The Oldest Hate Crime

Early in October of 2008, the Baltimore County town of Pikesville, Maryland, saw two shocking “hate crimes.”

Someone spray-painted signs in front of two synagogues–not the synagogues themselves, mind you, but only large signs sitting out front–with the word “Nazis” and a swastika. This happened just days before Yom Kippur.

“Obviously they planned it to have the most impact because this is when the most people are in the synagogue,” moaned cantor Robbie Salamon. As always, the melodrama was built by “Jewish leaders and police” claiming to believe “the vandals could be a bigger threat than initially suspected.” Police increased patrols of the areas. Solemn vows were made to treat the incident as a “hate crime.”

As almost always, though, the culprits turned out to be a far smaller threat than the “victims” want the rest of us to know. Arrested within a week were three teenaged Jews–Matthew Ian Saunders, Daniel Alexander Diaz, and a 17-year-old whose name was not released–captured fittingly on Yom Kippur itself. The three were charged with “destruction of property and damaging the property of a religious entity,” according to the Baltimore Sun. No “hate” charges–or even “self-hate” charges–were filed because, according to a police spokesman “we don’t know the motivation.” They didn’t, of course, know the motivation at the beginning, when they declared these to be “hate” crimes, but that didn’t stop them then.

“The only thing that I can assure the community is that at this point we do not believe that this was a hate-related crime,” said Cpl. Mike Hill of the Baltimore County Police.

Au contraire, Mr. Hill. It was most certainly a “hate crime”–a crime against all Gentiles, the people that the three Jews wanted everyone to believe had done the deed . . . against those they defamed by the phony “victimization” of their own chosen group . . . against the hated goyim, who have no more rights, as far as Jews are concerned, than the cattle that name translates to.

Jewish hatred toward and physical destruction of Gentiles is the oldest recorded “hate crime” known to mankind, lovingly recounted in the Old Testament, where the ancient Hebrews celebrated their multiple holocausts against the goyim by proudly chronicling them in their holy book:

Then they utterly destroyed all within the city [of Jericho], both men and women, young and old, oxen and sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 6, 21

When Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all of Israel returned to Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. And all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand, all the people of Ai.

Joshua 8, 24 and 25

And Joshua took Makkedah on that day and smote it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining; and he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.

Then Joshua passed on from Makkedah, and all Israel passed with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah; and the Lord gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.

And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and the Lord gave Lachish into the hand of Israel; and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.

Then Horam, king of Gezer, came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining.

And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish.

Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it.

Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king.

So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

Joshua 10, 28 through 40

Whew! Sounds like the mass murder of Gentiles is a lot of hard work, even with the all-powerful, bloodthirsty J-H-V-H on your side.

Faking anti-Jewish hate crimes may be a hate crime against non-Jews, but that does not make it any less upsetting to Jews before the true culprits are revealed. And once the culprits are revealed, surely Jews must resent having their property and peace of mind assaulted by fellow Jews. Even worse, many fake hate crimes are perpetrated by Jewish leaders to rally the Jewish community. The communal bonds between Jews are strengthened by making Jews think they are under attack by Gentiles–by heightening the feeling that it is “us against the world” (even though, in fact, it is “some of us against the rest of us”). Why do Jews put up with this?

Making victims of fellow Jews to advance the perceived interests of the community is nothing new. Consider a revelation by anti-Zionist Rabbi Elmer Berger in his book, Judaism or Jewish Nationalism: The Alternative to Zionism (New York: Bookman Associates, 1957).

Berger recounts a tale told by “the distinguished American liberal and fighter for civil liberties, Morris Ernst . . . a close friend and adviser of Franklin D. Roosevelt,” at the annual conference of the American Council for Judaism in 1950:

Roosevelt had an idea that what we ought to do with the people pushed around in Europe was to get up what he called a World Budget and let all the free nations of the world agree as to how many people they would take in as immigrants irrespective of race, creed, color, or political belief. The President told me that he was sure that he could get so many into Canada, so many into Australia, so many in each South American country . . . .

I went over to England on Roosevelt’s hunch that I should speak to the British, the officials, to see if they would agree to take in 100,000 or 200,000 of the people pushed around by the Nazis. It was Roosevelt’s hunch that if we could get England for a hundred or two hundred thousand and pick up a couple of hundred thousand elsewhere in the world, nation by nation, we could then educate the Congress of the United States to go back to our traditional position of asylum: a position that is not only good from the point of view of compassion but is essential for the enrichment of our own culture.[i]

I went to England and I sat with officials and came back one day to the White House, and I said, “We’re at home plate. That little island of Great Britain”–mind you, it was during the blitz that I was there–”that little island I am convinced, on a properly representative program of a World Immigration Budget (or what we now call Displaced Persons) will take in 150,000–or in any event will match the great United States up to 150,000.” The boss turned to me–I thought I had done a good job–and he said, “A hundred and fifty thousand to England; 150,000 to match them in the United States, pick up 200,000 or 300,000 elsewhere; we can start with half a million of the oppressed.”

I came back in about a week . . . . He turned to me, adding: “Nothing doing on the program.” I said, “What’s the matter?” He said, “We can’t put it over because the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won’t stand for it.” And I said, “It’s impossible. Why?”

He said, “Well, they’re right from their point of view. The Zionist movement knows that Palestine is, and will be for some time, a remittance society. They know that they can raise vast sums for Palestine by saying to donors, ‘there is no other place this poor Jew can go.’ But,” said Roosevelt, “if there’s a world political asylum for all people irrespective of race, creed or color, they can’t raise their money. Because the people who don’t want to give money will have an excuse and say, ‘what do you mean there’s no place they can go but Palestine? They are the preferred wards of the world.’”

I could scarcely believe it. I didn’t want to believe it. That a bit of chauvinism and nationalism among a few leaders of the Jewish organizations of America could defeat an overall haven for the oppressed of Europe. I said, “Let me test it out.” I went to friends of mine, without mentioning the British people I had spoken to, without mentioning Roosevelt–I laid down this grand dream, this great plan–of the world joining together to give relief to the people pushed around by Hitler.

I assure you that I was thrown out of parlors of friends of mine. And they said very frankly, and they were right from their point of view, “Morris,” they would say, “this is treason–you’re undermining the Zionist movement.” I’d say, “Yes, maybe I am. But I’m much more interested in a haven for half a million or a million people–oppressed throughout the world . . . .”

Berger then comments:

Zionists themselves were anything but coy or cagey about making it clear that their interest in humanitarianism was incidental to their conviction the so-called “Jewish” problem had to be solved within the framework of world recognition that “the Jewish people” was a nation. International recognition of the Zionist formula for a “Jewish” state in Palestine constituted such international recognition of “Jewish” nationalism. No program to solve the refugee problem or to admit Jews to Palestine which did not proceed from this fundamental Zionist premise was acceptable to Zionism.

The most immediately striking thing here–besides the fact that Ernst related this story at all–is that he quotes FDR as concerned about “people pushed around in Europe . . . regardless of race, creed, color or political belief,” and only later admits that it’s really all about Jews.

After all, if the Jews didn’t want to participate, why should that have stopped hundreds of thousands of Gentiles from fleeing the war zone under Roosevelt’s “humanitarian” scheme? Either because Roosevelt didn’t have the guts to stand up for these goyim in the face of powerful Jewish opposition, or he really intended to help only the Jews all along.

If the scheme had proceeded for the benefit of the Gentiles, international Jewry would doubtless have lied and claimed Jews had been deliberately excluded by the governments involved because of “racism,” and used that falsehood to raise even more money and sympathy for their brethren.

Instead, because Zionists cared more for their racist empire-building than the fate of millions of their own people–over whom they have since cried oceans of phony tears and reaped countless hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations and incalculable political advantages–they also damned millions of Gentiles to death in the war zone. But Israel was first founded by spilling the blood of Gentiles. So surely the Zionists thought that a small price for others to pay to establish Israel again.

---

[i] Note this early tribute to what has since become deified as “diversity”–just as big a lie in 1940 as it is today.