Rabbinical Control of the Jews

 It was only recently that I realised how profoundly the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD increased the control that rabbis had over their congregations.

What does the source (E. Michael Jones' "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit") say about the Jewish revolt of 70 AD?

The Jewish revolt that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD was initially sparked in 66 AD when the Roman ruler Florus used a small riot as a pretext to loot the Temple. According to the historian Josephus, this suicidal war was chiefly driven by the Jews' ardent belief in the imminent arrival of a messianic king who would deliver them from Roman oppression and grant Israel dominion over the earth.

The Outbreak of the Revolt The Jewish population was divided between the Zealots and a peace party. After the peace party's attempts to urge compliance with Rome failed, the revolutionaries gained the upper hand, and the Jewish people refused to pay taxes to Rome. The Zealot leader Menahem captured the fortress of Masada, while Eleazar persuaded Jewish priests to stop offering the daily sacrifice for the emperor Nero, officially committing the Temple to the insurrection. After terrorist factions like the Sicarii slaughtered Roman garrisons and the Jewish forces defeated the Roman general Cestius, Jerusalem was temporarily liberated.

The Roman Siege and the Fall of Jerusalem Recognizing the threat, the Emperor Nero dispatched his able general Vespasian, who cautiously starved out the rebels one fortress at a time rather than engaging them in open battle. In February 70 AD, Vespasian's son Titus appeared before Jerusalem and initially offered leniency. When the Jews refused, Titus resorted to extreme cruelty, crucifying 500 prisoners in a single day and sending others back with their hands cut off. The Jewish forces, led by John of Gischala, retreated to the Temple and set fire to their own buildings to hold off the Romans. In August 70 AD, a Roman soldier threw a flaming torch into the sanctuary, setting the Temple ablaze. Titus ordered the instant execution of the surviving priests, and the second Temple fell on the very anniversary of the destruction of the first Temple.

Aftermath and the Birth of Rabbinic Judaism The human toll of the siege was staggering, with more than a million lives lost. Within two months, Titus leveled the city's walls, and the surviving Jews were sold into slavery at prices so low that the market collapsed. The Jewish warrior Simon bar Giora was dragged through Rome and thrown from the Tarpeian rock.

The destruction of the Temple created a profound religious crisis, as the Jews were left with no Temple, no priesthood, and no sacrifices to fulfill their covenant. However, Jochanan ben Zakkai, a leader of the peace party who had himself smuggled out of besieged Jerusalem wrapped in a shroud as a corpse, was granted permission by the Romans to start a rabbinical school. Through this school, Judaism was reconstituted as a "religion of the book" based on the Pentateuch and the Talmudic commentary of rabbis, fundamentally transforming Jewish life and identity.

How did Jochanan ben Zakkai transform Judaism after 70 AD?

During the catastrophic Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jochanan ben Zakkai, a rabbi and deputy head of the Sanhedrin, recognized that the violent revolutionary path of the Zealots was leading to disaster. Prioritizing the survival of his people over militant rebellion, he had himself smuggled out of the besieged city wrapped in a shroud, pretending to be a corpse. Because he was known to Roman authorities as a friend of Rome, he was granted a single request by the Roman general Titus: permission to establish a rabbinical school at Jabneh.

This school served as the incubator for a profound transformation of the Jewish faith. Following the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish people were left with no Temple, no priesthood, no Sanhedrin, and no means of offering burnt sacrifices to fulfill their covenant. In response to this existential crisis, Jochanan ben Zakkai reconstituted Judaism as a "religion of the book" based entirely around the Pentateuch and the rabbis' interpretations of it.

Because the Temple was gone, modern Judaism was essentially reborn as a debating society. The primary role of the rabbi shifted away from the lost temple rituals and toward offering commentary on the scriptures. The results of these continuous rabbinical debates and interpretations were written down over the next six centuries, ultimately becoming the Talmud, which served as the central foundation and superstructure for this newly transformed Jewish religion. Through Jochanan ben Zakkai's intervention, a religion once centered on physical sacrifice was radically redefined around textual commentary and the supreme goal of ethnic survival.

How did the Talmud become the foundation of modern Judaism?

The transformation of the Talmud into the foundation of modern Judaism was a direct consequence of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. With the Temple destroyed, the Jewish people were left with no priesthood, no Sanhedrin, and no means of offering the burnt sacrifices required to fulfill their covenant.

In response to this existential crisis, Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai, who had smuggled himself out of the besieged city, was granted permission by the Romans to establish a rabbinical school at Jabneh. Because physical sacrifices were no longer possible, Judaism was reconstituted as a "religion of the book". The primary role of the rabbi shifted away from Temple rituals and toward offering commentary on the scriptures, effectively turning modern Judaism into a debating society.

The interminable debates generated by these rabbinical schools were written down over the next six centuries and became known as the Talmud. As this commentary expanded, it became the absolute basis of the new Jewish religion. By the fifth century, the Babylonian Talmud had been codified and soon became "the fundamental possession of the Jewish race, its life's breath, its very soul".

For more than a thousand years, the Talmud represented the "only true reality" for the dispersed Jewish nation. It essentially took the sacred scriptures out of the hands of ordinary Jews, making the interpretation of the law the exclusive purview of the rabbis as codified in Talmudic lore. Consequently, Jewish religious and moral life was preserved and promoted entirely through the lens of Talmudic dialectic and commentary, establishing it as the core foundation of modern Judaism.

How did the Talmud take the law out of the hands of ordinary Jews?

The Talmud took the law out of the hands of ordinary Jews by establishing a system of "control through hermeneutics," making the interpretation of sacred scripture the exclusive domain of the rabbis. Following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Jewish people were left without a priesthood, a Sanhedrin, or a means of physical sacrifice. In response, they reconstituted their faith around the Pentateuch, building a vast "superstructure of commentary" upon it that eventually became codified as the Talmud.

Over time, this extensive body of rabbinical commentary essentially absorbed the Torah and nullified the direct, accessible word of God for the common person. The interpretations within the Talmud were incredibly complex, deduced from the Pentateuch and strung together through endless rabbinical debates. Because there was no scientific framework to adjudicate between differing authorities, the commentary sometimes even contradicted the original texts it was meant to explain.

This shift created a rigid hierarchy of knowledge. An ordinary Jew could no longer independently appeal to or interpret the sacred writ; they required the explicit permission and guidance of the rabbis who controlled the Talmudic lore.

Furthermore, the primacy of rabbinic interpretation led to a radical shift in how the law was applied. The new rendering of the law "certainly did violence to the words of Scripture," to the point where a common saying emerged that the Talmud permitted whatever the Torah explicitly forbade. By monopolizing the interpretation of the law and substituting complex dialectic for straightforward scripture, the rabbis effectively kept the Jewish masses in "blind obedience to rabbinic control," ensuring that their own authority over the community remained absolute.

What are the differences between the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud.

The provided sources offer very limited information regarding the specific differences between the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The primary distinction mentioned in the text concerns their lasting historical impact and prominence:

• Historical Prominence: It was the Babylonian Talmud, rather than the Jerusalem Talmud, that ultimately became "the fundamental possession of the Jewish race, its life's breath, its very soul". For over a thousand years, it defined Jewish life and served as the absolute basis of reality for the dispersed Jewish nation.
  
  
• Codification of the Babylonian Talmud: The Babylonian Talmud was codified during the fifth century by the Amora'im, a process that began with Rabbi Ashi (who died in 427) and culminated in the work of Rabbi Abina (who died in 499).
  
  
• Content: The Babylonian Talmud is specifically noted for containing narratives that mock claims of Jesus's virgin birth and challenge his status as the Messiah. Scholars assert that these passages betray a "remarkably high level of familiarity with the Gospels" and represent a deliberate, sophisticated anti-Christian polemic.

The provided sources do not contain further details comparing the structure, origin, or theological differences between the two texts.

Please note that information outside of your sources indicates that the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled earlier (around the 4th century) in the Land of Israel and is generally shorter, whereas the Babylonian Talmud was compiled in the academies of Babylon, is much more extensive, and became the universally authoritative text for Jewish law. You may want to independently verify this outside information if you require a more comprehensive comparison. 

Can you elaborate on how the rabbinical control of the Jews that arose following the destruction of the temple in 70AD continued over the centuries and what eroded this control in the modern era (from say the 18th century onwards).

Following the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Jewish people reconstituted their faith around the compilation of rabbinical commentary known as the Talmud. For more than a thousand years, the Talmud represented the "only true reality" for the dispersed Jewish nation. This text preserved their religious and moral life but did so by imposing strict separation and complete rabbinic control over the Jewish masses, nullifying their direct access to the scriptures. Institutionally, this control was exercised through the Kahal, an autonomous Jewish legal system that allowed Jewish elites and rabbis to adjudicate disputes internally and maintain tight, often tyrannical, control over their communities without recourse to Christian legal systems.

This rigid rabbinical hegemony remained largely intact until the 18th century, when it was eroded by the advent of the Jewish Enlightenment, or Haskalah, and the subsequent political emancipation of the Jews.

The Impact of the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) The primary catalyst for the dissolution of rabbinic control was the German-Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. In 18th-century Germany, Mendelssohn initiated an Enlightenment movement that "shattered the protective shell of orthodoxy and opened the way to acquaintance with Western culture". Through his influence, "the reign of the Talmud and the rabbis was broken".

As the Enlightenment spread, young Jews began reading secular philosophers like Voltaire and Kant, attempting to adjust Judaism to the modern world. Intellectuals like Salomon Maimon fled the shtetls of the East for Berlin, deliberately abandoning what they saw as "Talmudic darkness". Maimon and others vehemently rejected the rabbis' "mind-killing business" of endless hair-splitting and quibbling, which they felt built "castles in the air" with no grounding in reality. The traditional authority of the rabbis came to be viewed by enlightened Jews as "rabbinical mumbo jumbo" and a parasitic anomaly.

Political Emancipation and State Intervention The breakdown of rabbinic control was accelerated by the intervention of the modern state. During the French Revolution and the conquests of Napoleon, Jews were offered civil emancipation and citizenship. Napoleon's convocation of the "Sanhedrin" in Paris in 1806 was a deliberate effort to usurp the rabbis' authority; he demanded that Jews recognize France as their new "Israel" and transfer their primary allegiance from their religious leaders to the French state.

Similarly, in the Russian Empire, government reformers sought to integrate Jews by intentionally breaking the power of the Kahal. Russian officials recognized that the "Jewish priests, known as Rabbis, hold their people in an unbelievable dependence and forbid them in the name of their faith to read any book other than the Talmud". In 1844, the Russian government officially abolished the Kahal, dividing its functions among local secular governments in a bid to end Jewish isolation. Furthermore, the Russian government established state-run schools for Jewish youth designed specifically to eradicate the "harmful prejudices instilled by the study of Torah".

The Aftermath: From Orthodoxy to Nihilism and Revolution The erosion of rabbinical control had profound and unintended consequences. The Mendelssohnian Enlightenment successfully destroyed Talmudic orthodoxy for many young Jews, but it failed to replace it with a stable religious alternative. Deprived of the all-encompassing worldview of the Talmud, a rising generation of secularized Jews experienced a severe identity crisis.

Having broken the "iron yoke" of the rabbis, these young Jews found themselves alienated from traditional Judaism but largely unassimilated into the Christian cultures around them. The spiritual vacuum left by the eradication of Talmudic law was quickly filled by nihilism and secular messianic politics. Obsessed with universal ideals of brotherhood and equality, this newly emancipated and secularized Jewish intelligentsia took the messianic fervor previously directed by the rabbis and transferred it to radical political movements. Ultimately, the collapse of rabbinic control transformed the marginalized Talmudic student into the vanguard of modern revolutionary socialism and Communism. 

The Simon Bar Kokhba Revolt

I uploaded E. Michael Jones "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" to NotebookLM and then got it to create a report of Simon bar Kokhba. The first report was a little odd with not a single date or year mentioned so I got it to try again. Here is the second attempt:

Statue of Hadrian from the Camp of Legio VI Ferrata, Roman 117-138 AD
with Cave Hideout of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Jewish Early 2nd Century AD

Report on Simon bar Kokhba and the Revolt of 131-135 AD

Simon bar Kokhba led the last great struggle for Jewish national independence against the Roman Empire, a conflict driven by messianic fervor and the political machinations of the Emperor Hadrian. The following details provide the chronological framework and specific exploits regarding the revolt.

Prelude to Revolution: 117–130 AD

The roots of the Bar Kokhba revolt lay in the dashed expectations following the death of the Emperor Trajan in 117 AD.

• False Hopes: Trajan’s successor, Hadrian, initially lacked the brutal will of his predecessors and signaled a willingness to make concessions to the Jews. During peace negotiations, the Jews asked for permission to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, which had been destroyed in 70 AD; to their surprise, Hadrian acceded to this request.
  
  
• Hadrian’s Visit (130 AD): In 130 AD, Hadrian visited Palestine to meet with the Jews. However, the Samaritans convinced him that rebuilding the Temple was a prelude to declaring independence from Rome. Consequently, Hadrian reneged on his promise, allowing a temple only on a different site and on a smaller scale.
  
  
• Aelia Capitolina: When Hadrian left for Egypt, he believed the matter settled: Jerusalem was to be rebuilt as a pagan city named Aelia Capitolina, intended to hasten Jewish assimilation into the Empire.

Preparation and The Rise of the Messiah

Following Hadrian's departure, the Jews began plotting rebellion.

• Sabotage: In a covert military exploit, Jewish armament makers deliberately fashioned weak weapons for the Romans; they designed these weapons to fail in battle, knowing they would soon be using them or facing them in the coming insurrection.
  
  
• The Year 131 AD: The revolt openly began in 131 AD. It was fueled by the belief in the imminent arrival of a messianic king.
  
  
• Messianic Proclamation: Rabbi Akiba acclaimed Simon bar Kokhba as the Messiah. While this verdict was virtually unanimous, there was skepticism; Rabbi Jochanan Ben Torta famously rebuked Akiba, stating, "Sooner shall grass grow from thy chin, Akiba, than that the Messiah will appear". Despite warnings from prophets like Jeremiah not to rebel against the government or hasten the "End of Days," Bar Kokhba led the people into war.

The War and the Siege of Bethar: 131–134 AD

The conflict was a war of attrition characterized by significant Roman losses and a scorched-earth campaign.

• The Campaign: The Roman general Julius Severus conducted a campaign involving over 50 battles. Eventually, the tide turned against Bar Kokhba; Rabbi Akiba was captured and executed, and Jerusalem was abandoned as strategically indefensible.
  
  
• The Fortress of Bethar: The Jewish forces retreated to the fortress of Bethar. The historian Eusebius records that the siege of Bethar occurred in 134 AD (the 18th year of Hadrian’s reign), roughly two years after the revolt began.
  
  
• Internal Strife: Jewish accounts suggest Bar Kokhba may have caused his own defeat through an act of violence against his own people. Suspecting the pious Eleazar of conniving with Samaritan spies, Bar Kokhba kicked him; Eleazar, whose prayers were believed to be holding off the Romans, died from the blow.

Defeat and Aftermath

The revolt ended in a massacre that decimated the Jewish population of the region.

• Betrayal: The fortress of Bethar ultimately fell not just by force, but by betrayal. Two Samaritan brothers imprisoned within the walls threw a detailed map of the city’s subterranean passages to the Romans.
  
  
• The Massacre: Exploiting the Sabbath, Roman soldiers used the map to infiltrate the city. A massive slaughter ensued, with accounts describing horses wading through blood up to their nostrils and a tide of blood washing bodies out to the sea.
  
  
• Casualties: The historian Dio Cassius claimed that 580,000 Jews were slaughtered, exclusive of those who died from fire and starvation.
  
  
• Execution: Simon bar Kokhba was captured, and his head was brought to Hadrian.
  
  
• The 9th of Ab: Bethar fell on the 9th of Ab, a fateful date in Jewish history that marks the destruction of both the first and second Temples.

Historical Conclusion

The revolt was a catastrophic failure for Jewish national aspirations. Following the defeat, the Roman governor plowed up the Temple Mount and offered sacrifices to Roman gods. This defeat effectively ended Jewish political nationalism and militancy for over a millennium.

This report got me interested in the Samaritans so I asked the following of Gemini's Deep Research:

What does the book have to say about the Samaritans. They seem to have been quite influential in Judea and undermined the Jewish revolt. Try to extract all the information you can find about this group. 

The resulting report was quite detailed (link on Gemini together with sources used). 

The Samaritans and the Bar Kokhba Revolt: Divergence, Survival, and Resurgence in the Second Century CE

I. Introduction: The Fracture of the Israelites

The second century of the Common Era constitutes the definitive watershed in the historical trajectory of the Israelite peoples. While the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by Titus in 70 CE marked a catastrophic rupture in the cultic continuity of Judaism, it was the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–136 CE)—often termed the Second Jewish Revolt—that irrevocably severed the remaining demographic, theological, and social tendrils binding the Jewish and Samaritan communities. To the Roman administrative eye, looking out from the provincial capital of Caesarea Maritima, the Jews and Samaritans might have initially appeared as quarreling siblings of a common Yahwistic lineage: both claimed descent from the patriarchs, both revered Moses, both observed the Sabbath and circumcision, and both possessed a Torah. However, beneath these superficial similarities lay a deep, tectonic divergence that the pressures of the Bar Kokhba revolt would force into the open.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the Samaritan community during this pivotal era. It explores the theological and social mechanisms that differentiated the Shamerim (Samaritans) from the Yehudim (Jews), examines the contentious and often contradictory evidence regarding their role in the uprising of Simon bar Kokhba, and traces the profound demographic and religious transformations that occurred in the revolt’s aftermath. While the Jewish narrative of the second century is one of devastation, depopulation, and the retreat of spiritual life to the academies of the Galilee, the Samaritan trajectory is markedly different. It is a complex narrative of Roman accommodation, religious persecution, and eventually, a demographic and cultural "Golden Age" that flourished in the vacuum left by the decimated Jewish population of Judea.

By analyzing numismatic evidence, archaeological excavations of the Samaritan diaspora, divergent textual traditions of the Pentateuch, and the polemical accounts of Rabbinic and Patristic sources, we can reconstruct the survival strategy of a people who, in the face of imperial Rome and messianic Judaism, chose a third path: the endurance of the "Keepers" on Mount Gerizim.

II. The Architecture of Difference: Samaritan Identity on the Eve of Revolt

To understand the geopolitical and social position of the Samaritans in 132 CE, one must first deconstruct the identity they held in the Roman Near East. The very nomenclature is a battlefield of identity. The term "Samaritan" is an exonym derived from the region of Samaria (Shomron). The community referred to themselves as Shamerim—the "Keepers" or "Observant Ones" of the Law—claiming direct descent from the northern Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh who, in their narrative, were never exiled by the Assyrians in 722 BCE.[1] This internal self-conception stands in diametric opposition to the Jewish polemic, crystallized in 2 Kings 17 and later Rabbinic literature, which labeled them Kutim (Cuthites). This derogatory term asserted they were descendants of foreign pagan settlers brought from Cuthah and other Mesopotamian cities by the Assyrian Empire to replace the exiled Ten Tribes, adopting a syncretistic form of Yahwism to appease the "God of the land".[2, 3]

Anthropological and Social Distinctiveness

By the second century, these dueling narratives had solidified into distinct social realities. While early 20th-century anthropologists attempted to measure physical differences—noting, for instance, differences in cephalic indices and pigmentation between modern Samaritans and Jews—such biological essentialism was less relevant to the ancients than the boundaries of ritual purity and lineage.[4] For the second-century Judean, a Samaritan was a dangerous "other"—close enough to cause ritual pollution through contact (niddah) but distant enough to be suspected of idolatry.

The Rabbinic sages of the Mishnah, compiling their legal traditions in the aftermath of the revolts, struggled with the classification of the Kutim. Were they "proseleytes of lions" (converts out of fear) or genuine monotheists? The social fissures were widened by centuries of political violence. The destruction of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim by the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus in 128 BCE was the primal trauma of Samaritan history, an event that transformed political rivalry into existential hatred.[5, 6] Thus, when Simon bar Kokhba rose to power, he did not appeal to a unified Israelite nation; he spoke to a Jewish populace that viewed the Samaritans as historical enemies who had frequently sided with Seleucid and Roman powers to preserve their own safety.

The Theological Chasm: The Samaritan Pentateuch

The most profound differentiator between the two groups was not merely historical grievance, but Scripture itself. By the second century, the Jewish canon was beginning to stabilize around the tripartite structure of Torah, Prophets (Nevi'im), and Writings (Ketuvim). In contrast, the Samaritans accepted only the Torah (Pentateuch) as canonical, rejecting the prophetic books that centered on the Davidic monarchy and the centrality of Jerusalem.[7]

However, even the shared text of the Torah was a source of division. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) contained approximately 6,000 variations from the Masoretic Text (MT) used by the Jews. While many of these were orthographic or harmonizing edits, others were aggressively theological, specifically designed to legitimize Samaritan sacred geography at the expense of Jerusalem.[8, 9]

The Tenth Commandment and the Altar on Gerizim

The most significant theological alteration appeared in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments). In the Jewish tradition, the commandments focus on the nature of God, the Sabbath, and ethical relations. In the Samaritan Pentateuch, the partition of the commandments is different. The prohibition against other gods is combined with the "I am the Lord" declaration, creating space for a unique Tenth Commandment: the command to build an altar on Mount Gerizim.[10, 11]

The Samaritan text creates a seamless theological logic that was fully operative by the 2nd century:

1. Exodus 20:17 in the SP includes a pastiche of verses from Deuteronomy (11:29, 27:2–7), explicitly commanding the Israelites to set up stones and sacrifice on Mount Gerizim immediately upon entering the land.[10, 12]
2. Deuteronomy 27:4: Where the Masoretic Text instructs the Israelites to build an altar on Mount Ebal (the mountain of curses), the Samaritan text reads Mount Gerizim (the mountain of blessings). Scholars argue this may preserve an original reading altered by Judean scribes to delegitimize the northern cult, or conversely, a Samaritan emendation to secure their claims.[11, 13]

The implications of this textual variance for the Bar Kokhba revolt cannot be overstated. For a devout Samaritan in 132 CE, the Jewish focus on Jerusalem was not merely a political difference; it was a violation of the Tenth Commandment. Mount Zion was a heresy; Gerizim was the "Chosen Place" pre-ordained by Moses. This fundamental theological divergence meant that the messianic aspirations of Bar Kokhba—which were inextricably linked to the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple—held no spiritual validity for the Samaritans. They possessed their own priestly lineage, claiming descent from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas, and viewed the Jewish priesthood as a schismatic line established by Eli at Shiloh.[1]

III. The War of Time: Calendrical Sovereignty and Sabotage

The friction between the communities extended beyond geography to the measurement of time itself. In the ancient world, control over the calendar was control over the sacred. Both groups utilized lunisolar calendars, but their methods of calculation and intercalation (adding leap months) differed, leading to a "War of Time" that played out in the hills of Judea and Samaria.

The Signal Fires and Samaritan Sabotage

In the period preceding the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Jewish Sanhedrin determined the New Moon (Rosh Chodesh) based on eyewitness testimony. Once declared, the news was disseminated to the Diaspora in Babylonia via a chain of signal fires (massu'ot) stretching from the Mount of Olives to Sartaba, and onwards to Grofina, Hauran, and Beth Biltin.[14, 15]

The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 2:2) records a specific act of sabotage attributed to the Samaritans (Kutim) during this period. To confuse the Jewish Diaspora and assert their own calendrical validity, Samaritans lit signal fires on the wrong days. This caused Jews in Babylonia to celebrate festivals like Passover and Yom Kippur on incorrect dates, a chaotic disruption of cultic unity.[14, 16, 17]

This sabotage was not merely a prank; it was a theological assault. The Samaritans possessed their own secret astronomical calculations, guarded by their priestly families, which utilized a different intercalation cycle.[18, 19] While the Jewish calendar eventually adopted the 19-year Metonic cycle, Samaritan tradition relied on a calculation known as the Ishbaa, which was believed to have been handed down from Adam to Noah and then to Moses.[20] The disruption of the signal fires forced the Jewish sages to abandon the system entirely in favor of trusted messengers, a move that slowed communication and further isolated the Jewish center in Jerusalem from its periphery.[21]

This "calendar war" exemplifies the state of relations in the early 2nd century: active, malicious interference and a total lack of mutual trust. It provides the necessary context for understanding why a unified front against Rome was impossible.

IV. The Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–136 CE): A Conflict of Interests

When the Bar Kokhba Revolt erupted in 132 CE, it was driven by specific Jewish grievances: the decision of Emperor Hadrian to refound Jerusalem as the pagan colony Aelia Capitolina and the prohibition of castration (which was interpreted as a ban on circumcision).[22, 23, 24] The revolt was fueled by a fierce messianic expectation centered on Simon bar Kokhba, whom Rabbi Akiva hailed as the "Star of Jacob" (Num 24:17).[23, 25]

The Question of Samaritan Participation

Historians have long debated the role of the Samaritans in this conflict. Did they join their "brothers" against the Roman oppressor, or did they stand aside?

The Case for Non-Participation

The consensus of modern scholarship, including the extensive work of Menahem Mor, indicates that the Samaritans largely did not support the rebellion.[22, 26] The reasons were structural, theological, and pragmatic:

1. The Goal of the Revolt: The rebellion was explicitly Judeo-centric. Bar Kokhba's coinage featured the facade of the Jerusalem Temple and slogans like "For the Freedom of Jerusalem".[23, 27] No Samaritan would fight and die for the glorification of a rival sanctuary that represented the "Era of Disfavor" (Fanuta). The restoration of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem was, in Samaritan theology, the restoration of a schismatic heresy.
2. Messianic Incompatibility: The Samaritan concept of the Taheb (Restorer)—a prophet like Moses who would restore the tabernacle on Gerizim—did not align with the Davidic, warrior-messiah archetype of Bar Kokhba.[28, 29] Bar Kokhba's claim to be the "Star" was irrelevant to a people who looked to Gerizim.
3. Historical Trauma: The Samaritans had suffered heavily during the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 CE). Josephus records that 11,600 Samaritans were massacred on Mount Gerizim by Vespasian’s troops after they gathered there in a defensive posture.[1] By 132 CE, the appetite for anti-Roman martyrdom, especially for a Jewish cause, was likely non-existent.

Ambiguities in the Historical Record

Despite the logic of non-participation, the historical record contains ambiguities. The Roman historian Cassius Dio notes that "many outside nations... were joining them through eagerness for gain," a phrase some older scholars (like Büchler) interpreted as including Samaritans.[28, 30] However, archaeological evidence contradicts this. While Jewish settlements in Judea show clear destruction layers and "hiding complexes" (underground tunnel systems) dating to the revolt, Samaritan settlements in Samaria do not show the same uniform destruction, nor do they yield Bar Kokhba coinage, suggesting the region remained largely pacified or under Roman control.[31, 32]

The Narrative of Betrayal: The Fall of Bethar

If the Samaritans did not fight, how did they interact with the war? Jewish sources from the period and later Midrashim preserve a bitter memory of Samaritan conduct, depicting them not merely as neutrals, but as active collaborators with Rome.

The most infamous allegation is found in Lamentations Rabbah 2:4, concerning the fall of Bethar, Bar Kokhba’s last stronghold. The Midrash recounts that the Roman siege was failing due to the spiritual protection provided by the prayers of Rabbi Eleazar of Modi'in. A Samaritan (referenced as a Gontite or Cuthite) approached Hadrian and promised to deliver the city. He slipped into Bethar and pretended to whisper treasonous secrets to the Rabbi. When Bar Kokhba saw this, he demanded to know what was said. The Samaritan claimed, "If I tell you, the king [Hadrian] will kill me; if I don't, you will kill me." He then implied a conspiracy. Enraged, Bar Kokhba killed the Rabbi. With the spiritual protection removed, Bethar fell to the Romans.[33, 34]

While this story is legendary, it reflects the deep Jewish conviction that the Samaritans were the "enemy within," the saboteurs of Jewish redemption. Another tradition in the Jerusalem Talmud suggests Samaritans betrayed the secret entrances of caverns where Jewish refugees were hiding, further cementing the narrative of treachery.[26]

V. The Hadrianic Transformation: Persecution and Syncretism

The crushing of the revolt in 135 CE brought the wrath of Rome down upon the entire region. The province was renamed Syria Palaestina to erase the Jewish connection to the land. While the Jews bore the brunt of the punishment—massacres, enslavement, and expulsion from the Jerusalem district—the Samaritans were not spared the heavy hand of Hadrian.

The Samaritan Memory: The Burning of Scrolls

Samaritan Chronicles, such as the Tolidah and the Book of Joshua, do not remember this period as one of alliance with Rome, but as a time of immense suffering. They describe a "Hadrianic persecution" where the Emperor forbade circumcision, destroyed Samaritan synagogues, and burned their sacred scrolls.[29, 35, 36]

According to these chronicles, Hadrian destroyed the lineage of the Samaritan priesthood and prohibited the reading of the Torah. This narrative parallels Jewish accounts of the "Hadrianic decrees" (persecutions), suggesting that the Roman punitive measures following the revolt—or the "scorched earth" policy during it—did not discriminate scrupulously between Circumcised Jews and Circumcised Samaritans.[37, 38] The Romans likely viewed the Samaritans with suspicion due to their shared practices (circumcision, Sabbath, Torah study) and geographic proximity to the rebels.

The Temple of Zeus on Mount Gerizim

The definitive archaeological proof of the complex Samaritan-Roman relationship in this era is the construction of a pagan temple on Mount Gerizim. Numismatic evidence from the mint of Neapolis (modern Nablus) and excavations confirm that Hadrian built a monumental temple to Zeus Hypsistos (Zeus the Most High) on the northern peak of Gerizim (Tell er-Ras) around the mid-2nd century.[5, 39, 40]

Coins from the reign of Antoninus Pius (Hadrian's successor) depict this temple in vivid detail: a colonnaded structure reached by a grand staircase of over 1,500 marble steps rising from the city of Neapolis to the summit.[41, 42]

Table 1: The Temple of Zeus Hypsistos on Mt. Gerizim

Feature	Archaeological/Numismatic Detail
Deity	Zeus Hypsistos (The Most High) / Zeus Xenios [40, 43]
Location	Tell er-Ras (Northern peak of Gerizim) [39, 43]
Access	A monumental staircase of ~1,500 steps from Neapolis [5, 41]
Imagery	Depicted on coins of Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE) and Philip the Arab [42]
Significance	Syncretism of Samaritan "Most High" worship with Roman Imperial cult

Theological Implications:

The dedication to Zeus Hypsistos was likely a calculated Roman attempt at syncretism. By using the epithet "Most High" (Hypsistos), Hadrian may have intended to merge the Samaritan worship of YHWH with the Roman pantheon, creating a cult that was acceptable to the empire yet familiar to the locals.[40] For the strict "Keepers," however, this was a desecration. Unlike the Jews, who were banned from entering their holy city (Aelia Capitolina), Samaritans continued to live in Neapolis and worship near the summit, though they were forced to conduct their sacrifices at a lower site to avoid the pagan precinct.[44, 45] This forced proximity to paganism necessitated a strong internal theology to resist assimilation.

VI. Post-Revolt Demographics: The Samaritan Resurgence

The demographic consequences of the Bar Kokhba revolt were catastrophic for the Jews. Cassius Dio reports that 580,000 Jews were killed, and 985 villages were destroyed.[35, 46] Those who survived were enslaved in such numbers that the price of slaves in the Hebron market collapsed to the price of a horse.[47, 48] Judea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants, who either fled to the Galilee or were dispersed into the Diaspora.

This "emptying" of Judea created a vacuum that the Samaritans filled, initiating what historians identify as a Samaritan demographic "Golden Age."

The Expansion into the Coastal Plain

In the decades following 135 CE, the Samaritan population exploded outward from their heartland in Samaria. Archaeological evidence from the late 2nd to 4th centuries shows a massive expansion of Samaritan settlement into areas that were formerly Jewish or mixed.[32, 49]

1. The Coastal Plain: Excavations have revealed substantial Samaritan communities in coastal cities like Apollonia-Arsuf, Caesarea, and Yavne. Samaritan synagogues, identified by distinct mosaic inscriptions in the Samaritan script and orientation towards Gerizim, appear in these regions.[50, 51] In Apollonia, a bilingual Greek-Samaritan inscription invokes "One God" (Heis Theos), a hallmark of Samaritan Hellenistic epigraphy.[50]
2. The Bet She'an Valley: In the city of Scythopolis (Bet She'an), a major center of Hellenism, a Samaritan community flourished. Inscriptions and a synagogue found there testify to their integration into the urban fabric, living alongside pagans and remaining Jews.[50, 52] A Greek inscription found in the city mentions a Samaritan synagogue leader, indicating their elevated status.[52]
3. Southern Samaria: They moved into the toparchies (districts) of Acrabatene and Thamna, regions that had been staunchly Jewish rebel strongholds during the war.[32]

Insight: While the Jewish nation was traumatized and contracting to the Galilee, the Samaritans—having largely avoided the Roman sword in 135 CE—capitalized on the Pax Romana. They became a dominant force in the central hill country and the coast, numbering perhaps over a million at their peak in the 4th/5th centuries.[20] The "Samaritan Diaspora" within Palestine became a mirror to the Jewish Diaspora, with communities established in Egypt, Rome, and Delos, yet always maintaining the orientation towards Gerizim.[53]

VII. The Golden Age of Baba Rabba and Religious Reform

The demographic and economic recovery eventually led to a religious renaissance, spearheaded by the High Priest Baba Rabba (The Great Father). While the precise dating of his life is difficult (estimates range from the 3rd to 4th century CE), his reforms were clearly a response to the post-Hadrianic reality and the need to structure the expanding Samaritan society.[54, 55]

Baba Rabba is credited with transforming the Samaritan religion from a temple-based cult (which was functionally impossible due to the Zeus temple and Roman restrictions) into a synagogue-based community, paralleling the Jewish evolution of the same period.

Institutional Reforms

1. The Synagogue Network: Baba Rabba is said to have built eight new synagogues across Samaria to serve the expanded populace, including the famous synagogue at the foot of Mount Gerizim.[56]
2. Liturgical Standardization: He commissioned the compilation of the Defter (Book of Common Prayer), integrating the hymns of the poet Amram Darah and the theology of Marqah.[56] This provided a unified liturgy for the scattered communities.
3. Administrative Reform: He divided the Samaritan territory into districts with lay leaders, reducing the absolute power of the priesthood and empowering the laity—a move that paralleled the rise of the Rabbinic class over the Kohanim in Judaism.[54] He also reportedly reopened schools that the Romans had closed, ensuring the transmission of the Samaritan Pentateuch.

The Doctrine of Fanuta

The political survival of the Samaritans under Roman pagan rule necessitated a theological framework to explain their reality: living under the boot of the "Kingdom of Esau" (Rome) while holding the "True Law." This period saw the crystallization of the concept of Fanuta.

Samaritan theology divides history into two epochs:

• Rahuta (Divine Favor): The period from Moses to the priest Eli, when the Divine Presence (Shekhinah) dwelt on Gerizim.
• Fanuta (Divine Disfavor/Hiding): The period beginning with Eli’s schism (moving the sanctuary to Shiloh) and continuing through the present.[29, 57]

The Hadrianic era reinforced the Fanuta. The construction of the Temple of Zeus on their holy mountain was the ultimate manifestation of God hiding His face. Yet, this theology offered hope: in the End of Days, the Taheb (Restorer)—a prophet like Moses—would come to restore the Rahuta, destroy the pagan idols, and reveal the hidden vessels of the Tabernacle buried on Gerizim.[29] This eschatology allowed the community to endure the humiliation of the Zeus temple without abandoning their faith, viewing their suffering as a temporary, divinely ordained test.

VIII. Conclusion: Two Israels, One Land

The Bar Kokhba Revolt was the crucible that forged the permanent estrangement of Jews and Samaritans. For the Jews, the revolt was a tragic, messianic last stand that ended in exile and the destruction of Judea. For the Samaritans, it was a confirmation of their theology: the Jews were pursuing a false messiah for a false city.

The Samaritans did not vanish after Bar Kokhba; they thrived. By navigating the dangerous currents of Roman rule—sometimes suffering, sometimes accommodating—they emerged from the 2nd century as a robust, expanding civilization. They possessed a defined scripture (the Samaritan Pentateuch), a systematized theology of "Divine Hiding" (Fanuta), and a demographic reach that extended from the mountains of Samaria to the Mediterranean coast.

The ultimate tragedy of the relationship is captured in the divergent memories of Hadrian. To the Jews, he was the bone-crushing destroyer of Betar and the eraser of the name Judea. To the Samaritans, he was the builder of the abomination on Gerizim, yet his reign inadvertently cleared the land for a Samaritan resurgence. In the shadow of Rome, the "Keepers" of the Law found a way to keep their identity alive, distinct and defiant, separate from their Jewish brethren forever.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Jews and Samaritans in the 2nd Century CE

Feature	Jewish Community (Judea/Galilee)	Samaritan Community (Samaria/Coast)
Status after 135 CE	Decimated, enslaved, banned from Jerusalem. Center moves to Galilee.	Survivors expand into "empty" Judean lands and coastal cities. Population grows.
Role in Revolt	Instigators and participants. Messianic leadership under Bar Kokhba.	Non-participants or hostile to rebels. Accused of betrayal by Jewish sources.
Holy Site Status	Jerusalem Temple destroyed (70 CE), replaced by Temple of Jupiter (135 CE).	Mt. Gerizim Temple long destroyed (128 BCE), site occupied by Temple of Zeus Hypsistos (c. 135 CE).
Scripture	Canonizing Oral Law (Mishnah). Textual fluidity ending (Masoretic).	Rejected Oral Law. Canonized Samaritan Pentateuch with Gerizim commandments.
Messianism	Davidic, warrior-king (Bar Kokhba).	Mosaic, priestly restorer (Taheb).
Calendar	Signal fires abandoned for messengers due to Samaritan interference.	Secret priestly calculation (Ishbaa).

Moviedom

For me, movies are becoming increasingly unwatchable. Take for instance, my latest attempt that involved "Knock at the Cabin" with screenplay by M. Night Shyamalan and starring Dave Bautista among others. It involved a family consisting of two fathers and an eight year old girl of Chinese ethnicity. This frontal assault on the family by the movie industry is nowadays relentless and gathering momentum. The intent is to redefine the family so that children being raised by two fathers or two mothers is just as acceptable as being raised by the traditional father and mother. 

At the point where the happy parents were picking their baby up from the hospital, I turned the movie off. There's obviously a quota now that movie studios have to adhere to and this involves showing a certain percentage of families in movies as comprising same sex couples. I don't know what the percentage is but it seems sizable. 

Episode 3 of "The Last of Us" featured an entire episode depicting the relationship between two gay guys from start to finish over the course of many years. It bore no relationship to the plot of the story that effectively was put on hold at the end of episode 2 and restarted with episode 4. It was as if the producers used that entire episode to fulfill their quota so that they get on with the story.

While one wonders who really wants to see two bearded men kissing, the real issue is that this plot element was clearly injected into the story line to fulfill a quota. The quota is not only about the makeup of families and the sexual orientation of individuals, it involves the depiction of minorities. In the case of North America, this means a certain percentage of actors need to be black, Asian, Hispanic etc. The recent backlash against the BAFTA winners being almost exclusively white shows that the pressure is on to make awards conform to this quota system as well.

Film makers are under pressure to meet these standards or face the financial consequences. It's similar to the pressure being applied to businesses to adhere to ESG standards. It's all to do with a very small minority of people with inordinate influence deciding what is best for the vast majority of humanity. The sad fact is that this majority is easily lead. I remember watching Sunday Bloody Sunday in the cinema fifty years and the audience groaning in unison at the sight of Peter Finch kissing his male lover.

Most people have little idea of the battle that was fought between Hollywood and the Catholic Church regarding sexual content in movies. It's no secret that Jews run Hollywood, although it's really only acceptable to say so this if you're a Jew. It's also no secret that the Jews pioneered the porn industry. From the early days of Hollywood, the movie moguls were keen to add prurient content to their movies but the Catholic bishops, especially in cities like Boston, threatened a boycott and the moguls caved in. More details of this struggle can be read in "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" by E. Michael Jones.

This restraint that had been forced upon Hollywood fell apart in the mid-sixties as Catholicism imploded. Excessive violence and disagreeable sexual content increasingly found its way into movies in the late sixties and early seventies. The rot has continued ever since but it's clearly now rotten to the core. You could watch nearly every movie before the mid-sixties with your family and not have them exposed to anything uncomfortable or extreme. That changed as the sixties unfolded.

The main point of this post is that good movies are not made by being forced to adhere to quotas regarding sexual orientation, ethnicity or whatever is deemed necessary by the movie mafia. Film makers should feel free to work with an all white cast of heterosexuals if it suits their purposes and awards should be decided on their merits and not whether they successfully fulfill woke quotas.

BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON

I was surprised today to come across a Catholic priest denouncing the mainstream narrative regarding the Holocaust. Here is a link to the video on BitChute. The priest's name is Bishop Richard Williamson and the text accompanying the video provides some brief details regarding him:

Richard Nelson Williamson (born 8 March 1940) is an English traditionalist bishop formerly in communion with the Catholic Church who opposes the changes in the church brought about by the Second Vatican Council. He was originally a member of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). He was subsequently excommunicated; this was lifted in 2009. Williamson was convicted in German courts of denying the Holocaust and incitement related to those views. He incurred a latae sententiae excommunication in 2015 for consecrating a bishop without the pope's approval. Due to other actions, Williamson was expelled from the SSPX in 2012.

The text is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article about him. In that article we learn that "Williamson, originally an Anglican, was received into the Catholic Church in 1971" and that "Williamson is fluent in English, French, German and Spanish". 

I've discovered that E. Michael Jones has written a book titled "L'affaire Williamson: The Catholic Church and Holocaust Denial" that is available on Amazon. The description of the book is as follows:

Within minutes of the leaking on the internet of the announcement that the Catholic Church was going to lift the excommunications of four Society of St. Pius X bishops, reports that one, Bishop Richard Williamson, was a “Holocaust denier” began circulating on the web as well. These reports relied on an interview of the bishop conducted months before in Germany but scheduled to be broadcast the following day on Swedish TV.

Despite Vatican efforts, news reports kept confusing the Church’s focus on the sin of schism with the media world’s focus on the unforgivable secular sins, i.e., “Holocaust denial” and anti-Semitism. Why?

Holocaust denial is another word for Jewish control of discourse, in particular historical discourse about World War II. A historian who publishes something a powerful Jew, which is to say a Jew with powerful backers, dislikes, will be punished. If he lives by writing books, as David Irving did, the Deborah Lipstadt brigade will get him blacklisted in the publishing industry. If he is a professor, the big Jews will try to get him fired, as Deborah Lipstadt did in the case of Professor David O’Connell.

Typical is the case of Norman Finkelstein, who was fired from his job at DePaul University in Chicago. Finkelstein wrote a devastating critique of Alan Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel so Dershowitz set out to destroy Finkelstein’s career. The fact that Finkelstein was a Jew didn’t matter. The big Jews, in this case Dershowitz, decide who is to live and who is to die in academe and publishing.

In L'affaire Williamson: The Catholic Church and Holocaust Denial, E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, describes and defies the artificial rules that control discourse, exposing fissions within society and the Church.

E. Michael Jones

King Louis IX

An article that has been getting some traction in the news lately, amid the general madness having taken over the United States, concerns the city of St. Louis that was named after King Louis IX of France. Here is an excerpt from an article in The Jerusalem Post:

Muslims, Jews petition to remove statue of St. Louis’ crusader namesake

St. Louis is named after King Louis IX, the only French King to be canonized by the Catholic Church, who is considered by the church to be a model Christian monarch. 

King Louis IX was also a notorious antisemite. He oversaw one of the infamous medieval disputations, in which rabbis were forced to debate with Christians the merits of Judaism, and the subsequent burning of 12,000 copies of the Talmud in 1243. He required Jews to wear badges so they can be easily identified, and he outlawed banking, which led to the expulsion of many Jews from France and the confiscation of their property. 

The funds that Louis IX confiscated went towards his two crusades, in 1248 and 1270, to fight Islamic kingdoms for control over the Land of Israel. 

Louis IX is honored with the entire city of St. Louis being named after him, as well as a statue in Forest Park, the city's major park, atop Art Hill overlooking the city. Umar Lee and Moji Sidiqi, of Muslims for a Greater St. Louis, together with Israeli-American restauranteur Ben Poremba want to change that and have launched a petition. 

"For those unfamiliar with King Louis IX,” the petition calling to change St. Louis’ name reads, “he was a rabid antisemite who spearheaded many persecutions against the Jewish people. Centuries later, Nazi Germany gained inspiration and ideas from Louis IX as they embarked on a campaign of murderous genocide against the Jewish people. Louis IX was also vehemently Islamophobic and led a murderous crusade against Muslims which ultimately cost him his life.” 

The petition calls the city’s name “outright disrespect” to its Jewish and Muslim communities.

Having read E. Michael Jones "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit", an historical overview of Jewish involvement in revolutionary movements, I thought I'd look back at what he had to say about this notorious and rabid antisemite. Before I do, I'd like to say that in this post, I'm only addressing the Jewish and not the Muslim complaints. It's made clear in the article that the Muslim involvement came as a consequence of Jewish activism. To quote:

Lee told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that he became aware of the statue’s history when Rabbi Hershey Novack of the Chabad on Campus at St. Louis' Washington University held a Tisha B'Av gathering by the Louis IX statue to remember the atrocities he wrought on Jews of France. 

As mentioned earlier, Lee is a member of Muslims for a Greater St. Louis. It's not surprising to see that Chabad-Lubavitch is busy stirring up trouble. So what did King Louis IX get up to concerning the Jews of France? Here is an excerpt from E. Michael Jones' book:

It took a while for the Church to digest what it had learned about the Talmud, but Pope Gregory's letter to the bishop of Paris indicated "the attack on the Talmud heralded a change in the Church's basic attitude toward Judaism." Three years later, Bishop Eudes's legantine commission reported that the Talmud was "full of innumerable errors, abuses, blasphemies and wickedness such as arouse shame in those that speak of them and horrify the hearer." 

The books were so horrifying that they "cannot be tolerated in the name of God without injury to the Christian Faith."'74 In a letter to St. Louis IX, King of France, in May 1244, Innocent IV, Gregory's successor, drew certain conclusions. "The wicked perfidy of the Jews," he said, "does not properly heed the fact that Christian piety received them and patiently allows them to live in Christendom through pity only. Instead, it commits such grave sins that are stupefying to those who hear of them and horrible to those who tell of them.'' The Talmud's blasphemies and its injunctions about defrauding the unsuspecting goyim threatened the conditions under which Jews were tolerated. They called for rethinking the whole social compact. 

Upset by the harm that it was doing, St. Louis called a conference on the Talmud. In June 1240, Nicholas Donin had an extended debate with Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph of Paris under royal auspices and presided over by the queen mother, Blanche of Castile. One Jewish commentator claims "the entire event epitomized the declining status of Jews in that century and their transformation in Christian minds into little more than embodiments of blasphemous doctrine.'' 

The rabbi was dumbfounded that he had to defend Jewish esoteric writings in a hostile environment. Nothing like this had ever happened before. Rabbi Yehiel, lacking any precedent for conducting a disputation of this sort, didn't know how to respond. When asked whether it were true that the Talmud claimed "Jesus was condemned to an eternity in hell, immersed in 'boiling excrement'" and Mary, his mother, was a whore, the Rabbi could only respond, yes, those passages were in the Talmud, but they did not refer to "that" Jesus or "that" Mary. " 

Not every Louis born in France is the king of France," Yehiel maintained, giving new meaning to the term "chutzpah." "Has it not happened," he continued, "that two men were born in the same city, had the same name, and died in the same manner? There are many such cases.'' One Jewish historian referred to Rabbi Yehiel's denial as the birth of Jewish humor. 

A Christian account of the debate, however, failed to see the humor in his statement. "Concerning this Jesus, he confessed that he was born out of adultery and that he is punished in hell in boiling excrement and that he lived at the time of Titus." But Rabbi Yehiel said, "this Jesus is different from our Jesus. However, he is unable to say who he was, whence it is clear that he lied."

It was only in the 13th century, when Jewish rabbis who had converted to Christianity spread the word, that the Catholic Church came to know about the hateful contents of the Talmud. Naturally, the Catholic hierarchy was upset and so the burning of the Talmud has to be seen in that light. Of course, there's no mention of this historical context nor of the Talmudic content that caused such offence to the Catholic Church.

Chabad-Lubavitch, the organisation to which Rabbi Hershey Novack belongs, is unapologetic in its belief that Jews are superior to the rest of humanity (referred to as goyim) and that the highest purpose in life that a goy can aspire to is to serve the Jews.  A belief in Jewish Supremicism is central. It's ironic that a member of Chabad-Lubavitch should be criticising Louis IX when this organisation wholeheartedly embraces the spirit of the Talmud and its utter disdain for the goyim. Then again its members have no shame. Their self-professed goal is to rule the world by any means possible and fomenting social unrest is a key tactic. 

ANIARA

It was only when watching 2017's " Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" that I realised how anti-Catholic Hollywood had become. The Jewish-controlled media is saturated with concerns about anti-Semitism but there is nary a mention made of instances of anti-Catholicism. In the movie just mentioned, a Catholic priest comes to visit the character played by Frances McDormand and she launches into a foul-mouthed tirade. It is described in Catholic News Service as follows:

Earlier in the proceedings, a priest visits Mildred (a recently lapsed Catholic) to remonstrate with her about the strife her billboards are causing. In response, she launches into a tirade in which she compares Catholic clergymen to the members of violent street gangs and applies the principle of collective guilt to claim that even good priests are complicit in their evil peers' crimes against children. 

This cruel and unreasonable denunciation will rightly outrage the sensibilities of Catholic moviegoers. Add to it the picture's ill-advised treatment of suicide and a climactic sequence that toys with justifying murderous revenge -- though the outcome is left unclear -- and the verdict on this aesthetically accomplished piece of cinema must be that it is spiritually unfit for all. 

The film contains anti-Catholicism, a skewed view of suicide, an ambivalent treatment of vigilantism, some violence with brief gore, numerous profanities and at least one milder oath as well as pervasive rough and frequent crude language. The Catholic News Service classification is O, morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R, restricted with under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Mildred's outburst is clearly inserted for shock value as it does not add to the storyline. The relationship between Hollywood and the Catholic Church goes back a long way, as I discovered when reading E. Michael Jones' book "The Jewish Revolutionary Influence and its Impact on World History". To quote from page 776 of that book:

The outcry against Hollywood's subversion of morals was so great that federal, state and local legislation was proposed as an antidote. To head off legislation, Hollywood's Jews in 1934 entered into a voluntary agreement, the Production Code, with the Legion of Decency, a Catholic operation. The Catholics had forced the issue by organising boycotts when the film industry was reeling. 

Henry Ford admired Catholic resistance to Jewish Hollywood, even before imposition of the Code. Unlike Protestant clergymen who were regularly ridiculed in Hollywood films, "The Catholic clergy very soon made themselves felt in opposition to this abuse of their priestly dignity, and as a result of their vigorous resentment the Jew climbed down. You now never see a priest made light of on the screen. But the Protestant clergyman is still the elongated, snivelling, bilious hypocrite of anti-Christian caricatures."

How things have changed. The Production Code terminated in 1965. Joe Breen, who oversaw the Production Code for 20 years had this to say about the Hollywood elite (again I'm quoting from page 776 of the book):

They are simply a rotten bunch of vile people with no respect for anything beyond the making of money.... Here [in Hollywood] we have Paganism rampant and in its most virulent form. Drunkenness and debauchery are commonplace. Sexual perversion is rampant,'" any number of our directors and stars are perverts.... These Jews seem to think of nothing but moneymaking and sexual indulgence. The vilest kind of sin is a common indulgence hereabouts and the men and women who engage in this sort of business are the men and women who decide what the film fare of the nation is to be. They and they alone make the decision. Ninety-five percent of these folks are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They are, probably, the scum of the earth.

Strong words and probably more true today than it was then but, oddly enough considering today's sensitivities, the Hollywood barons of the time didn't regard Joe Breen as an anti-Semite:

Joe Breen, who had railed against the immorality of the Hollywood Jews, had learned from them, and they from him. They would not have asked him to run RKO Pictures if he had been truly anti-Semitic. They would not have flown him here and there. They would not have invited him into their homes. And they certainly would not have given him an Academy Award. He had convictions. He was a fighter, but he didn't hate.

This of course is the point. One can criticise Jewish control of Hollywood or the media or American foreign policy without hating Jews. Of course, organisations like the Anti Defamation League or ADL view any explicit mention of Jewish control or any criticism of Jews or Israel as anti-Semiticism. Imagine the outcry if Mildred launched into a similar tirade against Rabbinical Judaism. Frances McDormand, who comes from a Protestant background, is married to Joel Coen (one half of the famous Coen brothers). 

Lately I've grown increasingly disillusioned with Hollywood movies, Netflix series and the like and so last night I chose to watch a Swedish science fiction movie, Aniara. However, it was more of the same Hollywood crap. To quote from a Rotten Tomatoes review:

ANIARA is the story of one of the many spaceships used for transporting Earth's fleeing population to their new home-planet Mars. But just as the ship leaves the destroyed Earth, she collides with space junk and is thrown off her course. The passengers slowly realize that they'll never be able to return. The protagonist, MR, runs a room where a sentient computer allows humans to experience near-spiritual memories of the Earth. As the ship drifts further into the endless void more and more passengers are in need of MRs services. Pressure builds on MR as she is the only one who can keep the growing insanity and lethal depression at bay. In Aniara's inexorable journey towards destruction there is a warning that cannot be emphasised enough. There's only one Earth. It's time to take responsibility for our actions.

In short, more propaganda to support the Global Warming Alarmists who believe that humanity is headed for disaster because of uncontrolled carbon dioxide emissions. The protagonist also gets involved in a lesbian relationship and her lover becomes pregnant after a group sex orgy. Together they raise the resulting infant although it doesn't end well. Again more propaganda, this time in support of the LBGT agenda that disparages the cliché of a mother and a father as being so yesterday and proposes that mother and mother or father and father are equally viable options. It seems that Hollywood has infected the entire world.

The Star Kicker Logo

I was watching a YouTube video of Dire Straits performing "Sultans of Swing" in 1978 on a BBC show called "The Old Grey Whistle Test". According to Wikipedia:

The Old Grey Whistle Test (usually abbreviated to Whistle Test or OGWT) was a British television music show. It was commissioned by David Attenborough and aired on BBC2 from 1971 to 1988. It took over the BBC2 late night slot from Disco 2, which ran between September 1970 and July 1971, while continuing to feature non-chart music. The show was devised by BBC producer Rowan Ayers. The original producer, involved in an executive capacity throughout the show's entire history, was Michael Appleton. According to presenter Bob Harris, the programme derived its name from a Tin Pan Alley phrase from years before. When they got the first pressing of a record they would play it to people they called the old greys – doormen in grey suits. Any song they could remember and whistle, having heard it just once or twice, had passed the old grey whistle test.

As the group was performing, I noticed an illuminated picture in the background that I've since discovered is the so-called Star kicker Logo. Again to quote from Wikipedia:

The original opening credits were played over a naked woman, painted in green, dancing to Santana's Jingo. When Richard Williams was replaced by 'Whispering' Bob Harris, the series' opening titles theme was changed to the now more famous animation of a male figure made up of stars (known as the 'Star Kicker') dancing. The programme's title music, with its harmonica theme, was a track called "Stone Fox Chase" by a Nashville band, Area Code 615. 

Figure 1 shows a T-shirt with the logo:

Figure 1

To me it looks like someone kicking a cross rather than a star, making it distinctly anti-Christian in character. However, searches thus far haven't revealed anybody making that accusation. There is this BBC article from the 5th of September 2010 titled "Cardinal: BBC biased against Christianity" and to quote:

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has accused the BBC of "institutional bias" against Christianity. Cardinal Keith O'Brien said that mainstream Christian views had been marginalised by the corporation. He also said a forthcoming BBC documentary about the Pope's visit, would be a "hatchet job". A spokeswoman for the BBC said the corporation refuted the allegations "absolutely". In an interview with the Sunday Times, Cardinal O'Brien said: "(Our) detailed research into BBC news coverage of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, together with a systematic analysis of output by the Catholic Church, has revealed a consistent anti-Christian institutional bias. "This week the BBC's director-general admitted that the corporation had displayed massive bias in its political coverage throughout the 1980s, acknowledging the existence of an institutional political bias." The cardinal said that senior news managers had admitted to the Catholic Church that a "radically secular mindset and socially liberal mindset" pervaded newsrooms. He added: "This is utterly at odds with wider public attitudes and sadly taints BBC news and current affairs coverage of religious issues, particularly matters of Christian belief." The cardinal also voiced concern that a forthcoming BBC documentary titled Benedict - Trials of a Pope will be a "hatchet job" on the Vatican. It covers Catholic abuse scandals and will be shown on 15 September, the eve of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Scotland. In response, a spokeswoman for the BBC said: "The BBC's news and current affairs coverage of any subject is approached in an objective and impartial way reflecting the different sides of the debate. "BBC news and current affairs has a dedicated religion correspondent, and works closely with BBC Religion, ensuring topical religious and ethical affairs stories are featured across all BBC networks."

Given the Jewish influence over mass media, I think the Cardinal's accusations are definitely justified. Whether there was deliberate intent to "put the boot" into Christianity by the introduction of this logo in the early 70's is hard to gauge now. I must confess that at first I thought Mark Knopfler had chosen the background and I was naturally suspicious because to quote from Wikipedia yet again:

Mark Freuder Knopfler was born on 12 August 1949 in Glasgow, Scotland, to an English mother, Louisa Mary (née Laidler), and a Hungarian father, Erwin Knopfler. His mother was a teacher and his father was an architect and a chess player whose anti-fascist sympathies and Jewish parentage forced him to flee from his native Hungary in 1939. Knopfler later described his father as a Marxist agnostic.

The Marxist oriented Jews are notoriously anti-Christian and I thought the father might have passed this on to the son. Of course, I now know this wasn't the case but the suspicion set me off on an investigation of what the logo meant. I'm primed for suspicion at the moment because I'm reaching page 1000 of E. Michael Jones's "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit". The section of the book that I'm currently reading is dealing with the 1960's and the effect this spirit had on that decade. Figure 2 shows the book cover.

Figure 2

A musical program like "The Old Grey Whistle Test" provided a wonderful opportunity to erode youthful morals by suggesting it's time to kick away old religious baggage. Decades later, the attack on morality via mainstream music and musical performances has intensified nauseating proportions. Figure 3 shows Kesha performing with an inverted cross with commentary from this source:

Sadly inverted crosses are becoming commonplace in popular culture, often also associated with darkness in other ways. Where once they may have been used for shock value and rebellion, they are now becoming a new norm in fashion accessories as society moves further and further away from an understanding of spiritual values.

Figure 3

So the Star Kicker logo perhaps represents an early attack on Christian morals and values. An attack that has only gathered momentum over the following decades.