Unless you want to listen to this woman. What is she on about? Human sacrifice? What? Completely mad obviously - quite right her story was disappeared. Doesn't she know that the Jewish people are international good guys promoting human rights and freedom from sexual repression etc. etc. and that we should all give thanks to them? Besides as everyone knows, Satanists are only ever Christians, or mad perversions thereof. Anyway, I only include her here in order to condemn her. Dreadful woman!
And this fellow! Good God! He's been thrashing about in a charnel pit and has absolutely covered himself in blood libels. A fig for the fact that he's Jewish. Or that he's a professor. Or that he wrote a scholarly book full of details, references, and footnotes, all explaining the role of human blood in Jewish ritual during medieval times. As if facts ever counted in an argument wherein one side was only ever going to scream !BLOOD LIBEL! over and over? Apparently those seeking to defend the good name of Jewish people got through to him and he made a retraction: yes, the Jewish people hated Christians and Christianity; yes, Jewish people used human blood for everything from quack remedies, to wine, to matzoh balls; and yes the blood had to be that of Christian boys under the age of seven and declared kosher by a rabbi; but no, no Christian boys were ever killed in order to obtain it - it all came from 'voluntary donations'. Whew!
Clearly, since no one ever volunteered to be the subject of a Satanist human sacrifice, and since, in the Jewish rituals, all those seven year olds boys volunteered to, um... 'not be sacrificed', then these two things bear absolutely no resemblance to each other. Bravo the Prof! Common sense rules the day. And whilst it was perfectly likely that in coming to this very sensible conclusion the Professor's life was threatened, clearly it was all in a good cause.
Never mind medieval times, let's jump a thousand odd years ahead of that. Blood sacrifice is right there in the Old Testament, which is to say the Torah. Does this mean anything? Says I: Absolutely Not. All of that ancient sacrifice was of every other variety of warm-blooded mammal except humans.* And since Satanists sacrifice everything plus humans, under the old rule of 'a miss being as good as a mile', we can declare these two things completely different. Hell! Let's call them polar opposites!
Besides which, that was then, this is now. Just because the Torah is full of blood sacrifice it doesn't mean anyone takes it literally (it's not as if it's the word of God or anything). Things change, words change, meanings change. 'Holocaust' used to be a Jewish sacrificial offering that was burnt on an altar. Now we put 'the' in front of it, capitalise it, and it means no such thing. Besides, if there was any occult connection between the Holocaust's original meaning and its latter day usage, they'd definitely tell us. After all the Holocaust is an event of such enormity that to even imagine altering it, embroidering it, or in anyway misrepresenting it goes against the very laws of nature. It's like sodomy - it's impossible and no one ever does it.
Where was I? Oh yes, that was then, this is now, and on the topic of human sacrifice God has probably changed his mind. What with the Talmud making it clear that Jehovah is a supplicant God who doesn't know what to think until the rabbis tell him, you'd have to wonder if there's any point in listening to him at all. Best we just ask his rabbi superiors. What's that they say? ..."a Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim asks if our books contain anything against them." Ayah, so much for that idea! Here I am doing my absolute best to help these guys out and they just keep condemning themselves out of their own mouths! What's a fellow to do? Change tack, obviously!
Forget Jewish history. What about the other end of this discussion - Illuminati history? In amongst that curious topic is there any mention of the word 'Jewish' at all? For the sake of nuance-trashing oversimplification, let me boldly say 'No'. Here's a fellow who seems to be pretty au fait on the topic of the Illuminati. And here's a self-serving snippet (self-serving for me, that is) from one of his lengthy contributions to the Rigorous Intuition comments -
The basic story is that in 70 AD, when Titus was sacking Jerusalem various familial groups responsible for differing duties, generally connected with Temple obligations, gathered their items of diligence such as sacred oils, treasures, and hid them in caves in the Temple Mount and other areas of the country. These families comprised of members of the various priesthoods and royal lines then dispersed, many towards Europe, producing the “bluebloods.” According to Knight and Lomas, a familial secret society existed named Rex Deus that was revealed by a father to his chosen son, upon this son reaching the age of 21. This group emerged above-ground with the Crusades, supposedly in accordance with prophecies in Daniel and Isaiah.
Ah! Well there you are! The Illuminati is not Jewish because otherwise he'd have said so. Clearly if the people he were talking about were Jewish priests he'd hardly go to the effort of writing "various familial groups responsible for differing duties, generally connected with Temple obligations" would he? And besides, there'd be, I don't know... exclamation marks or something wouldn't there? Honestly, who could resist remarking upon it? Not me!
With all that in mind, anyone capable of wondering at things would have to ask: Between Joel Stein's all-powerful media Jews and Pseudo Occult Media's all powerful media Satanists, wouldn't it just be too-completely-nuts if they were somehow all the same crew, and differed only in terms of old-school versus parvenu? In the words of our rhetorically gifted Prime Minister K Rudd: 'Yes it would'.
Madness, Madness. Such thoughts may not be countenanced, and certainly not by me, ha ha. Instead we'll do the legal fiction tango. And since it takes two to tango, in a discussion of two separate blink-blink media entities, that tango wouldn't get very far if it was actually just one person dancing with themselves like some wretched lesbian cabaret act.
Thus we declare that the media is occupied by two entirely separate entities pursuing two entirely separate agendas. Dandy. But what are they after? Who are they talking to? What are they saying? What do they hope to achieve? Really - what's the goddamn point? Sure enough, I've maxed out this piece and will have to come back again.
*I forgot all about the 'Binding of Isaac' (binding, ha ha ha, God forbid we should call it 'human sacrifice'). Anyway, dead loss as a religion student, me. BTW it's worth having a look at that wikipedia entry if for no other reason than to watch the various rabbis turning themselves into human pretzels in order to avoid coming to the logical conclusion, ie. that Jews performed human sacrifice, and of their own children no less.