October 12, 2024

1. Jewish History

I’d like to continue my summary of Jewish history. Here’s what I’ve discussed so far:

A. Expulsion from Spain

Cecil Roth says that Jews in Spain enjoyed a better quality-of-life than Jews in other European countries; “life and property were generally safe.”1 Below is a synagogue built in Toledo in the 1350s.


photo by Windwhistler

The synagogue was “an annex of the palace of Samuel HaLevi, treasurer to King Peter of Castile.” The King became jealous of his Jewish treasurer’s wealth, and in 1360, the treasurer died under torture. In general, the King was on good terms with his Jewish subjects, and when the King’s power was challenged by a rival, Henry II, the Jews fought for the King. But Henry II prevailed and slew Peter with his own hands. Since the Jews had supported Peter, Henry treated the Jews roughly.

The next king of Castile, John I, ascended the throne in 1379. Leading Jews met with him, and asked permission to execute a member of the Jewish community (Jews had jurisdiction over their own people). The young king agreed, not knowing that they meant to execute the king’s treasurer. When the King found out that his treasurer had been executed, he was furious at the Jews.

Easter was always the season when anti-Semitic passions ran high. At Easter 1391, anti-Jewish riots began, and soon spread throughout the Iberian Peninsula. “In place after place the entire community was exterminated. The synagogues, which had been the pride of Spanish Jewry, were turned into churches.” Many Jews converted to Christianity, to save their lives; “thousands accepted baptism en masse in order to escape death.... It was a phenomenon unique in the whole course of Jewish history.”

Spain now had a large community of conversos; they were called “New Christians” or “Marranos.” A few conversos became Catholic prelates, but for the majority, baptism didn’t affect their Jewish beliefs, and they practiced their ancient faith in the privacy of their homes. The goal of the Inquisition became to find these secret Jews, and punish them.

Roth says that, around 1410, there were still some Jews in Spain who didn’t hide their Judaism. An effort was made to push these Jews to convert to Christianity; one of the leaders of this effort was the Bishop of Burgos, an ex-Jew. Various laws were passed to make life difficult for the Jews. “No Jew might assume the title of Don, or carry arms, or go beardless, or even trim his hair in the Christian fashion. Even their costume was regulated, all having to wear long cloaks of the coarsest material.” Another ex-Jew involved in the conversion effort was Mestre Geronimo de Santa Fé, “acrostically nicknamed” Megadef (the blasphemer) by his “former co-religionists.”

As a result of these conversion efforts, the number of “open Jews” continued to dwindle. Many Spanish Jews practiced Christianity in public, Judaism in private; they attended mass and confession like other Christians, while following Jewish rituals at home.

They kept the Sabbath so far as lay in their power [Roth writes]; and from a height overlooking any city, it was possible to see how many chimneys were smokeless on that day.1B The more punctilious would eat meat prepared in the Jewish manner and supplied by a Jewish butcher. The story is actually told of one Marrano who ate unleavened bread throughout the year, on the pretext of ill-health, so as to ensure having it on Passover. Some went so far as to circumcise their children. In most cases they married only amongst themselves. On occasion they furtively frequented the synagogues, for the illumination of which they sent gifts of oil.... They were Jews in all but name, and Christians in nothing but form.

The Marranos flourished in Spain, and became eminent in many fields. “The more wealthy intermarried with the highest nobility of the land. In Aragon there was barely a single aristocratic family, from that of the king himself downwards, which was free from the ‘taint’ of Jewish blood.” Even the first Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada, was “of mixed Christian and Jewish ancestry.”2

By 1450, the success of the Marranos had aroused jealousy, and they were subjected to the sort of attacks that “open Jews” had once been subjected to. In 1473, “Massacres took place in town after town, notwithstanding the organized attempts made by the conversos to defend themselves.” Roth says that the difference between the 1473 massacres and the 1391 massacres is that, in 1391, you could save your life by converting to Christianity, but in 1473, that “avenue of escape” was no longer open.

In 1474, Isabella became Queen of Castile. Her husband, Ferdinand, became King of Aragon in 1479. So the marriage between Ferdinand and Isabella was a step in the eventual unification of Spain. Another step was the conquest of Granada in 1492; Granada was the last Muslim stronghold in Spain; the Reconquista, which had taken some 750 years, was complete. At one time, Spanish Christians needed help from Jews in their struggle with Muslims, but now Spanish Christians felt they didn’t need the Jews.

Meanwhile, the Inquisition was established in 1478 to root out “secret Jews” and other heretics. In 1481, six “secret Jews” were burned alive by the Inquisition; such a burning was called an auto da fé (act of faith). The Inquisition drew up a list of signs by which you could recognize a secret Jew: changing linen on the Sabbath, washing the hands before prayer, calling children by Old Testament names, turning the face to the wall at the moment of death, etc.

Many of those arrested — perhaps 90% — confessed under torture, repented, and saved their lives. Having started in the late 1400s, the Inquisition continued its work until the late 1700s. Roth writes, “During the three centuries during which the Inquisition was active, it is reckoned to have condemned upwards of 375,000 persons, of whom one-tenth suffered at the stake.”

If you suspected that someone was a secret Jew, you were required by law to turn them in. The threat of arrest prompted many Marranos to leave Spain/Portugal. If a Marrano went to the Caribbean, or New England, he could practice Judaism openly, and assume Jewish names for himself and his family. Thus, Duarte Lopez became Aaron Lopez, and his brother José Lopez became Moses Lopez. This didn’t mean, however, that a Marrano who went to the New World was completely safe from the Inquisition; the Inquisition had a branch in Mexico. The Inquisition even arrested Marranos who had entered the Catholic Church, and become nuns, priests, even bishops.2B

The Inquisition targeted “New Christians” who were “secret Jews,” the Inquisition left “open Jews” untouched. So a plan was hatched to expel from Spain these open Jews, these unconverted Jews. In 1492, with Muslims driven from Granada, Ferdinand and Isabella came to the Alhambra in Granada and signed the order of expulsion, known as the Alhambra Decree.

Roth says that two leading Jews had an audience with the monarchs, asked them to cancel the Decree, and offered a large bribe. “As the [monarchs] were pondering over their reply, Torquemada burst from the arras behind the throne, and flung down a crucifix before them. ‘Judas sold his Master for thirty pieces of silver’, he exclaimed, his eyes burning with the glow of fanaticism. ‘Now, you would sell Him again. Here He is; take Him and sell Him!’”

The Decree stood, and while many “open Jews” accepted baptism and became Christians, many “kept the faith” and left the country. Roth estimates that at least 150,000 Jews left Spain. Jews were also expelled from Sardinia and Sicily, since they were possessions of the kingdom of Aragon. “Contemporary chroniclers tell us how, at Palermo, the inhabitants stood on the house-tops to wave farewell to their old neighbors as the boats which bore them disappeared in the distance.”

Some Sicilian Jews went to nearby Naples, but the kingdom of Naples soon fell under the control of Aragon, and Jews were expelled from Naples. Roth says that, as a result of the expulsion, the kingdom of Naples suffered lasting harm to its economy; this is probably true of Spain and Sicily as well.

Many Spanish Jews went to Portugal. At first, Portugal accepted them on a temporary basis, if they paid a tax. In 1496, however, under pressure from Spain, Portugal expelled its Jews. Before the Jews left, the Portuguese king used the harshest methods to force them to convert to Christianity — for example, confining them to a small space without food or water. In the end, Portugal had a large population of conversos, crypto-Jews, “permeating every rank of society, entering into every walk of life, and contributing largely to contemporary Portuguese culture.”

B. Jews in Germany and Italy

So Jews were expelled from England (1290), France (1306), and Spain (1492). Jews remained in Germany and Italy — two countries that were broken into numerous political units, and therefore couldn’t take concerted action. In Italy, Roth says, there may have been some “sympathetic feeling” for Jews, but in Germany, the mob often butchered Jews, “frequently receiving governmental support or sanction.” Roth speaks of, “the waves of unreasoning violence so especially characteristic of Germany.” Perhaps anti-Semitism was more virulent in Germany because in Germany, Jews were “other,” whereas Italy had a more heterogenous population. Or perhaps something in the Italian national character made Italians less prone to anti-Semitism.

The Jewish community in Germany wasn’t flourishing, it was just hanging on. By 1500 AD, Jews had been driven out of most of Germany’s major cities, they lived in “scattered groups,” wherever a local ruler was hospitable. Roth describes German Jews as “a miserable, poverty-stricken community of peddlers and petty usurers, only a handful of privileged ‘Court’ Jews rising here and there above the average and enjoying a certain measure of favor and protection.” Often Jews were expelled from a German territory, then invited back, then expelled again, lootings and massacres taking place from time to time.

One of the German kingdoms was Bohemia, and one of the main cities in Bohemia was Prague. “Over many centuries [Prague] was one of the most important centers of the Jewish world; and it is noteworthy as one of the few places in Europe the Jewish association with which was virtually unbroken from the Dark Ages down to the present time.” Prague’s Jewish cemetery, and medieval synagogue, can still be seen today; the cemetery dates to the 1400s, the synagogue to 1270; the synagogue is “Europe’s oldest active synagogue.”3

Turning to Italy, Roth says that Jews were mostly in central and southern Italy; they had been expelled from southern Italy by the Spanish, when the Spanish controlled southern Italy, around 1500. Many Italian Jews were money-lenders, pawn-brokers. Jews were treated tolerantly in Italy, especially by the Popes. “No Italian rulers shewed themselves better disposed towards the Jews than the Popes of the Renaissance period — particularly those of the House of Medici, Leo X (1513-1521) and Clement VII (1523-1533). Enlightened beyond their time and tolerant to a degree, they regarded even Jewish scholarship as an integral part of that intellectual life of which they were such passionate devotees.”

Some Italian Jews were respected as scholars — experts on Aristotle, or Arab literature, or the Kabbalah. Italian Jews were interested in poetry and philosophy, as Spanish Jews were. Italian Jews were also interested in the Talmud and Hebrew, as German Jews were. So Italian Jews were a sort of hybrid, or compromise, between Spanish and German tendencies.

Between 1440 and 1450, Gutenberg developed the printing press. In 1444, Jews at Avignon hired a “wandering German craftsman” to make a Hebrew font for the new press. The first Hebrew book that has survived was printed in Italy in 1475; it’s Rashi’s commentary on the Bible (Jews seem to have a penchant for commentaries).

Roth says there are 113 Hebrew incunabula (books printed before 1500), of which 93 were printed in Italy. The first Hebrew Bible, “with its full complement of commentaries,” was printed at Venice in 1517. Now, more than ever, Jews became “the people of the book.” Roth writes, “Study, among the Jews, had always been regarded as a sacred duty. The invention of printing gave it an additional impetus: for henceforth every man, however poor, could boast his modest library.”

Around 1515, there was a dispute in Germany about Jewish literature — about whether Hebrew books “contained assertions hostile to the Bible or to Christian teaching.” Jewish literature was defended by a Gentile scholar, Johann von Reuchlin, who had met Pico della Mirandola, and had learned from Pico that there was much wisdom in the Kabbalah. When a German court ruled against von Reuchlin, he appealed to Pope Leo X, who agreed with von Reuchlin. “Hebrew literature thus received official recognition as a mental discipline of independent importance. From this period dates the beginning of the long series of Christian Hebraists.”

The Hebrew language, and Hebrew literature, were becoming part of Western culture. Since the Reformation wanted to return to the primitive purity of Christianity, some Reformers wanted to read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, hence they studied with Rabbis.

* * * * *

When Luther started the Reformation in 1517, he thought that, once Christianity was brought back to its primitive simplicity, and the excrescences of the Catholic Church had been stripped away, the Jews would finally embrace Christianity. “He was deeply disappointed when he discovered that this was not the case; and gradually his attitude towards the Jews changed into one of profound hatred.” Roth says that, in general, Protestants treated Jews as harshly as Catholics treated them.

When Catholics began battling Protestants, Catholics wanted to crush all heretics, including the Jews. So Jews suffered from the attack on “Reformation heresy,” as they had suffered during the attack on the Albigensian heresy (in the 1200s), and during the attack on the Hussite heresy (in the early 1400s). “With the Counter-Reformation, there began a darker age for the Jews of the Catholic world. Gone was the contemptuous tolerance which had distinguished the Popes of the Renaissance.” When the power of the Catholic Church was unchallenged, the Church was somewhat magnanimous toward the Jews, but when the Church was on the defensive, it treated the Jews harshly.

The papacy treated the Jews harshly for the next 250 years, until the time of the French Revolution. Italy had once treated Jews better than NorthernEuropean countries, but now Italy was becoming the home of reaction and repression. Around 1560, at the instigation of Pope Paul IV, twenty-five Jews were burned at the stake in Ancona, Italy. “From the middle of the sixteenth century, Italy, the ancient paradise of Jewish life in Europe, began for the first time to set the example of intolerance; and the Ghetto, in all its narrowness and all its degradation, became a feature of European Jewish life.”

Perhaps one reason why Jews were troubling to Christians is that Jews put doubts in the minds of Christians. Was Christianity really Absolute Truth? Or were there perhaps multiple religions, each with a relative truth?

If you burned Muslims at the stake, you might be attacked by a Muslim nation, such as Turkey. But if you killed Jews, no foreign nation would strike back at you; Jews could be killed with impunity.

2. Israel

A shocking story in the New York Times about Gaza children shot in the head. Here’s a sample paragraph, a quote from an American doctor working in Gaza: “I saw many children. In my experience the gunshot wound was often to the head. Many had non-curable, permanent brain damage. It was almost a daily occurrence to have children arrive at the hospital with gunshot wounds to the head.”

When you read this story, you feel that some Israeli soldiers must be intentionally shooting children. Why? Are they taking revenge for October 7? Are they trying to change demographics, trying to reduce the number of Arab children? Are they trying to motivate Palestinians to move to Jordan (or some other country)?

One could argue that shooting children will make Israel a pariah on the world stage. But Russia is a pariah, yet it seems to function. China deserves to be a pariah, but functions quite well. The pariah nations are starting to outnumber the law-abiding nations. There doesn’t seem to be any legal authority or moral authority capable of holding pariah-nations accountable.

* * * * *

Another story says that the Hamas leader, Sinwar, has started a campaign of suicide bombing. The campaign has already killed several Israeli civilians and soldiers. This will force Israel to separate Jews and Arabs, to treat every Arab as a potential killer; residents of Gaza will be confined to Gaza. If this is “apartheid,” isn’t Sinwar responsible for it?

* * * * *

When Israel was founded, it was predominantly left-wing, now it’s predominantly right-wing. One reason for this is that right-wing Israelis seem to have more children. But now a new factor is emerging: some left-wing Israelis are giving up on Israel, and emigrating. Is this the goal of people like Sinwar — to make life in Israel unpleasant, to prompt Israelis to emigrate? If left-wing Israelis emigrate, will this make Israeli governments more right-wing, more hard-line, and thereby make life for Arabs more difficult?

3. The Road to Serfdom

Trump and Vance often describe Democrats as “Marxist” and “socialist.” Are these fair descriptions? According to the Wall Street Journal, Harris proposes “to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% [from 21%]. She would also raise the top capital-gains tax to roughly 32%, the highest since the 1970s.”

Then there are state taxes. “Add it all up and government would snatch at least 50% of nearly every corporation in America under the Harris tax scheme. That sounds an awful lot like socialism. Everyone with stock — not only the Warren Buffetts of the world — and the more than 70 million Americans with 401(k) plans and millions more with other retirement stock holdings would be made poorer.” Harris needs vast sums of money to finance her vast vote-buying schemes, such as $500 billion to pay off student loans, and untold billions to build houses. Private property is one of the chief bulwarks of freedom, but no property will be safe from the Democratic tax collector.4

Democrats have always loved taxing and spending. If Democrats have their way, we’re going to become increasingly dependent on government, we’re going to be on what Hayek called “the road to serfdom.” People who work hard, support themselves, and pay their student loans, will be punished, their hard-earned savings will be taken away and given to those who don’t want to pay their student loans. The most basic moral principles, such as keeping your promises and paying your debts, will be turned upside-down.

Democrats will pay for everything — your college-education, your housing, your medical care. You won’t be a free man, but your expenses will be covered. You’ll be like a pet, a pet of the Democratic Party.

Democrats want to limit freedom of expression, they want to suppress what they call “hate speech” and “misinformation.” And who will decide what is hate speech? Democrats! What they call “misinformation” sometimes turns out to be true, such as the HunterBiden laptop story. The best way to separate fact from fiction is with open debate, but Democrats want to limit debate, and restrict the First Amendment.

* * * * *

When Biden said he’s going to put a woman of color on the Supreme Court, he’s not going to consider a white person, that’s racism. When he said he’s not going to consider a white person for Vice President, that’s racism. When he didn’t consider a white person for Defense Secretary or JointChiefs Chairman, that’s racism. When he said he wanted whites like himself to become a minority in the U.S., that’s racism.

With anti-white racism coming from the Democratic Party, don’t be surprised if whites flock to the polls to vote against the Democratic Party. “But these white Trump-supporters aren’t nice people, they’re deplorables, they’re Trailer Trash, they’re racists, they’re obsessed with guns and religion. March with us! March with the nice people on the road to serfdom!”

Martin Luther King wanted a color-blind society, where people aren’t judged by their race. But Democrats often judge people by race, and advocate various forms of racial preference. Trump considered Tim Scott, the Black Senator, for Vice President, while Biden began his VicePresident search by saying what race he would exclude; Biden’s search wasn’t color-blind, it was color-based. Many Republicans, myself included, would have been happy with Tim Scott as Vice President — in fact, we’d prefer Scott to Trump, at the top of the ticket. Republicans are closer to King’s vision than Democrats.

Democrats need racism and racial preferences to hold their coalition together. If racism didn’t exist, Democrats would invent it. Morgan Freeman said, “If you want to get rid of racism, stop talking about it,” but Democrats don’t want to get rid of it; they want to keep talking about racism, keep playing the race card. Democrats want to judge people by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character.5

* * * * *

Opposition to the open border is found among all races. Eric Adams, the black mayor of New York City, is an outspoken critic of the open border, he knows that a flood of illegals creates countless problems in New York. In Arizona, Hispanics are drifting toward Trump, and they will probably put Arizona in the Republican column; Hispanics don’t want a flood of illegals. Only Hispanic activists want an open border, because they think it will eventually put them in power; the average Hispanic doesn’t want an open border, and the average African-American doesn’t want an open border. Only a small fraction of Americans want an open border.

Around 1980, I was in a class at Harvard with about 12 students; the teacher was Michael Sandel. One of the students was a Hispanic man. Like most of the students (myself included), he talked rarely. But one day, he said that in 20 years, Hispanics will be a majority in the U.S. This is the dream of Hispanic activists: become a majority, became a dominant power in the country.

But this student’s dream didn’t come true: after 20 years, Hispanics still weren’t a majority, and weren’t in the White House; even after 40 years, the dream didn’t come true. So now Hispanic activists are getting a bit impatient. “I’ve been waiting 40 years, I don’t want to wait any longer. Let’s take bold measures. Let’s throw open the southern border. Surely an open border will put us, at long last, in the White House.”

Whites who support Trump may feel, “We’ve been here for generations, we paid taxes, built roads and parks, fought wars, shed our blood for the country. And now Democrats want to dilute our votes, out-vote us, with people from foreign countries who haven’t paid taxes or fought wars, who didn’t even enter the country legally.” The open border strikes at the heart of the country, strikes at the feeling of cohesion, strikes at the feeling that we’re all Americans.

Even the mainstream media dimly understands this. When Harris was interviewed on 60 Minutes, she was asked, Was it a mistake to allow a flood of undocumented immigrants into the country? Harris couldn’t answer candidly, she couldn’t say that Democrats want to change the country’s demography. Democrats can’t admit what they’re doing; they can’t admit the truth, so they hope they can spin the truth, with the media’s help.

As I study Jewish history, I find this: “In 1934 the Jewish immigration into [Palestine] was about 42,000, and in 1935 reached the record figure of 62,000.” Compare that with the Biden-Harris migrant invasion of 10,000 per day! This invasion is one of the major events in American history, yet the media largely ignores it. It’s impossible to overstate the importance of this invasion. It has no precedent in American history, and probably no precedent in world history; never were so many people brought into a country in order to impact elections. The open border skirts the legal system, thumbs its nose at the Constitution, and makes a mockery of democracy.

* * * * *

In the last issue, I said that Harris had a slight lead. Now it appears that Trump is leading. Perhaps Harris’ lead was due to her debate-performance, but the debate-effect may have worn off. Perhaps voters are cool toward her campaign, which avoids policy and substance, and opts instead for “hope and joy,” and word salads. Perhaps voters think that the Trump years were better than the Biden-Harris years — better in terms of domestic prosperity and international stability.

Democrats are ahead in the race to control the House. Republicans are far ahead in the race for the Senate, and if Trump wins, even a 50-50 Senate would give Republicans control, so I think Republicans might have a 90% chance of controlling the Senate.

© L. James Hammond 2024
feedback
visit Phlit home page
become a patron via Patreon
make a donation via PayPal

Footnotes
1. Cecil Roth, A Short History of the Jewish People (1948), Ch. 21, #1, p. 236 back
1B. Did Jewish law permit the lighting of a lamp before the Sabbath? And did this lamp remain lit through the Sabbath? Roth says, “The Sabbath lamp [was] kindled in every home on Friday evening.” (Ch. 25, #5, p. 308) back
2. Wikipedia back
2B. Roth (1948), Ch. 26, #1, p. 315 back
3. Wikipedia back
4. Elie Kedourie spoke of “private property, the foundation of modern constitutional government and the indispensable safeguard against despotism.” (The Chatham House Version, Ch. 9)

Bill Ackman recently tweeted about why he was supporting Trump. He listed 33 blunders made by Biden-Harris, the first of which was, “open the borders to millions of immigrants who were not screened for their risk to the country.” back

5. An article in the Wall Street Journal says that racial preferences in the military are contributing to a recruiting problem:
“‘We are going to make sure,’ Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in 2021, ‘that our military looks like America and that our leadership looks like what’s in the ranks of the military.’ Over the past three years, the Pentagon steadily erected a diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy. Diversity officers were installed throughout the ranks.... The Air Force issued a memorandum in 2022 setting specific race and sex quotas for officers.... The focus on DEI is driving an especially profound disillusionment among conservative veterans, the military’s longstanding support bedrock. Between 2019 and 2024, the percentage of conservative veterans who would advise a young family member to join the military declined from 88% to 53%.” back