The Jewish Blood-Obsession

Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand?
—Shakespeare, Macbeth (Act II, sc. 2)

Blood is such a strange substance in human experience.  We all have blood, of course, but it is hidden away, as it were, out of sight and out of mind.  On the one hand, it is the very fluid of the living body, as necessary as air.  Blood is life, energy, vibrancy, youth; we speak of “red-blooded,” “hot-blooded,” “flesh and blood,” “young blood.” By contrast, though, it also represents injury and death; the mere sight of blood makes some people faint dead away.  The only time most of us actually see blood is when it is leaking out of a living (or perhaps recently dead) body, and thus—not good!  Visible blood is a sign of danger, of pain, and perhaps of death.  Unsurprising, then, that most people shun the very sight of it.

And yet, some people do not shun the sight of blood.  Some, it seems, relish it.  Some find glory in it, expiation, and even salvation.  Indeed, some see it as their very linkage to God himself.  In fact, the Jews are precisely such a people.  From ancient times, the Hebrew tribe viewed blood as central to both their daily lives and their broader worldview.  Blood was ever-present in ordinary (Jewish) human affairs, and it was a key element in Jewish religious ritual.  So pervasive and so important was the use of blood that Judaism constituted a virtual blood-cult.  Stephen Geller refers to the Hebrews’ “sanguinary sacrificial cult” that is well-documented in the Old Testament.[1]  Judaism was (and remains) a “mystery religion in which blood serves as a powerful physical substance,” according to David Biale.[2]  Blood is that by which Jews commune with God; in a way, blood is the material manifestation of God himself.

Perhaps most important, in the Jewish worldview, is the idea that blood is the means by which human sin is atoned and washed away.  Evil is banished and the human soul is cleansed and restored through sacrificial blood.  In a sense, the world itself, and even the very cosmos, is purified by the spilling of such blood.  Lest we doubt this, we need only turn to the relevant Biblical passages—both Old Testament and New.  As we read in (appropriately) the Book of Hebrews, “under [Jewish] Law, almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” (9:22).  This is a key point, and it has profound implications.

Nor should we believe that such ‘blood cults’ were commonplace at that time.  All ancient human cultures, of course, dealt with blood in some form or another, but for nearly all of them, blood was merely of peripheral interest.  Not so with the Jews; they seem to have had a unique fascination, even an obsession, with the concept and the use of blood.  Concisely summarizing the situation, Biale (p. 10) writes, “the ancient Israelites were the only Near Easterners to make blood a central element in their religious rituals.”  And: “the central role of blood in the priestly religion of ancient Israel remains highly persuasive.”  Blood was uniquely essential to the Jewish religion and the Jewish worldview.

In the present essay, I will document some of the main elements of the Jewish blood-cult and then, at the end, draw some plausible inferences from this situation.  Needless to say, the consequences are troubling.

Blood in Ancient Cultures

Let me start by outlining a few basic facts about the nature of blood in ancient societies.  Having little detailed knowledge of human physiology, ancient peoples were naturally in awe of the “power” of blood.  It was clearly necessary for life, and if, through some injury, sufficient blood escaped the body, death quickly followed.  This was as true for animals as it was for humans; all living creatures clearly shared in this life-giving, life-sustaining fluid.

In daily human life, blood is generally hidden away and out of sight, as mentioned.  But there are a number of occasions in which it becomes visible.  One such instance, of course, is during a woman’s monthly menstrual cycle—which, notably, is the sign that a woman is fertile and physically able to bear children.  Menstrual blood is a good thing; it signifies (potential) future life.  Ancient peoples were generally unclear about the purpose of menstruation, but they knew that intercourse during such bleeding was generally unproductive, and that if the purpose of sex was procreation, that menstrual blood was a sign to abstain.[3]

On the topic of sexual intercourse, blood can also appear during a woman’s initial act of copulation, upon the tearing of the hymen tissue.  In the case of a married couple, such blood is a sign of successful consummation, and a good omen for the future family.

Animal blood was also a common sight in ancient times, at least for the farmer or butcher who regularly killed animals for meat.  And surely most women, who did the majority of cooking, had to regularly work with bloody cuts of meat in the kitchen.  As we will see, animal blood also came to hold a central role in Jewish religious life.

Jews had, additionally, other occasions to deal with blood.  One was during circumcision, when the male infant’s foreskin is surgically removed.  On the face of it, circumcision is an unquestionably bizarre bit of male genital mutilation.  It is the cutting-off of an evolved and biologically appropriate skin covering, for nothing but symbolic or ritualistic (cultic) reasons.  According to Herodotus (circa 425 BC), the procedure originated in Egypt and then spread to other cultures: “Other people, unless they have been influenced by the Egyptians, leave their genitals in their natural state, but the Egyptians practice circumcision.”  Somewhat later, he adds that “the Phoenicians and Palestinian Syrians”—which almost certainly include the Jews—“are the first to admit that they learned the practice from Egypt.”[4]  Today, around 90% of male Jews and an even higher proportion of Muslim men are circumcised.  The rate for American men is about 70%, whereas in most nations of Western Europe, the figure is more like 5%.

Apart from several minor references, circumcision is mentioned in two significant contexts in the Old Testament: First, in Genesis (17:11), where it is “a sign of the covenant” between God and Abraham; and second, in Exodus (4:24), where Moses’s wife circumcises their son, takes the bloody foreskin, and touches Moses’ penis with it—euphemistically called his “feet” in most translations.  She thereupon calls him her “bridegroom of blood”!  Quite an achievement: sexual titillation and bloody perversity, all in one short incident.

In any case, the ancient Jews viewed circumcision as a physical mark of Jewishness, and the blood that was spilled during that process was part of the holy covenant with God.  Over time, an entire ritual evolved around circumcision.  The Jewish mohel (circumciser), after the surgery, would wipe his hands of the infant’s blood and then hang the bloody cloth on the door of the synagogue, as a sign of “success.”  The mohel then placed a few drops of wine in the infant’s mouth, signifying the blood that was drawn.  This is remarkable; the infant is compelled—forced—to “drink blood” in the form of drops of wine.

And worse still:  In the Orthodox tradition known as metzitzah, still active today, the mohel himself sucks the blood from the infant’s penis, with his own mouth!  And indeed, the Talmud mandates such a process.[5]  The rabbis supposedly believed that sucking the blood would prevent infection.  This is bogus, on at least two counts: in reality, it increases the chance for infection, most notably from oral herpes, which can be fatal to an infant; and second, it’s hard to believe that the good rabbi doesn’t get some perverse sexual pleasure out of sucking the infant’s penis.  Also, it is an open question whether the mohel actually swallows the blood that he sucks; apparently it is left to his own discretion.  All in all, a truly demented procedure.

The Blood Covenant

Apart from these human biological considerations, there are two other circumstances in which blood plays a part in Judaism: in sacrifices and as a prohibited food.  Both are related, but let me begin with the blood sacrifice.  It was common Judaic practice to sacrifice one or more animals to God as a sign of piety, whether on a makeshift table, a simple altar, or in the main temple itself in Jerusalem.  Such sacrifices appear virtually from the start of the Bible; in Genesis (4:3–4) we read that Cain brought offerings of fruit to God and Abel “brought the firstlings of his flock.”

Perhaps the first blood sacrifice of major importance occurs in the original “Passover” event.  In Exodus 12 we read that God tells Moses to have his Jewish people sacrifice a lamb, one per family; then they must “take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the house.”  Consequently, when God (or his divine agent) descends on Egypt to kill all the firstborn—even the firstborn of the animals! (12:12)—he will “pass over” the Jewish houses with blood on them: “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.”  Here, the blood of the innocent lamb saves the Jews from God’s wrath.

Later on, we have a second consequential sacrifice.  After Moses and the Jews escape from the Pharaoh and are living near Mt. Sinai—presumed to be somewhere on the present-day Sinai Peninsula—God tells Moses to build an altar and then sacrifice some oxen (plural, number unknown).  As we read (Ex 24:6), Moses collects up the ox blood and divides it into two: half is thrown against the altar (which represents God), and half is scattered on the Jews:  “Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you.’”  This “blood covenant” is a hugely important milestone; it bonds the Jews to God, creating a sort of “blood brotherhood.”  It attempts to make the anointed capable of contacting the divine, and it protects them from his awesome (and evidently indiscriminate) power.[6]  But here is the key point:  Only via being drenched in blood are the Jews saved.

A similar bizarre process is repeated a bit later when Moses’ older brother, Aaron, and his sons, are anointed with blood in their role as Jewish high priests.  In Exodus 29:15, Aaron and sons are instructed to kill one ram and scatter its blood on the altar, and then to slaughter a second ram.  Moses is then directed to “take part of its blood and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron [and his sons].”  Similarly dabbed are their right thumbs and right big toes.  Blood and oil are then sprinkled upon Aaron and sons’ clothing.  Once again, being marked by blood and doused in blood are the means by which the Jewish high priest is anointed.

The Levitical Bloodbath

This brings us to the next “Book of Moses,” Leviticus.  This, the shortest of the five books of the Torah, is a literal bloodbath.  Blood appears constantly throughout the text; in all, there are some 90 explicit references to blood in this single, short book.  Here, the Jewish blood-cult is in its full glory.  Already in the first chapter, Moses is told to sacrifice a bull, “and Aaron’s sons the priests shall present the blood, and throw the blood round about against the altar” (1:5)—in other words, blood splattered everywhere.  And they’re only getting warmed up.

Chapters 4 and 5 expend much effort discussing the chatat, or “sin offering.”  The term appears over a dozen times, each connected to blood sacrifice.  The lesson here, once again, is that, for the Jews, their sin can only be expiated via blood.  Chapter 16 is likewise filled with references to “sin offering” and the subsequent “sprinkling of blood.” Of special interest in Chapter 17 is the proscription on the eating of blood, repeated briefly in Chapter 19; I will address that issue momentarily.  Apart from this, I haven’t the space here to examine the details of the dozens of blood-citations in Leviticus; the reader is invited to peruse that book for himself, in order to get a flavor of the Jewish obsession.

The final two books of the Torah are Numbers and Deuteronomy.  Neither talks much about blood sacrifice—at least, of the animal variety.  Here, in these two books, we turn to human slaughter.  Numbers (31) is famous for the so-called Midianite Massacre:  At God’s command, Moses’ army kills the five Midian kings and all the adult men.  They then capture all the women and children, and march them back to the Israelite camp.  Moses decides it was bad policy to hold all these captives, so he orders his men to kill all the women, all the boys, and all the non-virgin girls—the virgins, they keep for themselves.  And no small number, either; at 31:32, we read that the intrepid Israelites have claimed 32,000 (!) virgins.  Hence the slaughtered must have exceeded 100,000 by a fair number.  Nothing like another good bloodletting.

But perhaps there is a valuable lesson here for the Jews after all:  Slay and kill the innocent goyim—who are little more than animals—and splatter their blood upon the sands.  God will be most pleased.  Then claim their young girls as your sexual prize.  I think we can see many echoes here in the modern day.

Deuteronomy is similarly filled with assorted massacres and slaughters.  The word ‘destroyed’ appears more than two dozen times, along with a variety of colorful synonyms.  Surely the Judean desert sands ran red with blood.  Of particular note is the slaughter of the Canaanites in Book 7: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.”  This, from an “all-good” God.

Wait a minute, some may say.  What about that “Thou shalt not kill” thing?  Yes indeed—what about that?  It is the famous item #6 in the Big Ten of commandments, which appears in Exodus 20.  Notoriously, there is no elaboration; just the bare four words, “Thou shall not kill.”

Many people, including very many smart people, have spent a long time puzzling over the apparent contradiction of a Bible in which “Thou shall not kill” is followed shortly by stories of mass slaughter of animals and humans.  But in fact, there is no contradiction here at all.  On this count, the Bible is perfectly consistent.  One need only realize that the Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.  It is the “Jewish Bible,” after all.  Everything in it pertains to interactions with other Jews, unless specifically stated otherwise.  The prohibition on killing applies (selectively) only to other Jews: to “your brother,” “your neighbor,” the Jew.  The commandment does not apply (obviously) to animals, and it does not apply to the non-Jews: the gentiles, the ‘goyim,’ the stranger, the “nations,” as the case may be.  In this sense, gentiles are no better than animals; and in fact, there are many Talmudic passages that implicitly and explicitly equate non-Jews with animals.  For such beings, no commandments apply.  They can be used, abused, bought, sold, exploited, beaten, or killed—all in the service of Jewish needs and Jewish interests.

Christian Blood-Salvation

A common retort to all this by Jews and their sympathizers is that, after all, Christians are “saved” and cleansed by blood too—the blood of Jesus.  We all do it!  So, it must be ok—or so they imply.  And in fact, it is true that Christians claim salvation via Christ’s blood.  But this situation only further implicates the Jews, not to mention condemning Christian foolishness.

The issue, of course, is that the early “Christian” movement was entirely conceived and conducted by ethnic Jews.[7]  Presuming he existed, Jesus himself was an ethnic Jew, as were his 12 disciples.  His most famous advocate, Paul of Tarsus, was an ethnic Jew, as were the later anonymous writers of the Gospels.  As Nietzsche rightly observed, in the New Testament, “we are among Jews.”[8]

There are some 10 passages in the New Testament where it is explicitly stated that Christians are saved by Jesus’s blood.  Three such citations can be found in the letters of Paul: In Romans, he writes of salvation “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (3:25).  And again: “Since, therefore, we are now justified by [Jesus’s] blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God” (5:9); this, incidentally, is an exact transposition of the Jews’ Passover myth into Christian terms.  Then in Colossians, Paul explains how we all can live in “peace by the blood of his [Jesus’s] cross” (1:20).

Elsewhere in the New Testament, the anonymous writer of Ephesians promises that “you who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ” (2:13).  And the equally anonymous Hebrews (9:6–18) offers an extended discussion on the matter, indicating a clear knowledge of Jewish practices:

These preparations having thus been made, the [Jewish] priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. …

But when Christ appeared as a high priest…he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ…purify your conscience.

Our author then summarizes the events of Leviticus, for the benefit of the non-Jewish reader:

Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood. For when every commandment of the Law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.

“Indeed,” he adds, “under the [Jewish] Law, almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”  As I mentioned above, this hits the nail on the head:  no blood, no salvation.  Christians have the nominal advantage of not having to spill more blood, because Jesus (allegedly) covered everyone for all time; but the Jews must repeat their ritual sacrifice on a regular basis.  No blood, no salvation.

So, we can see what is happening here:  A group of Jews, led by Paul, transposed the Jewish custom of ‘salvation through blood’ into a Christian context, using the very real blood of the (likely) real crucifixion of a mortal Jewish rabbi, Jesus, in place of the blood of animals.  Paul used the bizarre and sadistic Jewish practice of blood-salvation to draw in the naïve and superstitious Gentiles, and to cruelly promise them release from all sins and an eternal life that could never be confirmed.  In a sense, he imposed the Jewish blood-obsession on the rest of non-Jewish humanity—or at least, on those who could be duped into believing him.

Blood Libel?

This brings us to perhaps the most contentious blood-issue with the Jews: the notion of the Jewish ritual slaughter of people, also called “blood libel.”  That the Jews would ritually slaughter animals was commonplace knowledge, but the idea that they might also slaughter humans was a uniquely troubling assertion, one that dates back over two millennia.  The earliest such reference comes from 300 BC when the philosopher Theophrastus wrote that the Jews “now sacrifice live victims…both of other living beings [i.e. animals and non-Jews] and of themselves.”[9]  Later, in 168 BC, the Seleucid king Epiphanes sacked the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, only to find a captive Greek man being held for sacrifice.  Around the year 100 AD, Damocritus wrote that the Jews “caught a foreigner and sacrificed him” once every seven years.  And Cassius Dio’s Roman History (115 AD) explains that the Jews “would eat the flesh of their victims, make belts for themselves of their entrails, [and] anoint themselves with their blood”—which by now should sound familiar.  The Jews would also “wear [human] skins for clothing, and many they sawed in two, from the head downwards” —to be expected, I suppose, from a blood cult.

By the 300s AD, leading Christians were openly condemning the Jewish fixation on blood and sacrifice.  John Chrysostom, in 387, wrote, “Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed [i.e., Jews], who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed?”[10]  As the Middle Ages descended over Europe, Jews increasingly moved into Christian territory, developing a reputation for exploiting and abusing their hosts.  As also occurred in the Roman Empire, many Jews were also involved with White slave-trading, something that particularly incensed many Christians.

But it was the blood libel—that is, the murder of Christians, especially youth—that produced an uproar.  The first such case occurred in 1144 in Norwich, England, where a young boy, William, was allegedly murdered by some local Jews.  A Benedictine monk, Thomas of Monmouth, later argued that the Jews collectively chose to ritually slaughter one child per year, as a sort of offering to God, in exchange for his returning them to their Holy Land.  Notably, in William’s case, there was no accusation of any use of the boy’s blood.

That changed in 1235, when three dozen Jews were accused of the ritual murder of five boys in Fulda, Germany.  Locals claimed that the Jews extracted and consumed their blood.  In the end, 34 Jews were executed for the crime, and true “blood libel” was on its way to public notoriety.  This was followed by a similar incident regarding a young girl in Pforzheim, Germany in 1267, and with young Rudolph of Bern (Switzerland) in 1294, who was beheaded and drained of blood.  Such crimes recurred periodically over the years, roughly once per decade, on average, culminating in the particularly notorious case of Simon of Trent (now, Trento, Italy), in 1475.  In such cases, Christian blood was claimed to be required for mystic Jewish rituals, for Jewish medicines, and in the preparation of sacramental foods like matza.

Blood libel accusations continued, off and on, for the next four centuries, only to accelerate in the late 1800s.  Biale (126) explains that some 100 such accusations occurred just in the 30 years between 1880 and 1910.  Blood libel, it seems, had truly struck a chord with the common man.

The Jews, of course, always denied such crimes, at least initially; many later ‘confessed’ under torture.  Their central argument was this:  Jews are prohibited from eating blood.  And they could cite scripture to justify their defense.  In Genesis 9:4, we read that God gives Noah and his family every living thing as food, except “you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”  Then in the infamous Leviticus, God says to Moses, “you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings.  Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”  (‘Cut off’ is generally taken as a euphemism for ‘killed.’)  It is also found in Lev 19:26: “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it.”  But the most emphatic statement comes at Lev 17:10, where God speaks as follows:

If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. … For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.

The same proscription is briefly repeated later, in Deuteronomy (“Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh”; 12:23).

So far, so good—except for one small problem:  none of this applies to human blood.  The Genesis and Deuteronomic passages clearly pertain to animal flesh.  In Leviticus, the whole context is around sacrificial animals, typically birds, sheep, or cattle.  The blood, as we have seen, was used for ceremonial purposes, but it would have been natural for someone—the priests, perhaps, or their families—to eat the sacrificed animal; unless the corpse was to be burned, it would have simply gone to waste.  But the blood was off limits, to be used only for sacramental, if bizarre, purposes.

This elemental point seems to be lost on everyone who, even today, attempts to defend Jews against the “antisemitic canard” of blood libel.  But there have been a few perceptive (and brave) intellectuals who understood this issue correctly and spoke out about it.  One was the German scholar of religion and Hebrew, Erich Bischoff (1867–1937).  Bischoff’s 1929 book The Book of the Shulchan Aruch was the first, and still only, learned critique of the core Jewish text known as the Shulchan Aruch, which is a condensed version of the much-larger Talmud.[11]  In an examination of one part of the Shulchan—the “Orach Chayim”—we encounter the following nonchalant passage:

If one eats something that you dip into one of the following liquids as a condiment—namely, Jàjin [wine], debâsch [honey], schèmen [oil], chèleb [milk], tal [dew], dâm [blood] and màjjim [water]—then one must wet the hands…  (Orach Chayim 158,4)

In his commentary that follows (66), Bischoff is emphatic: “The consumption of blood is allowed in the Shulchan Aruch!”  He notes that the Shulchan author, Joseph Karo, “seems to think nothing of it”—almost like it was a run-of-the-mill event.  Bischoff continues: “The Old Testament…only forbids the consumption of the blood of cattle and birds—primarily those used for sacrifices. … The Old Testament allows for other consumption of blood” (ibid.).

As further support, Bischoff quotes the influential Jewish scholar Maimonides:

Whoever deliberately eats as much blood as an olive, has forfeited his salvation. … The guilt occurs only with the blood of animals and birds, whether domestic or wild, whether clean or unclean. On the other hand, there is no indebtedness in the blood of fish, locusts, reptiles, amphibians, and human blood.  (Jad Chasakah, VI,1)

There is no “indebtedness” in those last creatures precisely because they are not mentioned in the OT; whatever is not prohibited is allowed—an ancient Jewish precept.

Should we desire more recent confirmation, we can turn to a renegade Jewish scholar, Ariel Toaff.  His highly contentious book Passovers of Blood (2007, original edition) makes a very strong case that the use of human blood, both wet and dried, was a regular Jewish practice in the Middle Ages—and perhaps is still so today.[12]  His Chapter 6 is especially relevant here; Toaff examines the use of blood during circumcision and comments on numerous instances, even “recipes,” involving the use of human blood.  In one Jewish compendium, he says, “we will find a broad range of recipes providing for the oral ingestion of blood, both human and animal” (156).  Other formulations refer to such things as “a chicken feather soaked with menstrual blood,” “dried rabbit’s blood,” “dried blood from a virgin having her first menstrual period,” and the generic “blood of children” (ibid).  Toaff’s subject compendium “furthermore stressed the prodigious properties of human blood, naturally, always dried and prepared in the form of curdles or powder, as the main ingredient of aphrodisiacal elixirs.”  And finally, Toaff quotes one Jewish defendant in the Simon of Trent trial, Israel Wolfgang, who stated, for the record, “there is no [rabbinic] prohibition against usefully benefiting from the dead bodies of Gentiles” (159).  Of course not—they are mere animals, after all.

And in the New Testament

But as with the blood sacrifice, the Jewish apologist has one other defensive tactic here: ‘the Christians do it, too.’  That is, Christians also eat blood—the blood of Christ.  This procedure has a name: the Eucharist.[13]  It is a sacrament in Catholicism and most Protestant denominations, something of highest importance.  In it, parishioners metaphorically consume (eat) Christ’s body, in the form of bread or a wafer, and drink his blood, in the form of wine or juice.  Again, on its face, this is a bizarre and even pathological ceremony: to “eat the body” and “drink the blood,” even symbolically, of your long-dead savior.  How sick is this?

Where could such a revolting idea have come from?  Oh, wait, we know:  from the Jews.  We don’t know if the Jew Jesus actually created it, or if it was concocted in the warped mind of the Jew Paul, but regardless, it was clearly of Jewish origin.  And now we can see why—the longstanding Jewish tradition of using sacrificial blood (here, the “Lamb of God”) to anoint oneself, to bind with God, and to form a covenant.  It all fits in with the Jewish soteriology.  Jews were prohibited from drinking sacrificial (animal) blood, but now, with the Gentiles, they could consume (human) sacrificial blood, symbolically.  Leave it to the Jews to turn the gullible Gentiles into (symbolic) cannibals and (symbolic) blood-drinkers.

The Eucharist, as a part of the Last Supper, has a scriptural basis, appearing twice with Paul (both times in 1 Corinthians) and once in each of the four Gospels.  The first, and chronologically earliest,[14] occurrence is in Paul; at 1 Cor 10:16, where he writes, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” Then in the next chapter, we find the one and only direct quotation of Jesus anywhere in Paul:

[Jesus] said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”  (11:24–25)[15]

Thus Jesus explicitly calls it a “covenant of blood,” exactly as we would expect from a Jewish rabbi.

The Eucharist then appears in almost identical form in the three earliest Gospels:

Mark 14:26: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

Matt 26:28: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Luke 22:20: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

Short and to the point.  But the last-written Gospel, John, inexplicably has a much more extended quotation:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.  (Jn 6:53-56)

How is it that this Gospel, written around the year 95 AD, some 65 years (!) after the crucifixion, could cite in such detail the words of Christ, when neither Paul nor the other Gospels could do so?  It makes one highly suspicious, to say the least.  In any case, we no longer find any explicit “covenant” here; now, it is just an orgy of flesh-eating and blood-drinking, accompanied by vague promises of eternal life.

In sum:  In the Eucharist we see how the Gentile Christians got hoodwinked into adopting a Jewish tradition of blood-covenants and blood-recipes, even though the Gentiles had no cultural history of such a thing.  Granted that blood is not nearly as central in Christianity as it is in Judaism, but still, it is highly important.  Within Catholicism, the Eucharist has been officially called “the fount and apex of the whole Christian life.”[16]  Good Christians everywhere:  Drink that blood!

Some Consequences

Several important points follow from all this.  First, we should not think that the Jewish blood-cult was something that only existed in ancient times, or that the blood sacrifices ceased when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.  The keepers of Judaism are nothing if not fixated on the past.  For them, for the Orthodox Jews, the Haredi and the Dati, they are literal followers of the Old Testament, the Talmud, and the Shulchan Aruch.  If you think fundamentalist Christians are hard-nosed absolutists, you haven’t yet run into a Haredi Jew.  Orthodox Jews treat their sacred documents like they were written yesterday, and they fully expect such writings to hold for eternity.  Animal sacrifice, treating Gentiles like dogs, exploiting non-Jews, cheating and killing them, child sexual abuse, blood-aphrodisiacs, oral circumcision, blood-splattering…the whole package.  The Jewish blood-cult is here to stay—as long as there are Jews.

Second, it’s no use to argue that such orthodox Jews comprise just 10 percent or 20 percent of the total Jewish population, and that therefore all this bloody religious stuff does not apply to the secular majority.  Not so.  The sentiments described above apply, to a greater or lesser degree, to nearly all Jews.  Judaism, as documented in the various texts, is not like an ordinary religion.  It is more like a guide for living as a Jew in a largely non-Jewish world.  This is absolutely true for the Talmud and the Shulchan, which are explicitly manuals for daily life.  These in turn rely on the Old Testament, which is, itself, mostly about social interactions (Jew and Gentile), with a little ‘theological frosting’ on the top.  Yes, much of the Old Testament involves words that “God says,” but this is little more than literary shorthand for “words by which good Jews should live their lives.”  As has been argued elsewhere, Jehovah is really just a stand-in for the Jewish people themselves.  It’s like the little voice sitting on your shoulder, telling you what to do.  Judaism’s holy texts are just a distillation, fixed for all time, of Jews telling themselves how to act in order to thrive and prosper.

Because of this, it is “baked in” to all Jews, no matter how secular and enlightened they claim to be.  There is a real sense, I think, in which it is effectively genetic: Jewish values and mindset inculcated so deeply that they resonate with all Jews, at a biological level, and are passed along to future generations.  The fixation with blood is one major aspect of this Jewish biological heritage.

So what? some may say.  Why do we care what religious Jews do in their synagogues, or what secular Jews think in their hearts?  Actually, it makes a huge difference, precisely because of the influence that such Jews have in American, and Western, society.

This is not the place to elaborate—I would refer readers to the recent compilation of my own writings, The Steep Climb: Essays on the Jewish Question (2023)—but let me simply state the obvious:  Jews, Jewish interests, Jewish values, and Jewish thinking utterly dominate large sectors of Western society.  We need only mention high finance; Hollywood; media generally; the federal government; and academia.  Jews own or control up to 50 percent of the estimated $140 trillion in personal wealth in the US.  They provide 25 percent to 50 percent, or more, of campaign funding at the federal level; unsurprisingly, Jews are highly overrepresented in Biden’s cabinet and cabinet-level position, including the most powerful and influential positions (Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, Treasury; Chief of Staff.  (Biden also has Jewish in-laws and grandchildren, and Kamala Harris is married to a Jew.)  Not more than a handful of Democratic and Republican congressmen have the nerve to stand up to AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby generally.  Jews also have a stranglehold on Hollywood, American film production, the music business, and the news media; look at the reaction to Ye (Kanye West).  As for academia, forget about it; at last check, the eight Ivy League schools had seven Jewish presidents.  And nearly all major American universities, public or private, have Jewish regents, Jewish chancellors, Jewish contributors, and/or Jewish deans, not to mention massive over-representation in many disciplines, especially in the social sciences and humanities.

Consider this:  Why, for example, do we have so much blood and gore in our popular films?  Gratuitous violence is omnipresent in American films, in virtually all genres.  It is rarely necessary to tell a story; so, why is it there?  We know why:  Jewish writers, directors, and producers.  The Jewish fixation on blood materializes in their storytelling on the big screen.  For Jews, this is somehow fulfilling, satisfying, pleasurable—whereas for most normal people, the blood and gore is repulsive and grotesque.  And worse:  Jews are adjusted to all the blood deep down, and thus are unbothered by it; but ordinary non-Jews are sickened and appalled.  For many people, especially children, teens, and youth, all this blood is psychologically damaging.  Normal people are not psychically able to process such profuse depictions of bloody violence; they become desensitized, withdrawn, and depressed.  It damages interpersonal relations and harms their ability to openly communicate.  It makes them fearful, distrustful, and suspicious.[17]

Why do we in the United States find it so easy to initiate aggressive and violent military action around the world?  Why do our political and media establishments apparently take such glee in the slaughter of people in distant lands?  Why did the Jewish-American Secretary of State Madeline Albright state in 1996 that the American sanctions on Iraq, which killed some 500,000 Iraqi children, was “worth it”?  Why does the present American military budget exceed $1.25 trillion per year, taking into account all aspects of our supposed “defense”?  We know why.

Why are the Palestinians put in an impossible and intolerable situation by their Israeli overlords?  Why are they periodically slaughtered like sheep?  Why is the pointless and unwinnable war in Ukraine being promoted and sustained, spilling profuse amounts of Gentile blood?  We know why.

The Jewish bloodlust and blood-fascination has endless implications.  We must always remember the core Jewish truth here:  no blood, no salvation.  For most people, the spilling of blood is an evil; for Jews, it is a necessary precursor to salvation and “success.”  For most people, killing is wrong; for Jews, killing—as long as it’s not a Jew—is a good thing.  “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness,” said the Jewish writer of Hebrews.  As long as Jews are in charge, as long as they call the shots, blood will be spilled.  This is one constant in an otherwise turbulent world.

When contemplating the Jewish bloodlust and blood-obsession, I cannot help but recall Shakespeare’s warning in Macbeth:

Where we are,
There’s daggers in men’s smiles. The near in blood,
The nearer bloody.  (Act II, sc. 3)

“Where we are,” in the world today: the Jews are smiling; they are on top.  Sadly, “there’s daggers in [such] men’s smiles.”  They are all smiles, niceties, and good humor.  But don’t let them get too close—“the near in blood, the nearer bloody.”

I close with the words of Macbeth himself: “Get thee back; my soul is too much charged / With blood of thine already” (Act V, sc. 8).  How appropriate.  We might recast these words today as follows:  “Get thee back, Jews; our souls are too much charged with blood of thine already.”

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics and history, with a special focus on National Socialism.  His latest works include Classic Essays on the Jewish Question, The Steep Climb, and a new translation of For My Legionnaires.  He has also recently published the definitive critique Unmasking Anne Frank, and a new edition of political cartoons, Pan-Judah! Volume Two. All these books are available at  See also his personal website

[1] S. Geller (1992), “Blood cult,” Prooftexts 12(2): 101.

[2] Blood and Belief (2007), p. 9.

[3] Optimal chances for pregnancy occur in the middle of a woman’s cycle rather than at the end, when the blood appears.  It is not impossible for conception to occur during menstruation, but it is very unlikely.

[4] Histories, Bk II, 36 and 104.

[5] “We learned in the Mishnah that one sucks blood from the wound after the circumcision was performed on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said: ‘A craftsman who does not suck the blood after every circumcision is a danger to the child undergoing circumcision, and we remove him from his position as circumciser’.”  Seder #2 (Moed), Tractate Shabbat, 133b,14 (text from

[6] The phrase ‘blood covenant’ occurs one other time in the Bible, in Zechariah (“As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit”; 9:11)

[7] For an elaboration, see my various essays in The Steep Climb: Essays on the Jewish Question (2023).

[8] Antichrist, sec. 44.

[9] For this and following citations, see my book Eternal Strangers (2020).

[10] Homilies on the Jews, I.VI.7.

[11] Long out of print in German, the book has recently been released in a first-ever English translation: The Book of the Shulchan Aruch (2023; Clemens & Blair).  Cited quotations refer to this new edition.

[12] The original 2007 edition, in its original Italian language, was quickly pulled from circulation, to be replaced by a softer, “revised edition” the following year.  However, an English translation of the original 2007 edition was published in 2020 by Clemens & Blair; the following quotations refer to this edition.

[13] The word ‘Eucharist’ derives from the Greek eukharistos, meaning ‘good’ (eu-) + ‘favor’ (kharistos)—in other words, a ‘thanksgiving.’  It has nothing to do with the word ‘Christ,’ incidentally.

[14] We would do well to recall that Paul’s letters are traditionally dated to between 50 and 70 AD.  First Corinthians would likely have been composed around 53 AD, whereas the Gospels were written between 70 (Mark) and 95 AD (John).  Paul knew nothing of the Gospels because they did not exist in his lifetime.

[15] The fact that this is the only quotation of Jesus in all of Paul’s letters is astonishing.  It is almost as if Paul had no idea what Jesus actually said during his ministry.  But this is inconceivable if Paul’s life story is true.  He is happy to quote and reference the Old Testament ad nauseum, but quote Jesus?  No, not necessary…

[16] Lumen Gentium (1964), II.11.

[17] There is abundant research on this.  For a few examples, see: Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2005), “The Influence of Violent Media on Children and Adolescents: A public-Health Approach.” Lancet, vol. 365, pp. 702-710.  Anderson, C. et al (2003). “Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 5.  And Krahe, B., et al (2011). “Desensitization to media violence: Links with habitual media violence exposure, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 4.

67 replies
  1. Talbot Henry
    Talbot Henry says:

    Great piece. Very revealing and accurate.
    The jews spew blood libel on white people and revel in white’s blood being spilled.
    Houston, we have a BIG problem.

  2. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    Wow, thank you very much for this essay!! If there is one thing that has always bothered me about the Bible, actually angered me is it doesn’t give us enough information. Take the Canaanites for example, what happened in their nation that they had to be utterly destroyed? We are told only that ‘their sin is not yet full?’ Genesis 15 it took over 400 hundred years? Odd? God gave them a chance?

    What did they do commit atrocities worse than Sodom and Gomorrah?

    Further to this is the Melchizedek priesthood and how we know so little about this king of Salem? Only that he was important enough that the world looked up to him. It seems that God has in every generation a spokesmen on His behalf and to have ignored him was a no no?

    Blatant rebellion and treason isn’t that the story of the Old Testament?

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      I understand TOO is not a religious platform. Having said that, your curiosity regarding Melchizedek (king of Salem) prompted me to reply that, according to the Book of Jasher, Melchizedek was Shem. According to Bible chronology, Shem passed on during Jacob’s lifetime.

      Moderator: sorry to get into religious stuff, but I felt Gerry’s curiosity deserved an in-kind reply.

      • Gerry
        Gerry says:

        @ Tim Folke

        Thank you, but still to little information about the history of this person.

        I’d add also St. Paul’s words in Thessalonians where he mentions:

        in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last. 2:16

        Wouldn’t one just love to know what that wrath was?

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      Everybody points to 70 AD and the destruction of the Temple but isn’t what came later in 363 AD, May 30th, to be exact much more important and significant? That the Jews were rejoicing filling the entire city with joy because they managed to accumulate all of the necessary material to rebuild their destroyed Temple only to see it all destroyed at 3:00 AM in the morning from a huge earthquake that leveled the city isn’t that seriously more significant? Doesn’t that one event fulfill the words:

      “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of a living God?”

      and certainly these words?

      How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

      When I learned what they say and do against Christ fills me with dread and fear as it should us all.

      Wow, what began with climate change under Joseph and continued throughout Israel’s entire history and continues to – extended to earthquakes! Yikes, I’d say to that!! and yet more is to come unfortunately!

      Isn’t it odd by the way that the Tunguska Meteorite Event occurred the way it did. That a rock the size of Tunguska could make its way through the universe and then into our solar system bypassing every other planet and rock in the process and then into our atmosphere landing in a forest bypassing every body of water and river taking out a forest and a bunch of reindeer is? Well, what are the chances of that actually occurring killing no one in the process as well? Divine Communication? Add to that the remarkable date of St. Petersburg’s fall to the Bolsheviks? The date one will find is quite not a coincidence surely!

      Yeah, lol, Houston we have a BIG problem.

  3. Lancashire Lad
    Lancashire Lad says:

    There needs to be a Christian response here. Firstly, the Bible is a progressive revelation, so the Prophets work back on the Mosaic Law. Thus we read: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.” (Isaiah, 1.11). That deserves a mention surely. Secondly, the notion of blood sacrifice may be mostly Jewish, but the notion of sacrifice generally is pervasive in ancient Greek and other texts. Hence so is the concept of sin that it presupposes. So the feeling of sinfulness that Christianity addresses is universal and not an imposture on humanity.

  4. anonym
    anonym says:

    Some of the Jewish horror movies almost feels like an open window into their most demented secret fantasies. There the blood mania is often coupled with the old Jewish legends about the “evil” ancient Egypt and Babylon. Especially the story about an Egptian queen who is supposed to have taken baths in the blood of murdered Jewish infants – a story that was very important among Ashkenazi Jews in northern Europe. It echoes in Hershell Gordon Lewis gore movie “Blood Feast”, and Eli Roth’s “Hostel”. It wasn’t until I read Toaffs book that I began to notice the similarities.

  5. Dr M
    Dr M says:

    Excellent article and research.
    If you want to get deeper into the Melchizedek story try reading
    the Urantia book. It is the single most amazing book I’ve ever read
    and seems to come from an extraterrestrial viewpoint.
    Trust me – we are not alone in this universe.

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      @ Dr. M

      Thank you, for the reference. As for not being alone in the universe I can assure you I know it very well by way of experiences similar to what the prophet Daniel went through. Shocking and amazing and quite exciting at that to. The fountain of youth is the best part though. It really does exist and one certainly wouldn’t want to miss out on that!!!



    Around 722BC, the Assyrian king rounded up all the ISRAELITES, except those in the walled city of Jerusalem and deported them. Thus the only Israelites left were of the tribe of Judah, the temple priests of the tribe of Levi and some from the tribe of Benjamin whose tribal lands adjoined those of Judah. And these few Judahites were deported to Babylon in 586BC, or thereabouts by the Babylonian king. So what was left were mainly some Judahites or Jews which represented a mere splinter of the Israelite bloodline. In addition, Jacob, the father of the Israelites, passed over Judah to leave his birthright to his favorite son Joseph, son of Rachel, the only woman he loved. So those mongols, who usurped the Israelite identity and today make up 90%+ of world Jewry are not Israelites at all and then hijacked the wrong identity, they should have called themselves Joseph, the true chosen one. Judah was passed over. And yes, blood sacrifice is required to expiate sin and the blood of Jesus Christ is the blood sacrifice of the Christians.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” And yes, blood sacrifice is required to expiate sin “…

      Really ? Are you planning on sacrificing your blood anytime soon ?

      War veterans everywhere
      often get weary of expiating sin .

      Perhaps it is time for a new and improved religion .

  7. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    HEADS UP !!!


    I receive the latest headlines and bylines of both HAARETZ and FORWARD. Forward referenced a current article, of which I do not receive the entirety.


    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      The best way they know to deal with sites like this is to just take them down. If they read a website like this, they are influenced by what is taboo in society.

      If you watch, Jews try to befriend every group while pitting them against one another. So, they do try everything they can, but they’re at risk of losing their souls, in a sense, if reading here.

      In the UK, Jews befriend Arabs even though they call for Arab destruction in Syria etc. Jews find Arabs useful to destroy Brits. And Jews find Brits useful to destroy, via foreign policy, Arabs. No group is perhaps easier to fool, currently, than those of British descent.

  8. RockaBoatus
    RockaBoatus says:

    The prolific author, Thomas Dalton, writes many good articles and books on the JQ and the Austrian Corporal and I have found him profitable in this area. In my view, however, Dalton goes astray when it comes to his criticism of Christianity and the Bible. Most people reading through his polemics have little understanding of Jewish history, the Bible, differences between the Old and New covenants, nor basic principles for properly interpreting the ancient texts of Scripture.

    This is especially so when Dalton tries to show dependency of the biblical authors on pagan sources known as the theory of pagan derivation (I am referring to at least one prior article published here at TOO). These ideas have been refuted by a host of Christian authors such as late Princeton scholar, James G. Machen (‘The Virgin Birth of Christ’), Ronald Nash (‘Christianity and the Hellenistic World and The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought?’), and a host of others.

    Most people reading Dalton’s arguments that are critical of the Bible and Christianity would not even know this. It would all sound persuasive to them because they have no grounding in the subject to begin with. Thus, they’re in no position to know if Dalton is right or wrong.

    Also, the kinds of polemics that Thomas Dalton and Laurent Guyénot raise against the veracity of the Bible are very much outdated, higher critical arguments of the 19th century that have been somewhat modernized. They have been addressed and answered by Christian scholars in various way for the past century if not longer. I would refer to the works of such scholars as Oswald T. Allis, Gleason Archer, B.B. Warfield, Walter C. Kaiser, Edward J. Young, and especially K.A. Kitchen in his work, ‘On the Reliability of the Old Testament’ (2003).

    Even among those who are mesmerized by Bart Ehrman’s textual arguments against the transmission reliability of the New Testament documents have probably not bothered to read the careful and detailed rebuttals of such Christian scholars as Daniel Wallace, Darrell Bock, Craig Evans, James White, Craig Blomberg, and others. The late renowned scholar, F.F. Bruce, wrote an important book on this very subject that everyone should try to read: ‘The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?’

    I won’t be able to do justice in replying to every argument raised by Dalton in this article which would require an even lengthier article. I also recognize that TOO is not a religious or theological website. A couple of points, however, may assist the reader in realizing that Dalton is extremely biased in this article.

    In the case of Exodus 4:24-25, Dalton writes: “First, in Genesis (17:11), where it is “a sign of the covenant” between God and Abraham; and second, in Exodus (4:24), where Moses’s wife circumcises their son, takes the bloody foreskin, and touches Moses’ penis with it—euphemistically called his “feet” in most translations. She thereupon calls him her “bridegroom of blood”! Quite an achievement: sexual titillation and bloody perversity, all in one short incident.”

    This is an example of reading more into a text than is warranted from it. A plain reading of the context reveals not an ounce of “sexual titillation” as Dalton claims. Moreover, Zipporah marks the child (Gershom) with the foreskin and not the penis of Moses which would have been both weird and unnecessary. Yes, it’s true that “feet” is often a Hebrew euphemism for genitals depending on the context, but it makes more sense that “she symbolically used the removed foreskin to touch Gershom’s genitals and said the right words” (see Douglas Stuart, The New American Commentary – Exodus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (2006).

    In fact, the word “Moses” is not even in the Hebrew text of verse 25. Translators, then, must decide whether Zipporah is touching Moses or Gershom with the foreskin. Again, it makes more sense to see her as ritually touching the child’s genitals rather than Moses. She is, of course, disgusted by the entire ordeal, and throws the foreskin at the feet of Moses. There are other questions connected to this account, that I simply don’t have the time or space to comment on.

    Dalton rightly exposes the practice of Jewish rabbis who directly suck the blood out of the male infant’s penis after circumcision. Yet this is a rabbinic and Talmudic practice that has no basis in the Old Testament teaching. There is not one occasion in the Hebrew Bible where this kind of thing occurred. According to Elon Gilad in a 2015 Haaretz article, ‘What is Oral Circumcision and Where Does it Come From?’: “We first encounter the practice in the Mishnah, the first compendium of laws of rabbinic Judaism (c. 200 CE): “We perform all the requirements of circumcision on the Sabbath: We circumcise, uncover, suck, and place a compress with cumin on it” (Sabbath 19b).” Whatever one may think of circumcision, sucking the infant’s penis has no exegetical basis in the Hebrew Bible. Like many of the religious practices the rabbis invented in their Talmudic writings, it’s a far departure from the actual words of the Hebrew canon.

    This is just a small sampling of some matters in Dalton’s article that he gets wrong or misunderstands. Reading through his polemics is like reading someone who has a partial or deeply biased understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures – just enough knowledge to mislead those who are even less informed than himself. Yet, again, that would require a more detailed article than I could provide in this short comment thread.

    • Crush Limbraw
      Crush Limbraw says:

      Exactly Rocka! Dalton’s indiscriminate use of the word Jew shows careless scholarship – he might as well use the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ – which is literally an oxymoron to anyone familiar with the history of ancient Israel, the Old and New Testaments and the entire narrative from Genesis to Revelation.
      What I find curious is that the writings of many of the authors I often cite have very insightful observations – and then they stop investigating further as if there was nothing further to discover! Why? Do they consider themselves the arbiters of all truth?
      Yes, it does impress the new – and mostly ignorant – converts…..but all of us see through the glass…..DARKLY! None of us sees it all.

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      When I was a teenager and in Sea Cadets I remember reading up on the laws of the sea in the 1700’s how it was all an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If you killed someone on board ship you were tied to the corpse and sent overboard. If you lied about someone on ship to their hurt your ear got cut off etc, etc, etc. That was man’s attempt at keeping the peace especially on the high seas.

      Imagine if God instituted that? There would be no one left alive yes and the suffering to great for most people to accept or withstand.

      I remember hearing in a church the pastor mention the sacrificial old system and how for some sin against God and a neighbor you would have to bring a bird or some other creature and take its life and the way he said it was quite emotional. You yourself had to do this and pour out its life force to pay for that trespass. Better the bird than you!!! Could you do that? Kill an innocent animal to pay for your transgressions? How many of us could walk away from something like that and not be emotionally affected? Scarred? Imagine if your most favorite pet dog or cat had to die because you lied and cheated your neighbor?

      Isn’t the main reason for the sacrificial system of the Old Testament to affect the heart? We find in the progressive revelation that the circumcision of the heart is the real ultimate goal. One of the reasons God instituted animal blood sacrifices isn’t it because human life is vastly more precious and important than death and suffering. Man’s ways!

      What a brutal world that world must have been? And they all knew of the existence of a high moral being and yet blatantly chose to ignore Him. Imagine if your children did such a thing to you and your wife? You arrive home to a crying wife and after asking what is wrong you hear the words our children left us for those gang bangers down the street and are now into all kinds of lawlessness for pleasure seeking? Their even taking our neighbors children and turning them into creatures of the night! What are you going to do?

      The real sin of all of this is yes there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. And instead of that blood being your own as on the high seas God gave His Son for that purpose and what does God ask in return? To acknowledge that and believe in Him? Thats it!!!! Hard to imagine the Jews want to return to the slaughter house?

      Wow, what a hard essay this must have been to write and stay emotionally detached, to remain objective? What a shocking day this has been!

      And Rockaboatus for all of the names of the experts you have given us please help me to understand how is it that no one knows or understands that climate change is the work of this same God from the Old Testament? Most if not all have bought into the bulldung it is industrial pollution?

      Christianity really is a disaster just as Anton Sawyer rightly said A tidal wave of deception flooding into the church and my people don’t know the difference between truth and error anymore.

      Is judgment at the door?

    • Thomas Dalton
      Thomas Dalton says:

      I see that the Christian ‘Rockaboatus’ is a bit testy when criticism of the Jews points to criticism of the Christians, as it inevitably does. Only a Christian Zionist would take the time to defend perverse Jewish practices, whether from the OT, Mishnah, Talmud, or Shulchan Aruch. How is it, I would ask, that someone who worships the Jewish God and a long-dead Jewish rabbi qualifies as a social critic of the Jews?

      Exodus 4:25 is called out as “Moses’ genitals” in both the Common English Bible (CEB) and the Expanded Bible (EXB). And why would Zipporah call her infant son her “bridegroom of blood”? That would be even more perverse than referring to Moses.

      And, a roll-call of Christian writers defending Christianity is no more persuasive than a roll-call of Jews defending Judaism. The stubborn facts remain: all the ‘founders’ were Jews; there is no (zero) contemporaneous, or even near-contemporaneous, evidence for Jesus, his teachings, or his miracles; and decades (at least) passed between the crucifixion and the writing of the Gospels. These facts are highly damning. They have never been “refuted,” only confirmed by contemporary research and scholarship. The most obvious conclusion is that Paul and the Gospel writers were congenital liars, far more interested in saving “Israel” than in saving Gentile souls; it would take a substantial amount of direct evidence to come to any other determination.

      • Captainchaos
        Captainchaos says:

        If Hitler didn’t order the extermination of the Jews doesn’t that make him just another bourgeois pussy, as opposed to a Nietzschean Superman who towered above good and evil?

        You wish to dislodge Christianity and have it replaced by National Socialism, correct? The odds of that happening are basically nil, as I think you would concede. So what is all this, just hobby horsing?

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          Did Hitler not at least mistreat some Slavs?

          Hitler lost; perhaps he made some mistake somewhere, but declining a massacre isn’t weakness.

          Nietzsche is flawed. I’d rather sacrifice a goat and wear antlers than pretend Nietzsche had much to offer other than “spirited triumph over the strong.”

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          In South Carolina, we somewhat took to ancestor worship, some of us anyway, though also nominally Christian.

          You can “create a religion” in a sense if just valuing what one’s people create and are. My primary wariness of “pagans” is they tend to worship biotech when you look into them.

          Parsis don’t well know their religion. They mostly only know that they’re distinct from others. They have their pride and their pieces from the past.

      • Crush Limbraw
        Crush Limbraw says:

        What an amazing coincidence! Or maybe not!
        Just today – on another site no less – another commenter alerted me to your anti-Christian posture which had not yet come under my radar scope…..and BINGO – there you are!
        Coincidence? I think not – – so, from my perspective….you’re out of DaCloset – but only because I’m a slow learner.
        Which again proves to me – and it’s happened before more than once……when you can’t see… CAN’T SEE!
        That applies to both you and me….but my eyes were opened today……yours are still closed.
        Coincidence? I think not!
        Why? You think you’re God!
        Not DaFirst….or DaLast!

      • RockaBoatus
        RockaBoatus says:

        Thank you, Mr. Dalton, for taking the time to reply. Even if we don’t agree on Christianity, I have appreciated the hard work you have done in exposing Jewish cultural subversion, including your efforts to make A.H. more accessible to contemporary readers.

        It’s not so much that I am “testy” when the Old Testament or Christianity is attacked, but rather when distortions, poor scholarship, and an ax to grind are evident in such polemics, I sometimes feels the need to respond. Most of time I just bite my lip. I first encountered the very type of arguments you’ve raised in the mid 1980s and had to work through them myself.

        I am not a “Christian Zionist” and I have both written and spoken out against “Christian Zionism” since at least 1985. If you had read my articles here at TOO and TUR, you would have known that. Also, I would never “defend perverse Jewish practices” such as those arising from the Mishna, Talmud, or any other rabbinical writing. Actually, most Christians wouldn’t defend them either as they would be shocked to discover just how evil rabbinical Judaism is. Most Christians have little knowledge of the Talmud. They naively imagine that rabbinic Judaism is the same religion as the Israelites in the Old Testament. As to circumcision and blood sacrifices in the Old Covenant, the subject is too complex to adequately deal with it in this forum.

        You ask, “How is it that someone who worships the Jewish God and a long-dead Jewish rabbi qualifies as a social critic of the Jews?” There isn’t anything unique about me in doing so when one considers that there has been a plethora of Christians who have been critical of the Jews. You seem to forget that many German Christians (though not all) supported Hitler’s National Socialist party and were themselves distrustful of Jews and their parasitism. The great German protestant reformer, Martin Luther, was quite vicious in his condemnation of the Jews. Prominent National Socialists in America such George Lincoln Rockwell, among others, were critical of Jews while still adhering to their Christian faith. They saw no conflict between denouncing Jewish subversion and rabbinical Judaism while still clinging to their Christian beliefs which condemns both.

        Yes, the CEB and the EXB refer to it as “Moses’ genitals,” but, again, the word “Moses” is not in V.25. The translators must add it, and both the CEB and EXB are not literal Bible translations. As I pointed out in my original comments, it makes no sense to have Zipporah touch the penis of Moses which would have been both weird and completely unnecessary. After all, it was not Moses who was being circumcised! Also, I agree that Zipporah didn’t call her infant son a “bridegroom of blood,” but instead Moses. There is no dispute between us over this particular point of the story.

        The point of the “roll-call” of Christian writers that I mentioned was not for you per se, but for the reader who might be confused by your article. My purpose was to provide resources and names to look up if they wished to hear “the other side” about such claims. The Christian scholars that I mentioned cannot be so easily dismissed.

        I doubt you have bothered to work through this same material in a scholarly way being careful to read and interact with scholars who differ with you. I haven’t seen even a clue from any of your anti-Christian articles that you are conversant with them. It seems to me that if you wished to be fair and intellectually honest on these matters, you would have at least interacted with a few of them, such as the works of Ronald Nash, Edwin Yamauchi, Paul Eddy Rhodes, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, and Daniel Wallace – all of whom have decimated the theory of pagan derivation, the theory that Paul invented Christianity, that the resurrection of Jesus is untrue, that the New Testament documents are hopelessly contradictory and unreliable.

        You write: “The stubborn facts remain: all the ‘founders’ were Jews; there is no (zero) contemporaneous, or even near-contemporaneous, evidence for Jesus, his teachings, or his miracles; and decades (at least) passed between the crucifixion and the writing of the Gospels. These facts are highly damning. They have never been “refuted,” only confirmed by contemporary research and scholarship.” I won’t be able to do justice to so many topics in this thread, but in brief let me say that the evidence for the historical Jesus’ existence is relatively strong. Even the uber-skeptical Bart Ehrman has argued convincingly for the existence of Jesus. Can I prove this or the reality of miracles, or the bodily resurrection of Jesus to everyone’s satisfaction? Of course not. Some will not believe no matter how much evidence or rational arguments are presented to them. This can be applied to almost anything in life, including the JQ and race differences.

        As to the transmission reliability of the manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, I would urge you to read a little wider because the general consensus among contemporary biblical scholars who engage in textual criticism is that Bible has been largely and faithfully transmitted over the centuries. This doesn’t necessarily mean they all believe in the Bible’s message, but only that there is a general agreement that the Bible we hold in our hands has been faithfully preserved over the centuries. Yes, there are variant readings, and some passages are in great dispute over whether they were in the original documents. But none of this impacts any major Christian doctrine nor the overall meaning of the Bible’s message to mankind. The problem is not a dearth of available manuscripts, but of an abundant wealth of manuscripts that through the textual-critical method we can arrive with certainty at what the biblical authors originally wrote.

        To assert that they have “never been refuted” is quite a claim and tells me immediately that you have not seriously interacted with Christian scholars who have addressed at length the very polemics you’ve raised in your articles. But, of course, if you haven’t ventured too far out of your academic comfort zones, then I can understand why you would say such things.

        You write: “The most obvious conclusion is that Paul and the Gospel writers were congenital liars, far more interested in saving “Israel” than in saving Gentile souls; it would take a substantial amount of direct evidence to come to any other determination” – There is nothing “obvious” about such claims at all unless your perspective is so tainted and prejudicial that this is all you can see. A fair reading of the New Testament reveals that Paul and the Gospel writers were anything but “congenital liars.” These men, though not perfect, evidenced a pattern of life marked by kindness, integrity, honesty, holiness and truth. Men don’t suffer poverty, scorn, persecution and rejection from the world for what they know to be a lie. No, they suffered and endured such a life because they had seen first-hand the risen Christ.

        To say that Paul and the Gospel writers were “far more interested in saving Israel than saving Gentile souls” is bizarre to say the least. Jesus spoke in anticipation of gathering the Gentiles to Himself in John 10:16 and Matthew 28:19-20. Moreover, Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, including those whom he mentored such as Timothy and Titus, shows the determined effort they had to reaching the Gentile masses with the Gospel.

        Yes, it was proper in terms of redemptive history that Jesus and His apostles should first turn to their own people, but this in no way negates God’s plan to save the Gentiles also.

        Finally, to denounce so vehemently the Christian faith and, seemingly, the millions of White Christians in the U.S. and Europe, is not a particularly good strategy if you wish to win our people over to the great truths surrounding White identity. There is a tremendous mission field among White Christians that we should not ignore or casually dismiss. Many of them can be won to our side, such as myself and others at one time. They are not as closed as you imagine. They already, in large part, adhere to the traditional values we hold dear. Many of them utterly reject liberalism and Cultural Marxism. In fact, many of them may be easier to reach than the atheistic White person filled with ‘woke’ propaganda in his or her head.

        I hope you will consider this.

        • Captainchaos
          Captainchaos says:

          Thomas Dalton considers Christians to be something akin to spiritual catamites of the Jews; submissive, effeminate, masochistic little punks who enjoy grabbing their ankles for Schlomo. You realize that, don’t you?

        • what
          what says:

          With your christianity, you get millions of negros/latinos. Why would an intelligent, educated man want to sahre a worldview with these monkeys?

      • Tony W
        Tony W says:

        No contemporaneous, or even near-contemporaneous, evidence for Jesus? The non- Christian accounts of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, Tacitus and Josephus don’t come close enough? Was it that uncommon in the ancient world for oral accounts to be only later memorialized in writing?

      • B. Rockford
        B. Rockford says:

        With the improvement in scholarly apologetics regarding Christian origins in recent years, the burden of proof rests with anyone who not only holds that Jesus never actually existed, but that the entire New Testament is nothing other than an extraordinary enterprise by “the Jews” to enslave mankind.

        • Captainchaos
          Captainchaos says:

          You remind me of Dostoyevsky’s character Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov. You resist believing in Christianity intellectually though you lament doing so in your own heart. Shit or get of the pot, dude.

          • B. Rockford
            B. Rockford says:

            @ Captainchaos
            Vulgar abuse means nothing to me, even from someone who hides behind a satanic pen-name.

        • RockaBoatus
          RockaBoatus says:

          As you know, it’s a popular belief among some White racialists who maintain that Christianity itself is a Jewish invention in order to deceive the Goyim. Jews devised a scheme through the apostle Paul to dupe the Gentiles and, thus, keep them always enslaved to Jewish power. I wrote the following several months ago in a comment at The Unz Review. Its purpose was to show the absurdity of the entire theory which very few, if any, bother to seriously think through:

          “Jews said to themselves: “We’ll get those dirty gentiles to worship us by inventing a Christ figure who says all sorts of anti-Semitic things against us. And then we’ll get these same gentile Christians to write a book which will condemn us, and even replace us as God’s chosen! And that’s how we will get them to worship us and praise us for all things!”

          Paul got together with the Pharisees, then, and concocted Christianity in order to deceive the goyim. Good grief, what an ingenuous plan! The hatred that Talmudic Jews have had against Christianity and Christians for the past two thousand years, well that’s just an act. The hostility between rabbinical Jews and Christianity is just for show, a wink in the midst of faked anger – all so they can get gentiles to esteem and worship them. Wow, what insight!

          And the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels who explicitly condemned the Pharisees and their oral traditions, well that’s just part of the ‘plan’ too. And Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 2:15 that declares that the Jews who killed Jesus and prophets and drove the apostles out that – “They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men” – well, that’s not really what he believed. No, he was just fooling the Thessalonian believers as part of the grand “plan.” When John the apostle recorded the words of Jesus in Revelation 3:9 wherein He condemns the “Synagogue of Satan” – well, He didn’t mean that either. He was just sticking to the “plan,” that’s all.

          And all those Jews who work night and day to undermine and dilute the message of Christianity – well, they don’t really mean it either. They know it’s part of the “plan” too.

          These rabid anti-Christian peddlers of strange theories discovered that Christianity and Talmudic Judaism are the same! That Jews were behind it all along! That the rabbis throughout the centuries were just pretending to hate Christianity. And when Israeli Jews prevent Christian evangelism in their country, that’s just a reflection of the “plan” that Paul and those first century rabbis concocted from the very beginning.”

          All one needs to do is take this bizarre and far-fetched theory to its logical conclusion.

        • Nikolay
          Nikolay says:

          @B. Rockford
          “the burden of proof”
          You reminded me Heinrich Heine (incidentally a Jew, and what is most terrible, close acquaintance of arch-scoundrel Karl Marx, and what is even more terrible – I love him). In answer to the question of his French tutor what does it mean in German ‘la foi’ he would say without twinkling of an eye -‘der credit’, that is I beleive you in advance, but later you will have to submit me proofs.
          History doesn’t know any proofs. Hence to shift burden on”anyone” is senseless.
          ” to enslave mankind.”
          Cannot say for mankind, but couple of years ago on Russian TV journalist asked politologist Stanislav Belkovsky (a Jew):
          -Will time come when Russians rule Russia?
          -This time will never come.
          -Because Russia is Orthodox country and it is our invention.
          Quotes from Immanuel Kant: “Judaism neither religion nor ethnical community, it is political organisation.”
          “The main goal of Christianity – to prolonge life to Judaism.”
          And one more quote taken from <> by Moses Hess: “Judaism is not religion, sooner it is calamity (Heinrich Heine).”

          • Weaver
            Weaver says:

            Why wouldn’t Christians force conversion or expel nonChristians? They used to enslave pagans in the New World. I don’t understand the difference.

            The kinists used to argue that Christianity tolerates nationalism but is not inherently nationalist.

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          Dr. Fleming used to argue that one starts with tradition, and it’s up to others to prove aspects of that tradition wrong, to bring about change.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      The original jewish circumcision consisted of removal of only the floppy tip of the foreskin, not the total butchery that was developed years later and which still continues to this day. Even the simple removal of the overhang satisfied the necessity of #1 – pain and #2 – bleeding.

      Only because some adult jews tried to appear uncut by stretching the rest of the foreskin over the glans did the rabbis decide to do a total foreskin removal.

  9. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia
    John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia says:

    “Later, in 168 BC, the Seleucid king Epiphanes sacked the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, only to find a captive Greek man being held for sacrifice.”

    Will be pleased to know the source of this.

  10. ChasMark
    ChasMark says:

    When Romulus became the first king of the Roman people, the legend is that he:
    1. obtained the assent of the people
    2. performed a “sacrifice.”
    Pagan Rome had many sacrificial processes; Numa instituted many.
    But to the best of my knowledge Roman paganism did not involve humans drinking blood (although in. communal rituals where an animal/s were sacrificed were community feasts: the common people did not ordinarily eat animal food, so the edible parts of a sacrificed animal were prepared and served to the gathering.
    3. In any event (I think I might be a closet Pagan), cultic rites of sacrificing animals were not for the purpose of “salvation” in the same sense as the Jewish blood sacrifice.

    In short, it would be great to read an intelligent discussion/comparison of Roman Pagan animal sacrifice and Jewish blood sacrifice.

  11. Michael Robeson
    Michael Robeson says:

    It’s not possible for Paul, in his letters, to have quoted Jesus or to have had any idea of what “Jesus actually said during his ministry”. Paul was yet Saul even after Jesus’ death. Peter, on the other hand, could have told Paul what he remembered of Jesus’ teaching during their meetings and travels. But Paul still couldn’t have ‘quoted’ Jesus. And unless Peter were beside him while he wrote his letters, Paul could only have written what he recalled Peter having told him of what he had recalled. This lack of textual authenticity exists even more rampantly in the the Pentateuch.

  12. S. Cooke
    S. Cooke says:

    Deuteronomy 12.16
    John 6.54-55
    Blood is essential to life and in some respect sacred.
    Symbolic of biological continuity: Blut und Boden.
    How “Jewish” was Jesus?
    Qv. Adolf Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg, Paul de Lagarde, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Edmond Picard, Emil-Louis Burnouf, Walter Bauer, Walter Grundmann, Emanuel Hirsch, Gerhard Kittel, Hugo Odeberg, Wilhelm Stapel, Karl Adam, Philipp Haeuser, Paul Haupt, Julius Leutheuser, Madison Grant, Johann Fichte, Richard Wagner, Arthur Bonus, Friedrich Andersen, Ernst Bosc, A. Mueller.
    Then there is the strong possibility that actual father of Jesus was the Roman soldier called Julius Tiberius Pantera, and that the would-be Saviour studied religions other than the Mosaic heritage.

    • Marge Trout
      Marge Trout says:

      The lie that Jesus’ father was a roman soldier named pantera is right out of the talmud.
      Thanks for the jewing, but no thanks.

      Christianity was the only cohesive group strategy that whites ever had, and the NT is strongly anti-jewish.
      The idea that Christianity is some kind of jewish plot is absurd.

      Yes, the Christian religion makes people softer and more kind and is probably the main reason for the great success of the western world where honesty and integrity was once paramount. The jews bring subversion and evil and chaos and misery.

      • B. Rockford
        B. Rockford says:

        The earliest known version of the human paternity accusation is John 8.41. It was repeated by the Greek philosopher Celsus in the 2nd century and Hitler in the 20th. It was revived by the historian and Arabist Desmond Stewart in “The Foreigner” (1981). Its origin is discussed by Jane Schaberg in “The Illegitimacy of Jesus” (2006). As Joseph is ruled out as the natural father of Jesus, and a virgin birth of a man is impossible because of the SRY gene, the story is not ipso facto absurd.
        The Talmud, and even more the Toledot Yeshu, rewrite it as part of their vilification of Jesus who is punished in hell; see Peter Schaefer, “Jesus in the Talmud” (2009); Bernhard Pick, “Jesus in the Talmud” (2020 ed).
        The idea that traditional Christianity is a Jewish plot, however, is indeed erroneous, notwithstanding the sharp observations of Nietzsche on both religions.

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      As I observed elsewhere, the problem with Jesus as an all-Aryan Anti-semite, is that in New Testament documents he is called a Jew (John 4.9, Hebrews 7.14, Revelation 5.5). Relevant to this thread, he was also circumcised (Luke 2.21).
      The castration of defeated enemies has been an occasional atrocity even in modern warfare, as a deterrent to opponents and a genocidal act, from Grischino in 1943 to South Sudan in 2015. It may well euphemise the victorious presentation of 200 Philistine foreskins in I Samuel 18.27.
      As for imbibing blood, it was a metaphor among ancient Hebrews for a divine punishment on enemies (Isaiah 49.26; Revelation 16.6). It was considered an abominable sin (Ezekiel 33.25-29).

      • S. Cooke
        S. Cooke says:

        @ Mr Rockford
        The circumcision appears in a passage of Luke stylistically different from the rest of the gospel that contains historical dubieties such as the misdated nativity census. However, a Gentile-fathered baby at that time and location could nevertheless still be initiated into the Abrahamic covenant, thereby enabling access when adult to its community centres. In fact, this was essential to any mission of Jesus as a “saviour”, first for Israel and thence the world. The word translated as “carpenter/artisan” in Aramaic also means “scholar”.
        I do not wish to enter futile controversies about Israelites, Judahites, Levites and Edomites. Instead, I shall summarise parts of a hypothesis tentatively outlined elsewhere, leaving out reference to the “Magian” background of the prophetic book of Daniel.
        We know from Virgil, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Sibylline Oracles of a widespread expectation around the eastern Mediterranean at the relevant time-period, a ruler would arise in Judaea and rescue a weary world. This ties in with the Persian expectation of a Saosyhant (born of a virgin). The first signal was Halley’s Comet in 12 BCE, which marked the doom of existing empires. I suggest that Abdes Pantera, a Persian-trained archer from Sidon, where Jesus traveled just north of Galilee, was nominated to realise that expectation, via a suitably chosen maiden, to coincide with the predicted subsequent triple conjunction in 7 BCE of Jupiter (King) and Saturn (Jews).
        The Pantera connection has been noted by several writers, from Marcello Craveri to Lynn Pickett, and developed by James Tabor (also online) without my messianic hypothesis. The high-level officer was buried in a Roman site in Germany dedicated to Mithras, a deity of Persian-Hindu (Aryan) antecedence. Unfortunately the head is missing from his statue.
        According to the recently deceased expert Prof. Shlomo Sela, Greek and Roman astrologers said the Jews had been contaminated into wicked ways by their Sabbath planet’s malignancy.

  13. Arch Stanton
    Arch Stanton says:

    Jesus’ invocation at the last supper where he says, “eat this bread, for this is my body, drink this wine for this is my blood”, is actually cynical mimicry of the blood sacrifice he is about to undergo.

    The priest ate the meat of the sacrificial lamb and drank its proscribed blood. In usual Jewish fashion, elite Jews exempted themselves from those laws with which they burdened the common man. After all, Temple priests were “Son’s of God”, giving them power to interpret god’s word in whatever manner they saw fit.

    So Jesus’ act during the last supper demonstrates both the Temple priests’ and sacrificial lamb’s role in the ritual slaughter of the Paschal Lamb. Interestingly, Jesus plays the dual role of both priest and sacrifice that would permanently absolve the sins of the Jews, lost to a corrupt and bloody religion. Jesus, an anointed member of the Temple priesthood, was tried and crucified during the Passover’s festive bloodlust.

    His bloody, sacrificial act meant the “Lost Sheep of Israel,” whom he specifically came to address, would no longer be subjected to the Temple law that continually required onerously, expensive sacrificial tribute. Thus, Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled the law, ending Moses’ ancient blood covenant with the Temple god YHVH.

    After Jesus’ sacrificial crucifixion ended the need for sacrificial tribute, the Temple fell into dissolution, as the blood sacrifice was the main source for its revenue. This dissolute state resulted in a power struggle among the elite Jews for dominance over the Temple, much as the bitter struggle for the priesthood had been under the Maccabees. This term, meaning “hammer”, was appropriate for the religious faction that finally took control of the Jew’s religion. The end for the Temple came just a few decades after the crucifixion, fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that he would destroy it.

    The second Temple was the Jews’ first central bank that held regional, economic power similar to later versions. Therefore, is it any wonder Jews have maintained vehement hatred for Jesus for more than two thousand year, while hardly acknowledging Saul/Paul for his creation of the Christian religion that merely used Jesus’ name and reputation for its foundation?

    What does all this have to do with the goyim? – Nothing.

  14. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    Superbly concise exposition of how an ancient deranged jewish fantasy about a pathological use of blood to expiate sin is the main source of the psychosis which drives the globalist ILLuminati jewmasterss to acquire dominion over the world by bloody conquest whenever and wherever the sheeple herds resist being enslaved to a jewish blood cult .

  15. S. Cooke
    S. Cooke says:

    Deuteronomy 12.16
    John 6.54-55
    Blood is essential to life and in some respect sacred.
    Symbolic also of biological continuity: Blut und Boden. “Blood” the old word for “genes”.

    How “Jewish” was Jesus? Jews in ancient times regarded him as a mamzer magician.
    Otto Weininger said he was the only Jew who successfully overcame Judaism, but others have disputed this presumed ethnicity. For example: Hitler, Rosenberg, Fichte, Haeckel, Wagner, Paul de Lagarde, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Edmond Picard, Emil-Louis Burnouf, Walter Bauer, Walter Grundmann, Emanuel Hirsch, Gerhard Kittel, Hugo Odeberg, Wilhelm Stapel, Karl Adam, Philipp Haeuser, Paul Haupt, Julius Leutheuser, Madison Grant, Arthur Bonus, Friedrich Andersen, Ernst Bosc, A. Mueller.
    Then there is the strong possibility that the human father of Jesus was the Roman officer called Julius Tiberius Pantera, and that his son with a sense of special mission as a Sayoshant/Saviour studied religions other than the Mosaic heritage of Temple Judaism.

  16. Flavia
    Flavia says:

    This essay, from a Christian’s point of view, was mind-blowing.
    Slightly off topic, when I began reading the Old Testament recently, I noticed there were a lot of references to fat. I gradually began to read with those references uppermost in mind. I noticed it specifically because just prior, I had been reading about Cro-Magnon, who preserved fat from their kills in sacks, to be stored for sustenance throughout the winter. If you re-read the OT, you will see continuous references to fat, over and over again, in addition to many statements averring that its scent was pleasing to God.
    I think this may have been a hold-over from prehistoric times, when fat was essential to staying alive over the winters.
    On a more humorous note, I also began to think as I was reading that if I had a dime for every time “God’s wrath was kindled,” my copy of the OT would have paid for itself. I think it’s strange that the biblical writers would have included the extent to which the Israelites pissed God off.

  17. richard jones
    richard jones says:

    it’s very refreshing to hear someone on here finally call out christianity for what it is… or rather what it is definitely not … and that it is NOT “White identity, interests and culture”… it is not us… our forefathers recognised the danger of this cult coming out of the middle east and that it was simply a jewish yoke around our necks

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      @ richard jones:Not “simply” a “jewish yoke around our necks”.
      If so, the first Pauline letter to Thessalonians, the sermons of John Chrysostom and the later Martin Luther, the ecclesiastical burning of the Talmud, the deification of Jesus and Messianic supersession, plus the complaint of Jews that the New Testament caused their “holocaust”, would not exist. It is only in the post-war decades that the “universal altruism” attributed to Jesus and/or Paul has been exploited by the woke enemies of western civilization, though some Jews are now alerted to the way that its non-Christian non-whites have turned on Israel in turn. Some conservative thinkers like Anthony Ludovici regarded OT Judaism as more admirable than NT “Masochistianity”.
      Religion and politics are often more complicated than critics suppose.
      The figure of Jesus has been subject to innumerable different interpretations, but I think we might all agree that the Stone the builders rejected (Acts 4.10-11) is not exactly a blood-brother of Lev Bronstein, Albert Einstein, Arnold Rothstein, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein or Larry Silverstein.

  18. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    Who is behind ABORTIONS/Human Organ Mafias/Infanticide..(Moloch?)??. The people that want endless war in Ucraine..are the same that advocate in the USA for: CRT/Gay/Lgbt/sexmutilations/dragqueenschools/WhiteSupremacism/WhiteGenocide/AntiChristian/AntiCtaholic/BLM/ANTIFA/BlueDemCrimeWave/OHDerailment..and they Demand we support them blindly. I remember watching that Movie Get OUt which is based on true account of Many black Kids being abducted by Men in unmarked vans in Washington Heights NYork,,The City DA allegedly discover a wide Jewish Rabbis abducting goyim children for sex ritual religious BLOOD/Moloch ceremonies. Many of the suspects fled to Israel. PD Killing the Czar and butchering his family wasn’t enough they must destroy Russia/Christian.

    • Nikolay
      Nikolay says:

      @Birhan Dargey
      “they must destroy Russia/Christian.”
      It is dilusion. Before revolution Russia was 80% agricultural country and according to Leo Tolstoy rural popes didn’t have any notion about Christ and were sure that God’s name was Nicola.

  19. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    And, where, pray tell, can we accommodate the wonderful Black Hebrews in all this razzle dazzle about Levantine superstitions. Ah yes, bring back the halcyon days of the 700 Club, that’s what. We can all then warmly remember the religious geru Pat Robertson himself, enthusiastically holding hands with the phoney yenta Danuta Soderman, and the Negro Ben Kinchlow, devoutly praying, no doubt, for more shekels & dollars from the gullible flock.

  20. B. Rockford
    B. Rockford says:

    Scholarly study of Christian origins has improved since the cheerful little booklet written by F. F. Bruce (cited here) 80 years ago, including sophisticated well-researched apologetics.
    The onus of proof now rests with those who claim that Jesus never existed, and still more with anyone who contends that the detailed narratives and letters in the New Testament are nothing other than an extraordinary fabrication by “the Jews” to enslave the world. Suggestions that they are collectively incriminated also in killing the Russian imperial family in 1918, or in kidney trafficking today, are so far-fetched that they might just as well be planted by sayanim to discredit serious criticism.

    • Tom Winchester
      Tom Winchester says:

      A negative cannot be proven to be true or false. The burden of proof is on Christians; to not only prove Jesus actually existed but but even more so that he is God. All Christians admittedly have is faith. Faith is what substitutes when facts are not available.

  21. michael severson
    michael severson says:

    As most of the discussion has said, yes and thank you for this most revealing focus of what comprises the jewish psyche, the jewish history/religion writings: a weird and diabolical world. The conclusion, is mine but so shared as to be predominant. And how this focus shows in now, is also so obvious as to need to be identified because it has become so ever-present: the “entertainment” industry of jewish made movies are focused on gore, horror, humanity transformed to satanic creatures, et cetera. A corrupt perversion of humanity, of civil functioning, of domestic wholesome life. And this is directed at children, who are so much more easily influenced, but certainly older people are under its influence as well. A society corrupted by a predatory symbiosis, a parasitical force…

  22. S. Cooke
    S. Cooke says:

    As an accumulator of the wit and wisdom of his beloved Fuhrer, how would Dr Dalton fit the following apparently authentic quotes into his elaborate theory of Jesus as a(nother) Jewish deception?
    1.”My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter…the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by only a few followers, recognised those Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them” (Hitler, August 1922).
    2. “The struggle against the power of capital was his life’s work and his teaching, for which he was nailed to the Cross by his arch-enemy the Jew. The task which Christ began but did not finish I shall complete” (December 1926).
    3. “The mentality [of the Jew} is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as he was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago [who] drove these enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests” (Mein Kampf).
    Two brief additional notes:
    (i) It is a sadly frequent phenomenon that writers who grasp a partial truth will then push it to an extreme beyond evidence; e.g. Antony Sutton on (non-Jewish) conspiracy, Margaret Murray on the European witch-cult, Stephen Knight on Jack the Ripper.
    (ii) The notion that Jesus was fathered by someone other than Joseph appeared also in the rationalist “Das Leben Jesu” by the “antisemite” Heinrich Paulus in 1828. In the case of Julius Pantera, his third name Abdes has a religious significance.

    • Chad F. Simard
      Chad F. Simard says:

      First, these quotations might be relevant.
      “Galilee was a colony in which Roman legionaries settled, and Jesus was certainly not a Jew” – Hitler, Monologue, October 21, 1941. See: Fritz Redlich, “Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet” [2000].
      “Jewish magicians may have sacrificed children, and thence the genesis of ritual murder” – Bernard Lazare, “Antisemitism” [1995 ed.], but note the context.
      Secondly, a tragic example of intelligent and indeed erudite people who push a conspiracy hypothesis to an ultimately deranged conclusion was Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver. (Though believing that Christ was a myth, he did state that he was not a Jew.)
      Thirdly, the way in which prejudice precedes evidence is shown by the contrary interpretations of (St) Paul, as “Shaul” the Jewish proto-Bolshevik who turned the message of Jesus into an egalitarian religion to destroy Roman civilization, or as “Solon” the Gentile proto-Nazi who turned the message of Jesus into a pagan mystery cult to destroy Jewish dominance. The truth is: neither of them.

  23. Petronius
    Petronius says:

    “For Jews, this is somehow fulfilling, satisfying, pleasurable—whereas for most normal people, the blood and gore is repulsive and grotesque.”

    If this were true, gory films wouldn’t be that hugely popular.

  24. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    From the above article:

    According to Herodotus (circa 425 BC), the procedure originated in Egypt and then spread to other cultures: “Other people, unless they have been influenced by the Egyptians, leave their genitals in their natural state, but the Egyptians practice circumcision.”

    Just a minute. The Egyptians as well as certain tribes in Africa and other places have practiced circumcision on older boys as a rite of passage – see “Circumcision Initiation Schools”. The jews invented INFANT circumcision, to be done on the 8th and only the 8th day. Some Jews who don’t know any better have it done in the hospital right after the birth of their godforsaken male child, but they are a small minority. They must be unaware of the implications. Also, a few super-evangelical Christians hire a jewish ritual cutter to do it to their child on the 8th day.

    I read the view of a psychologist who said that the timing of the inflicting of an injury esp. to the genitals is all-important as far as affecting the mentality of the male when he grows up, especially where sex relations are concerned. This becomes unnatural.

    • S. Cooke
      S. Cooke says:

      Circumcision is a social act that requires justification, primarily medical. There is no medical reason for circumcising male babies/infants as a universal prophylactic.
      There is insufficient decisive evidence on its effect on adult sex life or pleasure, though see CIRP “Psychological impacts of male circumcision” online.
      TOO readers may be interested in looking up Michel Herve Bertaux-Navoiseau’s views on the practice. A typical example of woke “gender, sexuality, ethnicity and race in identity construction” with a phallic focus is Jay Geller’s “On Freud’s Jewish Body” [Fordham UP, 2007]. It is a practice alien to Indo-European traditions.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        Thanks for your comments and your reading suggestions. Re sexual pleasure. I recall reading a letter in a magazine from a man who got circumcised as an adult for no good reason – just your typical disturbed doctor’s version of a “cure” for some minor problem.

        Anyway, after it healed up, he had sex. His assessment of the different was: “A circumcised man does not obtain pleasure, only relief.” Interpret that any way you wish.

  25. Tom Winchester
    Tom Winchester says:

    Having extensively studied the Bible; in both English and Biblical Hebrew; I can validate every reference, Mr. Dalton makes, as valid and in context. This should be manditory reading, studied, and understood by everyone. The bloody death cults must be removed if mankind is to survive. I now live to give honor to my Northern European pre- Christian ancestors by embracing the positive aspects of the Natural Law that was so clear to them in their nature based rural forest temperate zone environment.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” The bloody death cults must be removed if mankind is to survive.”

      Those cults are rooted in secret or hidden societies which in turn are rooted or hidden within prominent cultural establishments . Mankind and especially Christian sheeple herds seem to have very little if any capability to uproot those cults .

      Gibson and others seem to be truthful about their cult claims . How is it there is virtually no substantial judicially acceptable evidence to affirm those perennial claims about ghastly satanic cult activities ?

      Is the USA so firmly in the grip of those cult satanists that nothing can be done to neutralize inveterate heinously satanic cults ?

  26. Thomas Winchester
    Thomas Winchester says:

    How can you say that Mr. Dalton “CAN’T SEE” when he more accurately and in context, quoted scripture than 99% of self proclaimed Christians can.
    I’ve read the Bible cover to cover over two dozen times in English and the Torah several times in Hebrew (which I can fluently read; admittedly less so now, as I haven’t used it in over 15 years). It took 14 years of intense study to finally reject the book as not being divinely inspired; from a purely scholarly approach.
    Jesus existed, but he was just one of hundreds of failed messianic hopes. His rise as God came from Paul introducing a free pass into heaven, to gullible, superstitious, and altruistic gentiles; of which there are always an abundance of.
    The facts are you have faith as your only evident, as your religion freely admits, indeed brags about. Faith is simply an emotional replacement for facts. So who really is the one who “CAN’T SEE”. I’d say someone who claims to embrace their European culture. Yet does so while following a Jewish god.

Comments are closed.