­ted, rep­re­sen­ted “Moses.” The story of the infan­cy of “Moses” was cur­rent about 3,800 B.C.
“David” was made by the Jews of “frag­ments” of the Storm­god and of the Pig-god, with some history added … the history, howe­ver, belon­ged to Assy­ria, not to Judah.
“Solo­mon” was made by the Jews of “frag­ments” of the wise­fish sun-god of Assy­ria, mixed with some histo­ri­cal tales con­cer­ning two or more Kings of Assy­ria. The descrip­tion of “King Solomon’s wor­ld famous Court”, the gor­geous cere­mo­ni­al, the harem, the two high pri­ests, the ele­ven gre­at feu­dal vas­sals, the system of wors­hip, etc., etc., were “extra­cted” en bloc by the Jewish fakers of history from descrip­tions of the Court of the “King of the Four Quar­ters of the Wor­ld” during tho­se peri­ods of mag­ni­fi­cen­ce in Assy­ria and Baby­lo­nia which dazz­led the wor­ld at a time when the Jewish “kings” were rai­ding one another’s water­ho­les and dan­cing naked befo­re their gods.
It is cha­ra­cte­ri­stic that whi­le pre­ten­ding to despi­se utter­ly the buil­ders of the­se gre­at empi­res, the Jews, nevert­he­less, appro­p­ri­a­ted wit­hout scrup­le the legends and her­o­es and even the history and reli­gious ideas of the­se gre­at peop­les whom they so bit­ter­ly hated.
A frequent­ly rei­te­ra­ted boast of the Jews is that they have sur­vi­ved gre­at sta­tes such as Assy­ria, Baby­lon, and Rome.

What merit accru­es from this feat is not clear. Many sects in India are very much older than the Jews; and it is at least doub­t­ful whet­her, say, Sar­gon II, if given the choi­ce, would have exchan­ged the 16 years of his reign for the 1600 years of Jewish history which began with his ascen­sion.
The hol­low­ness of the Jewish pre­ten­sions have for­ced sup­por­ters of the Masque to adopt various sub­ter­fu­ges in order to hide the sor­did truth. This is eve­rywhe­re appa­rent. Thus, a wel­lk­nown popu­lar “History of the Jews” devo­tes a who­le chap­ter to the mag­ni­fi­cen­ce of … Assy­ria; and divi­des the rest of its con­tents betwe­en anec­do­tes con­cer­ning indi­vi­du­al Jews (inclu­ding some obscu­re immi­grants in Ame­ri­ca), and unsup­por­ted tales from the Jewish scrip­tu­res and the wri­tings of Josep­hus. Whi­le an arti­c­le on “Jewish art,” in a well-known encycl­o­pa­e­dia, con­sists of a descrip­tion of “King Solomon’s Temp­le” (in the sty­le of Josep­hus) and not­hing else!
The truth is that exca­va­tion in Palesti­ne, alt­hough long con­ti­nu­ed, has fai­led to une­arth any relic of eit­her David or Solo­mon or of their alle­ged wor­ks. And not a sing­le examp­le of Jewish work that might be regar­ded as “art” has been found. Inde­ed, so care­ful an inve­sti­ga­tor as Mr. Osgood has said, “The­re are few more abso­lu­te­ly cru­de and hideous human cre­a­tions than the clumsily dau­bed pot­te­ry of Judea, the almost sole reli­cs of its arti­stic (?) endea­vours. ‘Jewish art’ is as near­ly a con­tra­di­ction of terms as can be found. The arti­stic horizon of the anci­ent Hebrew was made up of con­ven­tio­nal flowers, myt­hic beasts … and the bal­dest archi­tec­tu­ral lines.”
“King Solomon’s Temp­le,” com­ple­te in eve­ry detail of archi­tec­tu­re, fur­ni­tu­re and ritu­al, was “taken over” from Baby­lo­nia by the Jews. The gre­at bra­zen “sea” sup­por­ted on twel­ve bra­zen oxen, for examp­le, has no mea­ning for the Jews, but it is an essen­ti­al fea­tu­re of the Temp­les of Baby­lo­nia. It see­med important so the Jews “adop­ted” it.

The offi­ce of High Pri­est, with hat and dress com­ple­te, the hie­rar­chy, the idea that pala­ce of the king should adjo­in the temp­le in which the king could offer sacri­fi­ce, the outer court, the inner court, the gre­at gates and even some of their names, the cham­bers for the pri­ests, the columns at the entran­ce, the two altars, the caverns under­ne­ath the temp­le, the bra­zen ser­pent, the sacred tree, the veil, the ever-bur­ning lamp, the Holy of Holies, the ark, the mer­cy seat, the cheru­bim, the sacred­ness of the num­ber seven, the incom­mu­ni­cab­le name of the God, the seven-bran­ched cand­lesti­ck, the tab­le of shrew­bre­ad, the incen­se, the met­hods of sacri­fi­ce, the qua­li­fi­ca­tions requi­red of victims, the buying and sel­ling in the temp­le, the smea­ring of blood on the door-posts, the seers, the prop­hets, prop­he­tes­ses, the can­tor, the sin­gers, the musi­cal instru­ments, the sacred ves­sels, the trea­sury atta­ched to the temp­le, the Taber­na­c­le of the Con­gre­ga­tion, She­ol com­ple­te in eve­ry detail, the peni­ten­ti­al psalms, “psalms of ascent,” the very terms: Cohen, Sab­bath, Torah, Kip­pur, Qor­ban, etc., etc., were each and all “adop­ted” from Baby­lo­nia by the Jews.
The enti­re ritu­al of the Jews is, thus, not their own. Not a sing­le fea­tu­re has been evol­ved among the Jews. Theirs is a ritu­al made, even to the smal­lest details, of items “adop­ted” from the Baby­lo­ni­ans. In Baby­lo­nia, the unci­vi­lized Jews found reli­gious ideas and ritu­a­li­stic pra­cti­ces which had not only been evol­ved but which had also been car­ri­ed all over the wor­ld, ages befo­re the Jews beca­me acquain­ted with them.
This is the rea­son why pri­mi­ti­ve peop­les in such wide­ly sepa­ra­ted pla­ces as South, Cen­tral, and North Ame­ri­ca, and India, Austra­lia and Afri­ca, are found in pos­ses­sion of rites, cust­oms, words and objects, which the Masque has always pre­ten­ded are the unique and peculi­ar pro­per­ty of the Jews.
The ignor­ant Jews could not under­stand nor appre­ci­a­te, as other nations did, the won­der­ful sci­en­ce of the Baby­lo­ni­an astro­no­mers, and loo­k­ed upon all their ela­bo­ra­te stu­di­es for date keepi­ng as mere necro­man­cy. Even after a resi­den­ce of fifty years in Baby­lon, the Jews knew how to fix the date of new moon only by direct obser­va­tion, and were unab­le to give noti­ce of the date befo­re hand. 

All the dates in the book of Mac­ca­be­es are “Gre­ek” dates.
The money, mone­tary system, names of “coins,” the weights and mea­su­res, nam­ing of “weights,” etc., the calen­dar and (so far as the Jews could fol­low the­se, which was not very far) the met­hods of mea­suring time, the names of the days of the week, the idea of a week of seven days, the sab­bath, the sab­bati­cal year, the names of the mont­hs, feasts and fasts, and the time of the year at which the­se were held, obser­van­ces of the new moon, etc., etc., used by the Jews, are not their own, but were each and all “adop­ted” ful­ly evol­ved from the Baby­lo­ni­ans by the Jews.
The nume­ri­cal system, “Gema­tria” and the assig­ning of num­bers to names and the “dates,” etc., used by the Jews, were “adop­ted” from the Baby­lo­ni­ans and the Gre­eks. From Baby­lon the Jews “adop­ted” too, the idea that the capi­tal is the cen­tre of the wor­ld. The Jews, evi­dent­ly, did not know the age-old rea­son for this, but, as the idea see­med like­ly to add to their own importan­ce, they “adop­ted” it and applied it to Jerus­a­lem.
The cust­oms in vogue among the Jews are not their own. Nor are the­se cust­oms “unique,” except in this, that the peop­les among whom they aro­se have, almost wit­hout excep­tion, out­grown them. The Jews “adop­ted” what they did not under­stand and often beca­me mud­d­led. But they cling tena­cious­ly to what they have “bor­rowed” … most­ly becau­se they are con­ti­nuous­ly sub­jected to an inten­si­ve pro­pa­gan­da desig­ned by their exploi­ters to keep them “sepa­ra­te” from other peop­le. For some rea­son they have been per­mit­ted to discard the “cast mark” which they “adop­ted” under Per­si­an rule, but other cust­oms, which they have “adop­ted,” they are com­pel­led by strong pres­su­re to con­ti­nue, just as they are com­pel­led to subscri­be to many “funds.”
Circumci­sion is not peculi­ar to the Jews, nor did the Jews ori­gi­na­te it.

Circumci­sion, inde­ed, was many thous­ands of years old and had been car­ri­ed all over the wor­ld — to Austra­lia, Cen­tral and South Ame­ri­ca, and to many Paci­fic Islands -befo­re the Jews “adop­ted” it. The Egyp­ti­ans pra­cti­sed circumci­sion at least as ear­ly as the time of the IV Dynasty (about 3,766 to 3,566 B.C.).
Neit­her Gre­ek nor Roman cul­tu­re was suf­fi­ci­ent­ly potent to sup­press this bar­ba­rous pra­cti­ce, alt­hough under the influ­en­ce of the beauty-loving Gre­eks many Jews beca­me asha­med of so ridi­culous a muti­la­tion and some even underwent a second ope­ra­tion desig­ned to hide the dis­fi­gu­re­ment cau­sed by the first. About 100 years later, howe­ver, during a peri­od of fana­ti­cal fren­zy, the Jews modi­fied the met­hods used so as to ren­der the muti­la­tion more dif­fi­cult to hide.
Taboos, such as tho­se against eat­ing the flesh of the pig, the hare, the sinew of the thigh, blood, etc., and the cust­om of eat­ing fish, gar­lic, and pep­per on Fri­day eve­ning, etc., were not evol­ved by the Jews, but were “adop­ted” by them, “rea­dy­ma­de” from other peop­les. The idea that any­o­ne who tou­ched a dead body beca­me uncle­an, and might com­mu­ni­ca­te the uncle­an­ness to others, for examp­le, was “adop­ted” by the Jews from the Baby­lo­ni­ans.
The “Pass-over,” it is pre­ten­ded “cele­bra­tes the for­ma­tion of the Jewish peop­le,” whe­reas it may be shown to be an equi­noxi­al festi­val which the Jews “adop­ted,” com­ple­te with Pas­chal lamb and the sprinkling of blood on the door-posts, etc., from Baby­lo­nia. The bunch of Hyssop was “adop­ted” by the Jews from the Maz­de­an pri­ests and the word “Pas­cha” (or “Pass-over”) is Baby­lo­ni­an. But the festi­val and the cust­oms con­nected with it, had been car­ri­ed to the most distant parts of the earth, even to the Ame­ri­cas, befo­re ever the Jews so much as heard of them.

The “Feast of Lights, or Dedi­ca­tion, or Cha­nuka” is not peculi­ar to the Jews, nor did the Jews ori­gi­na­te it.
They “adop­ted” it late, from the Baby­lo­ni­ans, and seem to have mud­d­led it with other festi­vals. The “Feast of Lights,” like the “Feast of the Dead,” (inclu­ding “all Saints” and “all souls”), the ligh­ting of wax cand­les to Saturn, and the bur­ning of lights for Osi­ris, etc., were cust­oms “ age-old” befo­re 165 B.C., the date at which the Jews pre­tend the “Feast of Cha­nuka” was insti­tu­ted. Anci­ent cust­om, and what the rab­bis call “the garish lights of the Christ­mas Tree,” pro­ved so alluring and so many Jews “went after” the­se that their “gre­at scho­lars” had to con­do­ne the lap­se and gloss it over in com­pa­ra­ti­ve­ly recent times with fan­ci­ful history and, just as the book of Ester was com­po­sed to explain the “Feast of Purim”; so, many main­tain, the story of the “Dedi­ca­tion of the Temp­le” was inven­ted to explain the “Feast of Lights or Cha­nuka.”
The “Feast of Taber­na­c­les or Boo­t­hs” is not Jewish and did not ori­gi­na­te in the wil­der­ness as the Jews pre­tend. It was a very anci­ent festi­val which appe­a­led to the Jews on acco­unt of its licen­tious cha­ra­cter and so they “adop­ted” it from their masters and neig­h­bours. Plutarch said this feast of the Jews was “exa­ct­ly agre­eab­le” to the rites of Bac­chus, that it was Bac­cha­na­li­an. At the “Feast of Jehovah (that is of Iaou, Iao, or Bac­chus),” as the “Feast of Taber­na­c­les” was cal­led, the Levi­tes were in the habit of shou­ting “Hal­le­lujah” or “Alle­lu­ia” (“Pra­i­se ye la”), at frequent inter­vals, just as the trien­ni­al festi­val of Bac­chus or Dio­nysus the same repe­a­ted cry of “la” was made. More­over, it was said: “The time and man­ner of the gre­a­test and most holy solem­ni­ty of the Jews are exa­ct­ly the same as the holy orgies of Bac­chus.”
All boo­t­hs or Suc­co­th of anci­ent ritu­al were con­nected with the Kodes­ho­th, or “con­secra­ted women,” devo­ted to the gre­at god­dess of Syria; and “Suc­co­th Beno­th” may be trans­la­ted to “Boo­t­hs of the women con­secra­ted to Benus.” It is, howe­ver, undesirab­le here to discuss more ful­ly the ori­gi­nal forms of this feast or to deal with the inde­li­ca­te aspects of Jewish life, thought, cust­oms and reli­gion, which such discus­sion would invol­ve.

The “Feast of Weeks” (“Pen­ta­cost”), the Jews pre­tend, com­me­mora­tes “the recei­ving of the Law on Mount Sinai.” But it is not Jewish. It is a har­vest festi­val of the despi­sed Canaa­ni­tes which the Jews have “ adop­ted.” Apart from the fact that the Jewish scrip­tu­res con­tain three ver­sions of the “Ten Com­mand­ments,” and that the “Feast of Weeks” is men­tio­ned in the ver­sion of Exo­dus XXXIV, 14–26, which is regar­ded as older than the ver­sions of Exo­dus XX and Deu­te­ro­no­my V, the Jewish story fails to impress.
A much more admirab­le code had been in use in Egypt for ages and a hig­hly deve­l­oped orga­niza­tion of Law had alre­a­dy exi­sted in Baby­lo­nia for a thous­and years befo­re the alle­ged “recei­ving of the Law” is sup­po­sed to have occu­red. In the inscrip­tion of Mani­stu-su, dat­ing from about 2,500 B.C., “Calzu the jud­ge” is men­tio­ned, which implies the exi­sten­ce of a law to be admi­ni­ste­red. Tab­lets of the age of Sar­gon I, dat­ing from about 2,800 B.C., con­tain the names of jud­ges and scri­bes; whi­le inscrip­tions of the time of Gudea, dat­ing from about 2,300 B.C., men­tion Law courts with numerous offi­ci­als.
In his famous code, which dates from about 2,250 B.C. (or about 800 years befo­re the time of the Jewish “Moses”!), Kham­mu­ra­bi says: “Let the wron­ged who has a lawsu­it, read this my monu­ment, …” His “monu­ment” bears a bas-relief which shows Kham­mu­ra­bi recei­ving the reve­la­tion of the Laws from the supre­me Law-giver, Sha­mash, the sun-god; and con­sists, the King decla­res, of “Laws of righ­teo­us­ness, which Kham­mu­ra­bi, the migh­ty and just King, has establis­hed for the advan­ta­ge and bene­fit of the weak and oppres­sed, the widows and orp­hans.”
The Jews have lamen­ted Jerus­a­lem for a long time. And one of their most che­ris­hed cust­oms is that of going to a sacred pla­ce in Jerus­a­lem to weep, wail and rend their gar­ments.

They pre­tend, and some of them belie­ve, that they weep and wail for the loss of “Jerus­a­lem” and the “gre­at­ness” which they imag­i­ne the Jews for­mer­ly enjoy­ed.
Accor­ding to the Jews own sto­ri­es, alt­hough the Jews were for­bid­den by the Romans to set foot in Jerus­a­lem, nevert­he­less, afterwards they were per­mit­ted to go once a year on the 9th day of the month Ab, “the anni­ver­s­ary of the cap­tu­re of Jerus­a­lem” (?), to a sacred sto­ne cal­led “lapis pertus­sus” in the city and to ano­int this per­fora­ted sto­ne with oil and weep and wail aro­und it.
The Jews pre­tend to attach gre­at importan­ce to this cust­om.
And the uni­ver­sal (but obvious­ly arti­fi­ci­al and insin­ce­re) outcry rai­sed by the Jews of the wor­ld recent­ly … when the aut­ho­ri­ties in Jerus­a­lem com­pel­led the Jews the­re to abi­de by the terms of the agre­e­ment whe­re­by they are pri­vi­led­ged to wail on gro­und belon­ging to ano­t­her sect … is an illu­stra­tion of how the Jews regard an agre­e­ment with non-Jews and also of how the Masque wor­ks.
The rea­son given by the Jews for this wai­ling are uncon­vin­cing and other con­si­de­ra­tions make their accep­tan­ce dif­fi­cult. Thus, lamen­ta­tions for a lost city are not peculi­ar to the Jews, many small peop­les have bewai­led the loss of their towns … even on a cunei­form tab­let from Taa­nach, the aut­hor, Ahki-yami, asks whet­her the­re is still lamen­ta­tion for the lost cities or have they been recove­red … but sure­ly no peop­le ever bewai­led the loss of their city annu­al­ly wit­hin the city itself.
More­over, this annu­al mour­ning, weepi­ng, wai­ling, tea­ring of hair and ren­ding of gar­ments was com­mon to most of the peop­les of the East and took pla­ce in Palesti­ne most frequent­ly just after mid-sum­mer, that is, about the 9th day of the month Ab.

The women of Egypt wept for Osi­ris, the Gre­ek and Roman women wept for “the bewai­led” or “the lamen­ted” one, Bac­chus, just as the women of China wept for Wutyu­ne, and the women of Assy­ria and Pho­e­ni­cia wept for Tam­muz, as did the women of Baby­lo­nia, and the women for Jerus­a­lem (Ezeki­el, VIII, 14).
Sin­ce the fourth cen­tury A.D., the Jews have mana­ged to get into Jerus­a­lem to indul­ge in this cust­om. At first annu­al­ly, but later by bri­bing the sol­di­e­ry, they mana­ged to pro­long their lamen­ta­tions and their stay in Jerus­a­lem, until today they have an agre­e­ment with the Mos­lems and wail osten­sibly eve­ry Fri­day, but actu­al­ly eve­ry day. At the “wai­ling pla­ce” they weep, wail, kiss the sto­nes and pray, put­ting their mout­hs to the cran­nies and thrusting writ­ten peti­tions into the holes in the wall.
That the wai­ling now takes pla­ce on the West of the “Sak­hra” on Fri­days espe­ci­al­ly, and that pray­ers are whis­pe­red and thrust into aper­tu­res in the wall, may be acci­dents. But the ano­in­ting of the per­fora­ted sto­ne was not an acci­dent. This “lapis pertus­sus” was inve­sted with a san­cti­ty second only to that of the Kaa­ba at Mec­ca with which it is asso­ci­a­ted in myth, just as it is asso­ci­a­ted with “the well of spi­rits” and is iden­ti­fied with the sacred rock “Sak­hra.”
“Sakrha” was the mot­her of the sun-god. And Tam­muz, Attis, Dio­nysus, Bac­chus and Ado­nis (with whom were asso­ci­a­ted the boar and such thin­gs as “per­fora­ted sto­nes”) were all sungods who may be iden­ti­fied with Ninip, “the gre­at hog,” Lord of “the spi­rits of the underwor­ld.” Ninip appea­red to his wors­hip­pers in the form of a swi­ne; the malig­nant Saturn was his pla­net and Jerus­a­lem was his city. Ninip was also “Lord of the veil,” the veil being sym­bo­lic both of the underwor­ld and of mour­ning. Later he beca­me a war-god, a patron of hunting, and a sun-god.

Wai­ling enab­led the Jews to enter Jerus­a­lem. It enab­led them to pro­long their stay the­re, despi­te the pro­hi­bi­tion. Is it an arti­fi­ce of the Masque? Part of a poli­ti­cal game, the ulti­ma­te object of which is to gain for the Jews pos­ses­sion of the “lapis pertus­sus,” the “Dome of the Rock,” and the “temp­le hill”?
The “Day of Ato­ne­ment” is not Jewish. It is not noti­ced in the older Jewish wri­tings. The Jews “adop­ted” it from their Per­si­an overl­ords, as they did also the use of “the ashes of a red hei­fer” and the myth of a brid­ge (over the val­ley in Jerus­a­lem).
The sen­ding forth of a “sca­pe-goat” as a pro­pi­ti­a­tory offe­ring to Aza­zel, “the prin­ce of fal­len-angels,” is spe­ci­al­ly men­tio­ned in the Mis­h­nah and appears to have been obser­ved down to the time of the destruction of Jerus­a­lem. This annu­al pro­pi­ti­a­tion of a demon (Luci­fer or Satan?), belongs to the later Jewish ritu­al and seems to be con­nected with the Devil-wors­hip of the Yezi­dis, which is similar in cha­ra­cter, but later in deve­l­op­ment.
Inste­ad of a goat, in modern times, Jewish fat­hers of fami­lies sacri­fi­ced a whi­te cock on the eve of the “Day of Ato­ne­ment.”
Among the anci­ents, goats were sacri­fi­ced to Dio­nysus.
Accor­ding to their own sto­ri­es, the Jews mur­de­red about 70,000 Baby­lo­ni­ans in the reign of “Ahasu­erus”. And in memory of that mas­sa­cre they cele­bra­te their holi­day, “Purim,” with “gre­at mer­ri­ment and rejoi­cing, sprin­ging ratt­les and giving vent to noi­sy demon­stra­tions of anger, con­tempt and scorn, when the name of Haman is men­tio­ned in their Syna­gogu­es.”
“Purim” has always been a Satur­na­lia among the Jews. The aut­hor of a tra­ct in the Tal­m­ud lays it down as a rule that at the feast of Purim eve­ry Jew is bound to drink until he can­not distingu­ish betwe­en the words “Cur­sed be Haman” and “Bles­sed be Mor­decai”. And in recent times the Jews made pyra­mids of wax-tapers, bur­ned eff­gies, and acted a come­dy which ended in ribal­dry. 

Glut­to­ny and intoxi­ca­tion began in the after­noon, and went on until the who­le com­mu­ni­ty see­med to have taken lea­ve of their sen­ses; Jewish men and women chan­ged clo­t­hes, they ate and they drank, they ran about and cut capers, they ree­led and they stag­ge­red, they shri­e­ked, yel­led, stam­ped, clat­te­red, and bro­ke each others heads”; and the hor­se-play often ended in mur­der and cri­me.
Howe­ver, notwit­h­stan­ding the plea­su­re it has affor­ded the Jews, this festi­val is not Jewish. The Jews “adop­ted” it from the Baby­lo­ni­ans. On the Bla­ck Obe­lisk, Shal­ma­ne­ser says: “For the second time I cele­bra­ted the Pur-festi­val of Assur and Hadad.” And a deed of sale of 734 B.C. is dated in the epo­ny­my of Bel­da­man “in the year of his Pur-offi­ce.” Even the Word “Pur” is not Jewish. And, as with the “feast of Lights,” the Jews appear to have mud­d­led what they “adop­ted” of the Pur-festi­val with reli­cs of the “Feast of Boo­t­hs” and of the “Pass-over.” In anci­ent ritu­al, wax-tapers were pla­ced on the altars of Saturn.
A com­mon com­plaint of the Jews is that the other peop­les, among whom they have cho­sen to dwell, cru­el­ly “her­ded the Jews into Ghet­to­es.” This is mis­le­a­ding. The idea that the Jews should live in an area spe­ci­al­ly reser­ved for them, came from the Jews them­sel­ves. And their hyper-trop­hied sen­se of their own importan­ce and other unplea­sant qua­li­ties, made the Jews so unpo­pu­lar that their neig­h­bors agre­ed to their request and set asi­de an area in which the Jews might pra­cti­se the rites and cust­oms which they clai­med were theirs and indul­ge their cravings for “fee­ling supe­ri­or,” “secre­cy,” and “sepa­ra­te­ness.”
It has been said that the­re is not­hing ori­gi­nal about the Jews except their “fee­ling of sepa­ra­te­ness”. But the Jews had no “fee­ling of sepa­ra­te­ness” befo­re they came into con­ta­ct with the Ary­ans and with a sta­te of socie­ty based on “castes.” From the conque­ring Ary­ans, the Jews “adop­ted” a “sen­se of supe­ri­o­ri­ty” and a “fee­ling of sepa­ra­te­ness” and the­se, like the “mono­t­hei­sm” which the Jews “adop­ted” at about the same time, spe­e­di­ly beca­me an obses­sion.

An oft repe­a­ted boast of the Jews is that they “inven­ted mono­t­hei­sm.” This foo­lish pre­ten­se is, of cour­se, enti­re­ly mis­le­a­ding for the Jews were among the most ignor­ant and uncul­ti­va­ted of the peop­les who had mono­t­hei­sm thrust upon them befo­re they were rea­dy to recei­ve it.
The Jews were polyt­hei­sts who beca­me, first, mono­la­ters, and then later and in com­pa­ra­ti­ve­ly recent times under the influ­en­ce of the Baby­lo­ni­ans and the Per­si­ans, mono­t­hei­sts. It was not until they had been in Baby­lon for some time that ido­la­try cea­sed among the Jews. It was in Baby­lon, too, and at about the same time that the Jews “adop­ted” the hosti­le geni­us Satan, the demon Asmo­deus, the angels Gabri­el, Rap­ha­el, Micha­el, Uri­el, etc., the sto­ri­es of the rebel angels and of the batt­le in hea­ven, and, hal­f­hear­ted­ly, the idea of the immor­ta­li­ty of the soul and the resur­rection of the dead.
Befo­re about 410 B.C., when the Gre­at Masque com­men­ced, the Jews did not dif­fer from their neig­h­bors except that they were less cul­tu­red and less civi­lized. But having beco­me wors­hip­pers of one god (even though that god was a bor­rowed god), the Jews beca­me fana­ti­cs obses­sed with a ludi­crous­ly exag­ge­ra­ted idea of the importan­ce of them­sel­ves and this god.
The­re is, howe­ver, not­hing unique or ori­gi­nal about eit­her the Jews or their gods. Accor­ding to their own sto­ri­es, the Jews wors­hip­ped sto­nes, reve­red an oak-tree, bowed down to ima­ges, and adored a bull. The Jewish “patri­ar­chs” had idols or terap­him; Rachel sto­le the ima­ges of her fat­her; David had ima­ges in his own hou­se and was saved by pla­cing in his bed the figu­re of his hou­se-god (I Samu­el XIX, 12–17). Hosea seems to have regar­ded thin­gs like the­se idols, the terap­him, and the Urim and Thu­min, the star, the Ephod and the Sto­ne pil­lar, as indis­pensab­le parts of the reli­gion of the Jews.

Amos attri­bu­tes the wors­hip of Moloch and Saturn to the Jews: “ye bare the boo­t­hs of your Moloch and Chi­un your ima­ges, the star of your god, which ye made for your­sel­ves.”
Chi­un was the Arab Kiwan or Saturn, who­se emblems were the boo­th, and the star, to which may be added the pil­lar and the ser­pent.
Saturn or Cronus was the “anci­ent one,” the fat­her of all the gods, who was wors­hip­ped by various Semi­tic tri­bes as a sto­ne, and in Pho­e­ni­cia under the names of Israel and Saturn, with human sacri­fi­ces.
To call upon Saturn, it was neces­sary to don bla­ck gar­ments, to appro­ach the sacred pla­ce at a sui­tab­le time (Satur­day) like a man sunk in sor­row, to burn spe­ci­al­ly made incen­se, and at the moment when the smo­ke rose, to rai­se the eyes to the star and say: “… O Lord Saturn … the dark, the harm­ful, … crafty sire who knoweth all wiles, who are deceit­ful” … grant this or that.
In Assy­ria, Saturn was honored by crowds of “sacred women” atta­ched to the temp­le of Anu.
The Jews adored a “Que­en of Hea­ven,” Astar­te or Mylit­ta, and bur­ned incen­se to her. The Jews wors­hip­ped also Moloch and, in addi­tion, Baal and Che­mosh, and offe­red human sacri­fi­ces to them, after which in some instan­ces they ate the victims. Some aut­ho­ri­ties, inde­ed, belie­ve that the “Pass-over” was ori­gi­nal­ly a sacri­fi­ci­al can­ni­bal feast in which the “first-born” was the victim.
At Jerus­a­lem the­re was a regu­lar­ly appo­in­ted pla­ce whe­re parents bur­ned their chil­dren, both boys and girls, in honour of Baal and Moloch. Ahaz bur­nt incen­se in the fire, so did Manas­seh.

Mono­t­hei­sm deve­l­oped ear­ly among the Ary­an races and was taught by them to the demon-wors­hip­ping Semi­tes. Mono­t­hei­stic ten­den­cies, which in tho­se days rep­re­sen­ted an advan­ced sta­ge of free-thin­king, mani­fe­sted them­sel­ves among the educa­ted clas­ses in Egypt as ear­ly as the end of the sixte­enth cen­tury B.C., and, somewhat later, among the Baby­lo­ni­ans.
The Chal­de­an savants knew of but one god. And his name, which was fas­ti­dious­ly con­ce­a­led from the vul­gar, was in Eng­lish, “ one.”
Such, howe­ver has been the suc­cess of the Gre­at Jewish Masque that num­bers of peop­le have been per­su­a­ded to belie­ve that “mono­t­hei­sm” was spe­ci­al­ly reve­a­led to the Jews, and that it is a gre­at idea distin­cti­ve of Semi­tic geni­us. At no time befo­re about 430 B.C., was mono­t­hei­sm a distin­cti­ve fea­tu­re of Jewish wors­hip. From the pro­pi­ti­a­tion of the demons of the ghost-wor­ld and the lords of Hell such as Ura (the plague-god), and Ninip (Lord of Swi­ne who­se star was the pla­net Saturn and who­se city Jerus­a­lem was); and others such as Bac­chus, Dio­nysus, Tam­muz, Ado­nis, Set and Typ­hon (to whom the ass and the pig were sacred), as well as Saba­zi­os (or Sabos, Sbat, Saba­o­th or Tse­ba­o­th), “the Lord of Hosts”, (who­se pro­fliga­te and always discre­di­tab­le rites were per­for­med in secret and at night), and Israel Saturn, and the Satur­ni­ne “El,” (who were also fire-gods who­se holy day was Satur­day and to whom chil­dren were sacri­fi­ced), and the wors­hip of gods like Yerahme’el, Ram­man, Moloch, Cha­mosh, Asshur, Ash­to­reth, Ner­gal and Mar­duk, etc., — the Jews advan­ced slo­wly and unste­a­di­ly to the mono­la­try of one of the Elo­him cal­led Jehovah.
Like his pre­de­ces­sors, Jehovah was not Jewish. His name has been found in inscrip­tions dat­ing from about 2,800 B.C. and again in others dat­ing from about 2,100 B.C. He was asso­ci­a­ted with the moon, and took on the attri­bu­tes of such of his pre­de­ces­sors as Yerahme’el, Ura, Ram­man and Asshur, and gra­du­al­ly came into pro­mi­nen­ce, in Nort­hern Ara­bia as a disea­se­de­mon, fire-god, storm-god, and per­haps also as an earth-qua­ke god.

Though Jehovah was alre­a­dy very old when the Jews “adop­ted” him, he (if a god that was both male and fema­le may be cal­led him and he) is rep­re­sen­ted in the wri­tings of the Jews as a most unlovab­le dei­ty. Like the peop­le who “adop­ted” him, he was a vagrant, vain, jea­lous, trea­cherous, insa­ti­ab­le, vin­di­cti­ve, a but­cher who con­sig­ned all peop­les other than the Jews to ruin, who tram­p­led peop­le in anger, making them drunk with his fury, and who defi­led his rai­ment with blood. He dwelt in thi­ck dark­ness. Befo­re him went the pesti­len­ce. The sight of him was death. He was a consu­m­ing fire and fie­ry bolts went forth at his feet. He rode on a cherub and some­ti­mes in a cha­ri­ot, thund­e­red from hea­ven when he utte­red his voi­ce, shot out ligh­t­nings and hail sto­nes, and made the earth trem­b­le, shaking the foun­da­tions the­reof. Some­ti­mes he cau­sed the earth to open and swal­low up hou­ses and indi­vi­du­als.
His wors­hip, in times pre­ce­ding the com­ing of the sun cul­tus, was a reli­gion of fear, of sto­ne monu­ments and holy tre­es, of ser­pent wors­hip or lace­ra­tions, of circumci­sion and fema­le self-devo­tion, of child immo­la­tion and human sacri­fi­ce.
After the com­ing of the Ary­ans and the sun and dawn cults, a gene­ral improve­ment in reli­gious thought took pla­ce. The gods of the underwor­ld assu­med plea­san­ter fea­tu­res and beca­me gods of light and sun-gods. Among tho­se who com­ple­te­ly emer­ged from the dark­ness of Hell were Ura, Ninip, Bac­chus, Dio­nysus, etc., whi­le others lag­ged behind and retai­ned many fea­tu­res of demon wors­hip — such were Israel, Saturn, El, Saba­o­th, and Jehovah.
Still later, about 500 B.C., the Jews “adop­ted” for their “adop­ted” god Jehovah, the attri­bu­tes of the good Ahu­ra Maz­da of the Per­si­ans, and litt­le by litt­le lear­ned to endow Jehovah with hig­her moral qua­li­ties than they had been able to con­cei­ve for them­sel­ves. 

At the same time they “adop­ted” (for the Jews are by natu­re imi­ta­ti­ve rat­her than cre­a­ti­ve) the dua­li­stic system of Akka­di­ans and Zarat­hrus­ta and brought with them from Baby­lo­nia side by side with the refor­med ritu­al for their god, the pro­pi­ti­a­tion of the prin­ce of demons, Aza­zel, by the sca­pe-goat. Having thus refor­med the wors­hip of Jehovah, the Jews refor­med, in their own fas­hion, the ritu­al of the sca­pe-goat by pus­hing the unfortu­na­te ani­mal over a pre­ci­pi­ce to pre­vent its return to Jerus­a­lem!
Thus ulti­ma­te­ly the Jews attai­ned to a distor­ted mono­t­hei­sm.
An exu­be­rant demo­no­lo­gy admit­ted all kinds of inter­fe­ring cau­ses in the field of human life. And above the Jew on earth rose rank on rank of angels in seven hea­vens, powers of a wel­l­mar­ked ani­mi­stic type, cor­re­spon­ding somewhat to the Chin­e­se Shin. The god of the Jews has never been the fat­her of all men, an ide­al of love, justi­ce, mer­cy, com­pas­sion, etc. But on the con­trary, the god of the Jews has always been a god of ven­ge­an­ce down to the tenth gene­ra­tion, just and merci­ful only to the Jews and a foe to all other peop­les, denying the lat­ter human rights and com­man­ding their sub­jection to the Jews so that the Jews may appro­p­ri­a­te their pos­ses­sions and rule over them, exter­mi­nat­ing all tho­se who object to this arran­ge­ment.
Ine­vi­tably, in spi­te of them­sel­ves and of the Masque, the Jews beca­me influ­en­ced by the hig­her con­cep­tions of dei­ty held by the peop­les among whom they lived. And so, Jehovah beca­me God but, be it noted, God in the stri­ct­ly limi­ted sen­se descri­bed. And, in the mean­ti­me, many Jews came under the influ­en­ce of the “Dei­sts” of the eigh­te­enth cen­tury, of the ratio­na­lists, agnosti­cs, athei­sts, nihi­lists, posi­ti­vists and even the “Magi­ci­ans,” all of whom have appe­a­led strong­ly to lar­ge num­bers of Jews. And Jehovah has chan­ged accor­ding­ly. Many Jews are thus Posi­ti­vists and Nihi­lists with this important qua­li­fi­ca­tion: that when they spe­ak of “God” they do not mean “Huma­ni­ty” but only the Jewish part of it and whi­le they yearn to destroy, they wish to destroy only what is “Gen­ti­le.”

As of old, the Jews con­ti­nue to “adopt” from the non-Jews and to imi­ta­te eve­ry new thing, idea and insti­tu­tion as it appears in the “Gen­ti­le” wor­ld. Of late, a ten­den­cy to bor­row from Islam has been noti­ceab­le. And in qui­te recent times, the Jews have “adop­ted” a sym­bol in imi­ta­tion of the “cross” of the Chri­sti­ans and the “star and cres­cent” of the Mos­lems.
The sym­bol, which the Jews have “adop­ted,” con­sists of two inter­la­ced tri­ang­les. And alt­hough it is cal­led the “Seal of Solo­mon” and the “Shield of David,” it is not Jewish. As a sym­bol, it ante­da­tes the Jews by thous­ands of years. As “adop­ted” by the Jews, the sym­bol is com­po­sed of two inter­la­ced tri­ang­les, one whi­te and the other bla­ck. In older rep­re­sen­ta­tions a woman is depi­cted in the inver­ted bla­ck tri­ang­le and a man in the whi­te tri­ang­le. But, nowa­days, the figu­re of “an uni­ni­ti­a­ted per­son,” rep­re­sen­ted as a fool, is depi­cted in the inver­ted bla­ck tri­ang­le, whi­le in the apex of the whi­te tri­ang­le is depi­cted the figu­re of “ an adept,” rep­re­sen­ted as a wise man. And the who­le is often sur­ro­un­ded by a sna­ke with its tail in its mouth.
The sym­bol sig­ni­fies a gre­at many ideas, which need not be enu­me­ra­ted here. Nor is it neces­sary to exa­mi­ne the asso­ci­a­ted sym­bol of the “five poin­ted star” which sig­ni­fies, among other ideas, “under con­trol” — though the stu­dious may be temp­ted to tra­ce a con­nection betwe­en “the illu­mi­na­ted instru­ment,” the “red star” which, adorns the “red army” of Rus­sia, and the “star” of Saturn or Israel.
The Jews like to imag­i­ne that they are “ male” and all other peop­les “fema­le.” And they like to belie­ve that they have so insi­nu­a­ted them­sel­ves into and entang­led them­sel­ves with Gen­ti­le affairs that they can­not be dislo­d­ged. The secret mea­ning of the sym­bol is as fol­lows:

The “uni­ni­ti­a­ted” cre­a­tes god as a mag­ni­fied ima­ge of him­self pro­jected on a back­gro­und of ignor­an­ce, rep­re­sen­ted by the bla­ck tri­ang­le, below which he cowers in ter­ror of his mon­strous con­cep­tion. The” adept” also cre­a­tes god, not howe­ver by pro­jecting his like­ness upon the unk­nown, but by con­cei­ving his power and know­led­ge as a sym­bol, rep­re­sen­ted by the whi­te tri­ang­le over which he is pois­ed, becau­se the intel­lect is above that which it cre­a­tes. The ini­ti­a­te is there­fo­re “god” for the pro­fa­ne, the “adept” is the actu­al fini­te die­ty who stands on earth for the hypo­the­ti­cal “god” he has cre­a­ted; and he has com­ple­te power over any par­ti­cu­lar con­cep­tion of divi­ni­ty which he has for­med, and which may at any time recei­ve the reve­ren­ce of the popu­la­ce.
“Jehovah is he who overco­mes natu­re” say the magi­ci­ans. “The deci­sions of Tal­m­ud are words of the living God. Jehovah him­self asks the opi­ni­on of eart­hly rab­bis when the­re are dif­fi­cult affairs in hea­ven.” “Jehovah him­self in hea­ven stu­di­es the Tal­m­ud stan­ding, he has such respect for that book,” say the rab­bis.
Thus, at last, Jehovah has beco­me the god-cre­at­ing “adept” who has “the power of a com­ple­te­ly eman­ci­pa­ted mind over the sla­ves of super­sti­tion and ignor­an­ce”! And so, very often, when the Jews of today spe­ak of “God” they mean “the Jewish peop­le,” the “adepts” of their secret socie­ties, or “the god of Huma­ni­ty,” “the Jew of the Caba­la,” etc.
Thus, too, a “Neo-Mes­si­a­nist,” named Baruch Levy, wro­te to Karl Marx (a Jew, who­se real name was Mor­decai) as fol­lows: “The Jewish peop­le, taken col­lecti­ve­ly, will be its own Mes­si­ah. His reign over the Uni­ver­se will be obtai­ned by the uni­fi­ca­tion of the other human races, the sup­pres­sion of fron­ti­ers, and the establis­h­ment of a “Uni­ver­sal Repu­blic” … In this new orga­niza­tion of Huma­ni­ty the sons of Israel … will beco­me wit­hout oppo­si­tion the directing ele­ment eve­rywhe­re; above all they will suc­ce­ed in forcing on the wor­king-men mas­ses, the stab­le con­trol of certain among them. 

The Gover­n­ment of the nations for­m­ing the Uni­ver­sal Repu­blic will all pass, wit­hout effort, into Isra­e­li­te hands, by favour of the victory of the Pro­le­ta­ri­at. Indi­vi­du­al owners­hip will then be sup­pres­sed by the gover­nors of the Jewish race who will admi­ni­ster in all pla­ces the public wealth. Thus will be rea­lized the pro­mi­se of the Tal­m­ud that, when the Times of the Mes­si­ah are come, the Jews will hold under their keys the pro­per­ties of all the peop­les of the wor­ld.”
This is the end towards which the acti­vi­ties of all who par­ti­ci­pa­te in the Masque, whet­her Jews or their dupes, are directed. And, in modern times, the “six points” of the star for­med by the inter­la­ced tri­ang­les, have been made to sym­bo­lize, among many other ideas, the prin­ci­pal means whe­re­by this end is to be rea­ched.
The­se “six points” may be out­li­ned, roug­hly, as fol­lows:
First … Reli­gious: to under­mi­ne and discre­dit all Gen­ti­le, and espe­ci­al­ly all Chri­sti­an cre­eds; and to intro­du­ce, encou­ra­ge, and pro­pa­ga­te cra­zy cults, unhe­alt­hy mysti­cism, pseu­do-sci­en­ce, and sham phi­los­op­hies.
Second … Ethi­cal: to intro­du­ce and pro­pa­ga­te deba­sing codes and pra­cti­ces (inclu­ding “the illi­cit drug tra­de,” “the illi­cit liquor tra­de, “ and “the whi­te-sla­ve traf­fic”); to cor­rupt morals, wea­ken the mar­ri­a­ge-bond, destroy family-life, and abo­lish inhe­ri­tan­ce (and even her­i­tab­le names) among all other peop­les, espe­ci­al­ly among the Nort­hern races.
Third … Aesthe­tic: to intro­du­ce and foster the cult of the ugly and the aber­rant, and wha­te­ver is deca­dent, deba­sing, and dege­ne­ra­te in Art, Lite­ra­tu­re, Music, and the The­a­tre, etc.

Fourth … Socio­lo­gi­cal: to bre­ak up lar­ge esta­tes, and abo­lish ari­sto­cra­cy; to set up plu­to­cra­cy and a “money stan­dard”; to encou­ra­ge vul­gar dis­play, extra­va­gan­ce, and cor­rup­tion, to pro­vo­ke the pro­le­ta­ri­at to envy, discon­tent, incen­di­a­rism, “sabo­ta­ge,” and to foment “class-war­fa­re.”
Fifth … Indu­stri­al and Finan­ci­al: to bring about “unem­ploy­ment” and want, to lower ide­als of crafts­mans­hip and abo­lish pri­de in han­di­craft, to encou­ra­ge gre­ed for “pro­fit,” and the stan­dar­diza­tion of the che­ap and shod­dy; to bring about “Cen­tra­liza­tion,” and the for­ma­tion of Trusts and Car­tels; to abo­lish pri­va­te owners­hip and to establish “Sta­te monopo­lies,” “Reser­ve Banks,” and a “Wor­ld Bank,” … with the con­trol of gold in the hands of the Inter­na­tio­nal Directors.
Sixth … Poli­ti­cal: to secu­re con­trol of the Press, Bro­adca­sting, Cine­ma, Sta­ge, and all means of publi­ci­ty; to secu­re the pre­sen­ce of “agents” on all Gen­ti­le coun­cils, com­mit­te­es, etc., and in con­fi­den­ti­al posts (such as “pri­va­te secre­tary” to hig­hly-pla­ced per­sons), to main­tain an effecti­ve espio­na­ge upon all Gen­ti­le acti­vi­ties; to start and keep ali­ve dis­sen­sions in all Gen­ti­le insti­tu­tions, and thus bre­ak up all other poli­ti­cal groups in their com­po­nent parts, and set the­se at enmi­ty with each other; to discou­ra­ge, decry, and extir­pa­te Patri­o­tism and Pri­de of Race; and, in the name of “Pro­g­ress” and “Evo­lu­tion,” and under pre­ten­ce of pro­mo­ting “Uni­ver­sal Pea­ce” and “Human Bro­t­her­hood,” to set up “Inter­na­tio­na­lism” as an ide­al, thus under­mi­ning natio­nal uni­ty and wea­ke­ning gover­n­ment; to bring about “Dis­ar­ma­ment” and the establis­h­ment of an “Inter­na­tio­nal Poli­ce For­ce,” con­trol­led by a “ ‘League of Nations” … thus pre­pa­ring the way for tho­se who, unob­stru­si­ve­ly, will gain con­trol of the “League of Nations” and the “Inter­na­tio­nal Bank,” and through the­se, rule the wor­ld.
The Inter­na­tio­nal Directors, howe­ver, never act open­ly or direct­ly; they always keep in the back­gro­und and work secret­ly and indi­rect­ly; pres­su­re is brought to bear from all points, but when­ce it comes is care­ful­ly con­ce­a­led … “no Gen­ti­le must be allowed to discover its sour­ce.”

Thus it is evi­dent that howe­ver ridi­culous the mon­g­rel Juda­e­an ass may appear in the roy­al skin of the Baby­lo­ni­an lion, his ludi­crous pos­turings and ungain­ly capers must be viewed with suspi­cion.
His dub­ious ante­ce­dents inclu­de vile strains from the “Bols­he­vik” fol­lowers of the Ass of Typ­hon, from the outcasts who wors­hip­ped the Swi­ne of the Sata­nic Set, from the run-a-gate refu­gee rabb­le of Jerus­a­lem, and from the law­less and pre­da­tory ban­dit­ti of Palesti­ne.
Con­cei­ved in dis­ho­nour, he was born in ingl­o­rious cap­ti­vi­ty, schoo­led in the dark pra­cti­ces of sava­ge cults (such as tho­se of Saturn, of the gloo­my Israel, of the dis­re­putab­le Tsa­ba­o­th, and of Ast­ho­reth), and rea­red amid sce­nes of per­fi­dy, tur­bu­len­ce, and anar­chy.
Flat­te­red by lying tales of a “won­der­ful past”, and delu­ded by bor­rowed prop­he­cies and pla­ga­ri­sed pro­mi­ses of a “still more glo­rious futu­re”, he is consu­med with lust for “Wor­ld domi­na­tion”. And under the lion’s skin, wears hatred as a gar­ment and nur­ses a sini­ster pur­po­se.
The imper­so­na­tion has con­ti­nu­ed so long and has proven so advan­ta­geous, that its per­pe­tu­a­tion, at any cost, has beco­me the domi­nant idea which obses­ses his vain, sel­fish mind.
Devoid of scrup­les, and rea­lizing his ina­bi­li­ty to fight his way open­ly to lea­ders­hip, he is deter­mi­ned, with all the stub­bor­n­ness of which his obsti­na­te natu­re is capab­le, to reach his end by cun­ning, by dup­li­ci­ty, by any means howe­ver ignob­le … even if the­se entail the destruction of all who are nob­ler than he, and the degra­da­tion of the rest to a posi­tion lower than even his own … so that at last, he may “reign” unas­sai­led, in “Uni­ver­sal Pea­ce”, over such dregs of the once human race as may still remain to soil the desecra­ted ruins of a besmir­ched and pol­lu­ted wor­ld.

In eve­ry coun­try, subver­si­ve, dis­rup­ti­ve, and dis­in­te­grat­ing for­ces of eve­ry kind, are to be encou­ra­ged and orga­nized by pro­fes­sio­nal pro­pa­gan­dists and trai­ned orga­nizers; who, after the man­ner of all revo­lu­tio­na­ri­es, will “invent ficti­tious rights, thus cre­at­ing imag­i­nary wrongs; exploit real gri­e­van­ces, and cre­a­te want, thus pro­ducing discon­tent and an atmosp­he­re of revolt; and then bla­me the exi­sting soci­al and indu­stri­al systems and point to the Red Road of Revo­lu­tion as the only way of esca­pe”.
When the “ari­sto­cra­cy” and “bour­geoi­sie” of all Gen­ti­le peop­les have been “rem­o­ved”, and all non-Jewish insti­tu­tions have been discre­di­ted and tram­p­led under foot by a syste­ma­ti­cal­ly besti­a­lized and sci­en­ti­fi­cal­ly depra­ved “Pro­le­ta­ri­at”, the Inter­na­tio­nal Directors hope that their Jewish mum­mers, under cover of gre­at secre­cy, and pro­tected by armies of agents­pro­vo­ca­t­eur and a vast net­work of secret poli­ce, will be able to con­ti­nue their soul-destroying Masque in the cha­ra­cter of a “Wealth-con­trol­ling Wor­ld-domi­nat­ing Ruling Race.”

Ano­t­her ass in a sto­len skin.
Foto: Inter­net­tet


For down­lo­ads of other clas­si­cs from the Ary­an and Patri­o­tic Electro­nic Archi­ves, go to <http://​www​.bam​boo​-delight​.com>

for a Bam­boo Delight Com­pa­ny Cata­log, wri­te to:
P.O. Box 2792,
Sara­to­ga, CA 95070

or visit us at:

This Page is for bin­ding instruction only and is not a part of the finis­hed hard copy book­let.
This page, 56, is for the electro­nic ver­sion only and is not a part of the prin­ted ver­sion.
To publish a paper book­let, fol­low the­se steps:
To make a book­let for your per­so­nal use or for resa­le, first fold in half, 14 pages of 8.5 ”x11” paper. Sta­ck them into a book­let and with pen or pen­cil, light­ly num­ber each page from 1 to 56. This will be the blank, dum­my pages of the book­let.
Next, print out all pages of the book­let from the Ado­be Acro­bat file. Do not choo­se the “Fit on page” prin­ting option. Print as a portait, let­ter size paper, mono­chro­me, 300 dpi, with half­to­ning. Then, cut each page into the 5.5”x8.5” page size. Next, lay the dum­my pages out flat and paste each prin­ted page onto the cor­re­spon­ding­ly num­be­red blank page of the dum­my book­let. This is your master copy for prin­ting.
Now, the­se pages can be taken to any copy shop, pho­to­co­pied on both sides in any num­ber that you wish, and reas­sem­b­led into book­lets. Fold the sta­ck, then using eit­her a long-neck­ed stap­ler or a sad­dle stitch stap­ler, stap­le the pages toget­her at the fold and your book­let is rea­dy for distri­bu­tion or for sale to the gene­ral public.