March 21, 2006

From BluWiki

March 21, 2006

Host: Daryl Bradford Smith

Guest: Sahib Mustaqim Bleher [1]

Here are today's lies, misstatements, disinformation, and stupidity:

(1) Today, interestingly, Daryl Bradford Smith mentions me as a "plant" of the Zionists because I send him e-mails that correct him when he lies.

(2) Daryl Bradford Smith claims that "apartheid" in Israel is worse than it ever was in South Africa. I'm sorry: Could blacks in apartheid South Africa vote? No? Well, Arabs in Israel can and do. End of argument.

(3) Once again, Daryl Bradford Smith appeals his listeners to listen to the Benjamin Freedman speech. And then read this: [2]

(4) Daryl Bradford Smith attacks Madonna. What's up with that?

(5) And again, Daryl Bradford Smith says he isn't an anti-Semite. Pull the other one, Daryl; it has bells.

(6) Dr. Bleher talks about his association with David Musa Pidcock and his book Satanic Voices, a sample of which can be seen here: [3] They are presenting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if they are a valid text. They are not.

(7) Bleher mentions that Jews were allowed into the Netherlands because of their ability to lend money on interest. However, the Dutch Reformed Church is a Calvinist Church, and Calvinist Christianity does allow the lending of money on interest. So this explanation is obviously insufficient to answer why there existed in the Netherlands such a large Jewish community. The answer is that the Netherlands was a primary point of refuge for Jews after the Spanish Inquisition. However, Bleher has his facts wrong: These were Sephardic Jews in the Netherlands and not Ashkenazic Jews.

(8) The primary force behind deposing James II and replacing him with William and Mary were not Jews, but rather the Church of England, who worried that James II was too soft on Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, Bleher links these Jews to the beginning of colonialism. I guess he never heard of Jamestown. Further, Queen Mary was a Stuart, i.e., she was Scottish.

(9) Bleher states that there is Judaism that follows the Torah and Judaism that follows the Talmud. This is technically true, but not to the degree he apparently thinks. Really, the distinction is that there are two types of observant Jews: Jews who accept the Oral tradition via the Talmud and those that don't. The latter group are called Karaites, and they are an infinitesimally small percentage of Jews. (Notably, in The Thirteenth Tribe, Arthur Koestler points out that Crimean Karaites can be most directly tied to the Khazars.) The rest of observant Jewry has been affected by the Pharisaic Oral tradition.

(10) Bleher states that the Talmud "has nothing to do with the Torah." Actually, it has everything to do with the Torah. Perhaps Dr. Bleher should check the index of the readily available Soncino edition and see how often the Torah is cited in the Talmud.

(11) Bleher says that the Talmud is "more important than the Torah." Again, this is wrong. Here's a good explanation. A Torah scroll is very valuable and is treated with extreme care. You are not permitted to touch the parchment with anything but a silver pointer, and the punishment for dropping a Torah scroll is forty days of fasting. By contrast, if you drop the Talmud, you need only pick up the book and kiss it and then open it again.

(12) Daryl Bradford Smith plays the goyim card again now and this idiotic idea that the Talmud tells Jewish children that non-Jews are cattle.

(13) Daryl Bradford Smith again talks about the "Frankist New Bohemians" who allegedly set up the Masonic lodges. Remember: He claims this happened in the late eighteenth century, but Benjamin Franklin became a Mason in 1713.

(14) Once again, we get the notion that "Jewish bankers" killed Lincoln and not John Wilkes Booth. I'm beginning to think that all these idiots simply read the same Web sites.

(15) Late in the interview, Daryl Bradford Smith brings up the David Irving trial. Smith makes the ridiculous claim that Irving is a tool of the "Zionist criminals." Bleher points out, correctly, that Irving had lost in Irving v. Lipstadt, but incorrectly states that he did not try to refute evidence entered by Deborah Lipstadt's legal team.