Thoughts and Predictions on Israel’s war

Trump should have remembered the French proverb: If you dine with the Devil, you’d better have a long spoon.

 Netanyahu and the Jews have played their cards adroitly and Trump has been left hanging out to dry.
At about 22:30 and 24:00 Mearsheimer comments on how the administration has been conned and what the costs will be.

The impact of the bombing of Iran and of the Israelis playing Trump for a fool is such that Trump’s presidency will never recover.
Trump’s base — cobbled together out of MAGA type Southerners and peace Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard and Kennedy — is going to be shattered.  The surprising defections of Gabbard and Kennedy enabled Trump to squeak by into office with 50.5% of the popular vote.  Trump could never afford to shatter that slender base.  His base will now dissolve.
Gabbard and Kennedy have been publicly humiliated.  The peace voters will drop out.  As the situation worsens and Trump is dragged along by the Israeli dog leash, I would not be at all surprised to see Tulsi Gabbard resign and make a public statement damning Trump.
The US may be drawn into a prolonged conflict.  The deficit will continue to soar as it did due to the money poured into the pockets of Liz and Daddy Dick Cheney and the rest of the military industrial complex when the neocons and their Baby Bush got us into the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Oil is going to soar in price…potentially to staggering prices. If oil prices rise dramatically, the economy is going to sour and as a result much of the public support for Trump will nosedive.
The neocons are going to be back in the driver’s seat. Trump is going to be at their mercy.  There’s no feasible way he can maneuver out of the situation.  The System Media will have an easy job exciting Americans into wanting to “get even” with Iran when American troops and oil investments in the Middle East are endangered.
Trump has no wiggle room.  He has been played for a fool by Netanyahu and the Jews.
Trump has boundless self-confidence in himself as “the master of the deal.”  He foolishly thought he could manipulate the Jews into going along with him on the immigration issue by making a deal with them — supporting the Gaza genocide and in exchange he thought the Jews would abandon their anti-WASP politics.
The Jews are far greater masters of the deal than Trump, but Trump’s pride made it impossible for him to see that and set his foolish course.
The Jews understand that crushing Amalek, the word they apply to White European Christians, is what is critical.  They can never abandon their policy of hostility toward us.  Without hostility, without cultivating and maintaining an adversarial attitude toward the host culture, the Jews would cease to exist.  Hostility is the sine qua non of their survival.
Netanyahu would never be so blind as to sign up for Trump’s deal.  Nor would “the community” at large buy into it.  Destroying Amalek through Third World immigration is their #1 priority. 
The latest poll shows that 71% of American Jews are opposed to Trump.  They are not going to change as a result of Trump’s championing Israel.  The Jews know that all significant politicians and both parties will always cater to them.  Trump’s “deal” was always DOA but Trump didn’t see this.
Netanyahu and the Zionists hate the demographic core of America.  They love immigration.  They are not going to change.  Trump should have thought of that but his level of self confidence did not allow for such considerations.
What will happen now?
Netanyahu and the community hold the trump cards.  They have trumped Trump.  Trump has no way out.  He’s caught.  They have caught him.  He has no options.
Trump will flop around like a fish out of water.  There’s no path open to him to save his Presidency.  There’s no way out for Trump. He cannot abandon Israel now.  He has to do what Israel tells him to do.  He will have to continue to cater to Israel even as the military “defense” budget rises staggeringly, oil doubles in price, inflation takes off, the economy reels and Trump’s public support dries up.
The Republicans will be crushed in the midterms.  Trump’s remaining time in the White House will be years of humiliation.  The neocons will be laughing their heads off and will be back in control even during the remaining Trump term.  In fact, the neocons are back in the driver’s seat already.
J. D. Vance will not be elected President in 2028.  His career is finished along with that of Trump.  He needs to start planning a new career.  Maybe he should become a real estate agent or a stock broker. After the peace voters return to the Democratic Party, after demographics ratchet America several more percentage points against the GOP, after working class voters get nothing while the plutocratic elite conspicuously enjoys Trump’s tax cuts, I would not be surprised to see the Republican Party lose the 2028 election by Goldwater/Johnson margins with the Democrats getting over 60% of the vote.
In 2028 the US will return to the post WWII status.  The Democrats will inherit the mantle of “racial progress”, wars to end war, etc.  The GOP will be a shadow opposition party that — as was the case for most of the post war period — will not oppose anything of consequence.
Anyway, these are my predictions.
As the English proverb says, “Truth is the daughter of time.”

Time will either confirm my assessment or disprove it.

Prof. John Mearsheimer on the Israeli attacks

Mearsheimer: Trump was trapped by Israelis—once attack happened (against the president’s expressed wishes) the forces for war (Israel Lobby, etc.) were too much, so that he would have a political disaster if he disowned Israel. As I noted, “Trump is likely unhappy with what Israel did but will make the best of it and will defend Israel if it comes to that.” It has come to that.

Mearsheimer: Israel knows that no matter what anti-war conservatives say, when push comes to shove, “Israel has us tied around their little finger.” This does not exonerate Trump, but it would have been political suicide to jettison Israel as people like Tucker Carlson have advocated. Napolitano especially condemns Trump while Mearsheimer seems more willing to see the wider picture of Israel’s ultimate responsibility.

Mearsheimer:  Israel “Israel owns us”; Israel did not do all that much damage yet—lots of Iranian missiles underground; Iran can do serious damage to Israel (as we are seeing). He is worried about wider war, bombing oil facilities leading to disaster, global recession, etc. “Israel wants Americans to be killed because it would suck us into the war.” False Flag alert!

First Thoughts on the Israeli Strikes

Yesterday I posted an article saying Trump told Netanyahu to hold off attacking Iran. Israel did it anyway. This says a lot. Israel has never been subservient to the U.S. Indeed it’s the other way around, with the powerful Israel Lobby dominating Congress and often the president, with the result of thousands of American lives and many billions of dollars spent in the region. I should have known that.

Predictably there is the usual chorus of pro-Israel voices in Congress and the media praising the attacks. And as always, the U.S. is in fact deeply involved whether Trump wants it or not. From Tucker Carlson’s daily email:

While the American military may not have physically perpetrated the assault, years of funding and sending weapons to Israel, which Donald Trump just bragged about on Truth Social, undeniably place the U.S. at the center of last night’s events. Washington knew these attacks would happen. They aided Israel in carrying them out. Politicians purporting to be America First can’t now credibly turn around and say they had nothing to do with it. Our country is in deep.

Carlson, as a leading member of the mainstream anti-war right, also notes the obvious: there is no way this is in America’s interests.

Donald Trump admitted he had prior knowledge about Israel’s attack on Iran on Thursday, telling Bret Baier he knew of the Netanyahu government’s plan to conduct the preemptive strikes and that the assault came as no surprise.

Despite being complicit in the act of war, the president hopes last night’s events will help his ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. Steve Witkoff was scheduled to participate in the next round of talks on Sunday, but whether that will still happen is up in the air.

“Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see. There are several people in leadership in Iran that will not be coming back,” Trump said following the strikes.

It’s worth taking a step back and wondering how any of this helps the United States. We can’t think of a single way.

And, more pointedly:

“From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first. America first.”

That’s a direct quote from Donald Trump’s first inaugural address, and it’s the same sentiment that thrust him back into the White House in January. Now, the world will find out if he really meant it.

Now that Benjamin Netanyahu and his war-hungry government have executed their long-awaited assault, the president faces a legacy-altering decision: to support, or not to support?

We’d like to take this opportunity to state our position as clearly as possible. The United States should not at any level participate in a war with Iran. No funding, no American weapons, no troops on the ground. Regardless of what our “special ally” says, a fight with the Iranians has nothing to offer the United States. It is not in our national interest.

If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases. But not with America’s backing. At an absolute minimum, the United States continuing to insert itself in this conflict will further whip up the radical Islamic world’s hatred for the West and fuel the next generation of terrorism. The worst case? Thousands of immediate American deaths, all in the name of a foreign agenda that has nothing to do with our country.

It goes without saying that neither of those possibilities would be beneficial for the United States. But there is another option: drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars. 

No matter how many bogus antisemitism allegations neocon ghouls like Mark Levin hurl at Americans who advocate for that path, opposing destroying the United States in the name of the Netanyahu government has nothing to do with Israel. It’s about America. We reject the idea of involving the U.S. in an Israeli war for the same reason we would stand against doing the same thing on behalf of Eritrea, Suriname, Cambodia, or any other random country you could close your eyes and point at on a map. It is not America’s fight. Engaging in it would be a middle finger in the faces of the millions of voters who cast their ballots in hopes of creating a government that would finally put the United States first. What happens next will define Donald Trump’s presidency.

Fox News adds that Trump “noted that the U.S. is ready to defend itself and Israel if Iran retaliates. In recent weeks, the U.S. has replenished Iron Dome missiles.”

Trump is likely unhappy with what Israel did but will make the best of it and will defend Israel if it comes to that. As the supreme leader of the most powerful country in the world, he likely thinks everyone else has to listen to him. How’s that working out with the trade deals? China with its stranglehold on rare earth supplies clearly holds the upper hand, so Trump will have no choice but to once again try to save face.

He is encouraging Iran to stand down “before there is nothing left.”

Mr. Trump’s social media post attempted to put pressure on Iran to continue negotiating. “The next already planned attacks,” he wrote, would be “even more brutal.”

He added: “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire.” In his often-used capital letters, he concluded, “JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

Israel has already killed top military leaders and nuclear scientists.

So far Iran has done nothing in retaliation and I doubt they have the ability to do meaningful damage to Israel. If so, Israel will be the unchallenged dominant power in the Middle East and will further degrade the Palestinians.

 

Do the New LA Riots Signal the Ethnic Breakup of the United States?

Serious riots broke out in Los Angeles in the second week of June 2025. Supposedly triggered by ICE agents apprehending illegal immigrants, they were, in reality, set off by their arresting extremely dangerous Hispanic criminals, quite independent of their immigration status.

Protests, effectively encouraged by Hispanic Democrat local councillors and other ethnic activists, promptly broke out; police cars were set on fire, rocks were thrown at them from bridges, and public buildings were torched. The left claimed that Trump, who sent in the National Guard to quell the disorder because the state’s Democrat governor had abjectly failed to, incited these riots by enforcing the law and, of course, made them worse by trying to quell them.

I am afraid, in a sense, the leftist media are correct, though, naturally, they don’t want to admit why they are correct. Conservative media outlets have ridiculed the way in which rioters strongly object to being returned to Mexico yet wave Mexican flags and burn the Stars and Stripes. If they think this is a contradiction, then they are misguided. They are not looking at what is happening through the correct lens: the lens of evolutionary psychology; the idea that humans are, in essence, an advanced form of ape.

With this in mind, what is happening is Los Angeles starts to make sense fairly quickly. At the most basic level, chimpanzees operate in troupes — in essence, small tribes — who are held together by relatively recent common ancestry. Numerous experiments have shown that humans and animals can discern genetic similarity and are more likely to cooperate with the genetically similar because doing so raises their “inclusive fitness;” it permits them to indirectly pass on more of their genes if their kin flourish. An ethnic group is a highly extended tribe and a race is a number of related ethnic groups; a highly extended ethnic group. Although the word “Hispanic” is confusing — it sometimes refers to people whose native language is Spanish even if they are completely White — in general it refers to people from Central and South America. They range from totally European to totally Native American. On average, however, they are a “cline” — a mixture of two races; groups genetically separated for many thousands of years — between European and Native American. As Genetic Similarity Theory predicts, they are generally sexually attracted to each other, so we have the Hispanic Cline and they are, on average, half-European and half-Native American.

Due to a combination of factors — proximity to Mexico, the fact that California was briefly part of Mexico, Woke California’s status as a “Sanctuary State” and LA’s as a “Sanctuary City” which is prepared to welcome illegal immigrants — Mexicans have, in effect, established enclaves of the Mexican Nation within Los Angeles. Returning to our discussion of chimpanzees, it is basic, in terms of evolutionary psychology, that you establish territory. The more territory you control then the more access to resources — to food of various kinds — you have and, so, the more likely are to out-compete other troupes, leading to the triumph of your genes. Also (all else being equal), the larger your group is then the more likely you are to out-compete your rivals in wars over territory.

If you are, as an individual, not at the top of your pack hierarchy in the territory that you hold, then you often gang together with other middle-ranking males and you strive outwards to take the territory, and the females, of another group; to expand your group’s territory. Naturally, if the other group returns you to your territory then you are a failure and you will fear having few resources, which, in our prehistoric polygamous mating systems in which females sexually select for status, means that you don’t pass on your genes. So, you must fight to maintain the territory you have eked out and you must fight to maintain your numbers. Trump symbolises the most warlike Europeans — the ethnic enemy of all the different ethnic groups that have come to occupy the  U.S.  So, of course, his going into “Mexican” territory is going to provoke a violent reaction.

That these rioters are patriotically Mexican but hate America and don’t want to return to Mexico is no more a contradiction than settler Americans disliking Native American tribes, not wanting to return to England, and yet seeing themselves as truest form of Anglo-Saxon. You can come up, to solve your cognitive dissonance, with reasons why your country is poor and you are relatively poor and have had to leave: God is punishing our country for its decadence, God has called me to expand his holy nation or even “We Native Americans must take the land back from the Europeans and especially California as it was once part of Mexico.” Their low average IQ will not be part of their explanation for why their country is poor.

From an evolutionary perspective, it is groups who are high in positive and negative ethnocentrism who tend to triumph. Los Angeles has been invaded, in part, because the Europeans were low in negative ethnocentrism. They were individualists who covertly played for status by signalling their concern with the marginalised and runaway virtue-signalling led to their favouring foreigners over their own. They identify with the genetically dissimilar as this allows them to collaborate better with foreigners and treasonously gain power over their own people, as the California governor has. Typically leftist, they are high in Neuroticism and so, bubbling with resentment, they want to see everything which symbolises power — for which they are so ravenous — torn down.

So, Los Angeles becomes a sanctuary city and Mexicans are more likely to take it over if they feel love for their own people and despise the Europeans: hence, they wave Mexican flags and burn American ones, despite not wanting to return to Mexico. Those who see this as a contradiction are missing the point. They must examine the situation via evolutionary psychology.

I suspect that what is happening in Los Angeles is a harbinger of the future: the South Africanization of the United States; its violent break up along ethnic lines as non-Europeans carve out more and more territory.

 

Toy-Boys and Goy-Boys: Some Heinous Hate-Think for Pride Month

After Gay Liberation in the 1970s, the Glorious Gay Community (G.G.C.) got one big thing it didn’t want. At the same time, it didn’t get one big thing that it did want. The big thing it got but didn’t want was AIDS, which was a product of the gay genius for brewing butt-busting bugs by energetically practising unnatural sex. As the hate-scientist Gregory Cochran puts it: “Homosexual men are nature’s Petri dishes.”

Cruelty to chickenhawks

And what was the big thing the G.G.C. didn’t get but did want? Simple: it was the legalization of sex with children. The recent eulogies for the great gay writer Edmund White haven’t discussed some interesting lines from his bestseller States of Desire: Travels in Gay America (1980):

I’m not in the business of recommending guidelines for sex with youngsters; I simply haven’t gathered enough information about the various issues involved. But one proposal that seems reasonable to me would be to lower the age of consent to twelve for boys and girls, regardless of whether the sex involved is straight or gay and regardless of the age of the older partner. (“Boston and Washington, D.C.,” ch. 9, p. 286)

White also revealed in the book that “One of my dear friends is a convinced but discreet chickenhawk” (ch. 8, p. 254) — that is, a pedophile who pursued boys (“chicken” is gay slang for a partner who’s hairless, like a plucked chicken). Later, he interviewed another chickenhawk and committed “cruelty” against him:

From Joy to Oy!: First Silverstein celebrates sodomy, then AIDS slaughters sodomites

“Sometimes,” I said, “I think gay radicals have made a mistake to take up the cause of pedophilia. There’s been so much about pedophilia in the radical press — Fag Rag’s special supplement; the Body Politic’s ‘Men Loving Boys Loving Men.’ There’s no way society is ever going to accept man-boy love. And it’s not as though there are very many boy-lovers.” I was aware of the cruelty of what I was saying. (“Boston and Washington, D.C.,” p. 286)

How many people today know that “gay radicals” took up “the cause of pedophilia” in the 1970s and ’80s? Or that “Gay Leftists in the United States and abroad” were “debating the issue of gay pederasty and pedophilia with considerable energy”? (p. 283) All that has gone down the memory-hole. It’s an aspect of Glorious Gay History that the mainstream media don’t want to discuss, just as the mainstream media doesn’t want to discuss some current aspects of the disease Mpox (formerly known as monkeypox). It’s sexually transmitted and prevalent among homosexuals, so why does it sometimes affect children and animals living with homosexuals? Amid their incessant celebration of homosexuality, the mainstream media don’t want to ask that fascinating question, let alone answer it. Gay is Good, after all.

“How did monkeypox spread from men to boys?” A fascinating question that the mainstream media are failing to ask

But that by no means exhausts the fascinating questions the mainstream media are currently failing to ask about the Glorious Gay Community. For example, in Britain three members of the G.G.C. will “face trial in April of next year” over “arson attacks on two properties and a car.” The men are allegedly rent-boys, that is, male prostitutes. Two of them, Roman Lavrynovych, 21, and Petro Pochynok, 34, are Ukrainian, while the third, Stanislav Carpiuc, 26, is a Romanian born in Ukraine. That’s already a very interesting story. Why might rent-boys from Ukraine be setting fire to houses and cars in London? But what makes the story even more interesting is that the arson-attacked houses and cars are all “linked to Sir Keir Starmer,” as the BBC discreetly puts it.

Starmer’s Charmers: the three alleged rent-boys who will go on trial nearly a year from now (image from BBC)

That’s the only mention of Starmer in the BBC story about the upcoming trial of the alleged arsonist rent-boys. However, can you imagine what the BBC and rest of the mainstream media would be saying if alleged Ukrainian rent-boys were accused of arson in Washington against property “linked to” Donald Trump? I can certainly imagine it. The mainstream media would be going nuts. They certainly went nuts over an entirely fictitious sex-story about Trump and female prostitutes in Russia. And over an entirely fictitious sex-story about David Cameron, the former British prime minister, and a pig’s head at Oxford University. For left-wing Starmer there’s discretion; for right-wing Trump and not-so-left-wing Cameron there was hysteria.

Averting the Gaze from Gray Gays

So was Starmer having sex with the rent-boys? Did they fall out with him for some reason and seek revenge by committing arson on his property? Those are the obvious questions that the mainstream media aren’t asking. If Starmer is secretly gay or bisexual, then he’s an obvious candidate to join the club possibly established by Blobamacron. That’s my collective name for Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Emmanuel Macron, who are all rumored to be secretly gay or bisexual and who may all have been blackmailed over it by the Israeli spy-agency Mossad. If so, they aren’t toy-boys but goy-boys, gentile males performing services for Israel under threat of exposure. Perhaps Jewish Israel — or Jew-run Ukraine — turned Starmer into a goy-boy by threatening to expose his pursuit of toy-boys, which may date back decades.

Definitely gray, possibly gay: the power-hungry leftist lawyer Keir Starmer

But now Starmer’s latest toy-boys are in “the high security Belmarsh prison in south-east London,” awaiting trial on charges of “arson with intent to endanger life.” Or so it appears. Then again, who ever got a gay vibe off Starmer? Instead, people got a gray vibe — he always seemed a paradigm of the gray leftist bureaucrat, as dull and dreary on the outside as he was hungry for power and privilege on the inside.

We were obviously being blinkered bigots. Why shouldn’t a member of the Gray Community also be a member of the Gay Community? And there is something suggesting strongly that the current British prime minister is indeed both Gray and Gay. It’s the failure of the mainstream media to pursue all those fascinating questions about the fire-bug fairies, the Ukrainian rent-boys now charged with arson against property “linked to Sir Keir Starmer.” Silence is a sure sign of significance.

When the World Says No, Kenya and Nigeria Say Yes to Israel

As international opinion sours on Israel, Kenya and Nigeria emerge as rare bastions of pro-Zionist support.

A recently-published Pew Research Center polling paints a stark picture of negative global sentiment toward Israel in response to its military campaign in Gaza. In a survey of 24 countries conducted from January to April 2025, most respondents—spanning North America, Europe, the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America—expressed negative views of Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In 20 of these nations, around half or more of adults hold unfavorable opinions of Israel, with overwhelming majorities in Australia (74%), Greece (72%), Indonesia (80%), Japan (79%), the Netherlands (78%), Spain (75%), Sweden (75%), and Turkey (93%) expressing negative views. Even in the United States, historically a strong supporter, 53% now view Israel unfavorably, marking an 11-point increase since 2022.

Amid this global backlash, Kenya and Nigeria stand out as notable exceptions. In both countries, around half or more of the population views Israel positively—50% in Kenya and 59% in Nigeria—making them among the few places where Israel retains net favorable ratings. This divergence from the global anti-Israel norm is not accidental but reflects a convergence of security concerns and religious demographics.

Both Kenya and Nigeria face persistent Islamist insurgencies: Kenya contends with al-Shabaab, while Nigeria grapples with Boko Haram and affiliated groups. These insurgencies have resulted in significant violence against Christian communities and have heightened Christian-Muslim sectarian tensions. The rise of evangelical Christianity in this context has fostered a highly receptive climate for pro-Israel narratives, offering a new set of shabbos goyim that Israeli diplomacy can readily mobilize in the Jewish state’s campaign to justify its ethnic cleansing agenda and its geopolitical skullduggery abroad.

In Nigeria, evangelical Christians now number approximately 58 million, making it the world’s third-largest evangelical population after the United States and China. Pentecostal and evangelical churches have grown rapidly, with Pentecostals alone estimated to make up to 63% of Nigerian Christians. This growth is particularly notable in northern Nigeria, where despite ongoing persecution and violence, Christianity is expanding “astronomically,” according to local church leaders.

As for Kenya, evangelicals make up about 20% of the population—over 10 million people—and Pentecostals an estimated 30–35%. This demographic surge has been accompanied by a rise in evangelical influence in politics and society, with Kenya’s current President William Ruto and First Lady Rachel Chebet Ruto both closely aligned with evangelical leaders.

This expansion of evangelical Christianity is fortuitous for Zionist activism. Evangelical theology often emphasizes biblical prophecy and support for the state of Israel, and evangelical leaders have become vocal advocates for Israel in both countries. Their influence extends into politics and public discourse, reinforcing pro-Israel narratives and shaping national policy.

As I have highlighted in previous articles, Israel is actively seeking new allies in the Global South as its traditional Western support base erodes. My earlier analysis of the emerging Hindu nationalist-Zionist alliance in India and Guatemala’s strange relationship with Israel underscores Israel’s strategy of cultivating relationships with countries where religious tensions or even high degrees of philosemitism can be leveraged for geopolitical gain. In Kenya and Nigeria, Israel can exploit the ongoing sectarian violence between Christians and Muslims—exacerbated by Islamist insurgencies—to forge alliances with their respective governments. Moreover, the significant presence of evangelical Christians in these countries makes pro-Zionist advocacy efforts much easier.
Israel’s outreach is not purely altruistic; it is a calculated effort to build reliable blocs of support at the United Nations and in international forums, where it finds itself increasingly isolated. By cynically positioning itself as a partner to Christian communities under threat, Israel secures diplomatic and security cooperation, while evangelical leaders frame this alignment as a spiritual and national imperative. This dynamic is evident in both Kenya and Nigeria, where evangelical growth and Islamist violence have created a unique environment for pro-Israel sentiment to flourish.

In a world of shifting loyalties, Africa’s evangelical boom and Islamist insurgencies are Israel’s unlikely lifeline. By aligning with Israel, Kenya and Nigeria have chosen complicity over global resistance.

History will not look kindly at these Uncle Toms of the House of Zion.

 

 

Booklet review: “Islam and Judaism,” by P Curzio Nitoglia (1996)

Booklet review: “Islam and Judaism,” by P. Curzio Nitoglia. 1996

The booklet is a summary of a massive book by P Théry (aka Hannah Zacharias) published first in 1955 with the title From Moses to Mohammed and now not available. Théry was a Catholic priest, member of the Papal Academy, professor at the Catholic Institute in Paris and a member of the historical department of the Holy Congregation. He died just before the second Vatican Council. The book was written as part of his priestly duties. It seems to be the case that his work has never been contradicted by the Pope or other princes of the church, so it stands that the official Catholic historical view of Islam is that it is a golem religion invented and pushed by devious, Jesus-hating Jewish rabbis. Wouldn’t it be good if more of the world’s billion or so Catholics became aware of this aspect of their faith?

Nitoglia sums up the work of Théry in five points:

1.Islam is nothing other than a post-Christian Jewish religion as explained by a rabbi.

2. Mohammed was pushed towards Judaism by his Jewish born wife Khadidja and helped by the rabbi of Mecca.

3. The Koran was put together by the rabbis of Mecca.

4. The original Koran was a shortened Arabic translation of the Pentatuech – the first five books of the Old Testament. It was lost after Mohammed’s death! If true, this is remarkably suspicious. After conquering all of Arabia with this new religion, how could the orginal Koran just go missing? He offers quotes from the new Koran as proof of the existence of the previous Koran: Sura 20,112 speaks of an Arabic translation and Sura 15, 86-87 mentions two previous written teachings.

5. The Koran is noticeably anti-Christian, precisely because it was written by a rabbi.Add Post

There were lots of Jews in Arabia back then, in the oases as well as the three cities of Mecca. Medina and Taif. In Medina, Jews were the majority. Most people were pagans and there were some Christian groups. It is suggested that a clever rabbi, well versed in Talmud, devised Islam as a simplified, Arabised Judaism to control the pagans and also prevent them converting to Christianity. Mohammed was selected as a plausible speaker.

He suggests that Mohammed broke with Judaism on ethnic grounds and absolutely not on religious grounds. “The historic place of the Revelation was moved from Jerusalem to Mecca.”

He notes that constant Holy War against the unbelievers is one of Islam’s holiest duties, but omits to draw the comparison with the Talmud’s similar injunctions to Jews.

“Why shouldn’t one be concerned given the increasing millions and millions of Muslims settling in (formerly) Christian Europe who want to islamize it?” He notes that some foolish Christians seek to find friendly references to Christianity in the Koran and he urges caution.

The writer lists a dozen or so other writers, Jews and non-Jews, who support the conclusion of a very intimate link and friendship between the two wings of the Judaeo-Islamic bird.

He quotes Israel Shahak: “Judaism is permeated with a deepseated hatred of Christianity […] In contrast, Judaism’s attitude to Islam is relatively benevolent.”

Omissions include the remarkable Judaeo-Islamic similarities with regards to lying, stealing, raping and murdering non-believers. Israel Shahak details the enthusiastic encouragement the Talmud gives for such activities. The Koran details numerous occasions where Mohammed, blessed be his name, personally engages in war crimes, as part of his day job as a war lord and treasure enthusiast. If you ever want to tease a Muslim friend, ask them what happened to Marwan’s daughter? She wrote some satirical poems about Mohammed, blessed be his name, and you can probably guess what happened to her… Perhaps the author did not want to attract extra controversy?

He says the Israel-Palestine conflict is not a Jewish-Muslim conflict. He quotes Lebanese christian militia leader Jocelyne Khoueiry as saying that the US and Israelis agreed to solve the Palestinian problem by giving them Lebannon and allowing the Lebanese Christians to emigrate to the US. Yassir Arafat and Hamas spokesman Mahmud El Adhar are quoted as saying the Muslims have no problem with their Jewish “cousins”.

“Judaism and Islam are always ready (even today) to band together to destroy Christianity.”

He ends by warning of Judaeo-Masonic infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church and the Judaisation of the Christian milieu.


Notes:

First published in French and Italian in Sodalitum (1996), magazine of Institut Mater Boni Consilii, Italy. Translated by Johannes Rothkranz and published as “Woher stammt der Islam?” by Verlag Anton A. Schmid (1998).

The Jewish Islam theory is not a fringe belief: The authors below include professors from Princeton and other halls of learning and the father of former British prime minister Boris Johnson.

Bernard Lazare, Antisemitism 1969, Bernard Lewis “la Rinascita Islamica” 1991,V Messori “Pensare la storia” 1992, Abraham Geiger “Was hat Mohammed agus den Judenthume aufgenommen?” 1833, P Crone/M Cook “Magarism:The making of the Islamic world” 1977, Rosenthal “Judaism and Islam” 1961, Katsh “Judaism in Islam” 1962, Gotein “Studies in Islamic History” 1966 and “Ebrei e Arabi nella storia” 1980, Cohen “The Jewish self government in medieval Egypt, P Johnson “History of the Jews” 1987, L Sestrieri “Gli Ebrei nella storia di trí milleni”1980, J Bouman “Il Corano e gli Ebrei” 1992, S Noja “Maometo profeta dell’islam” 1974