Monday, March 12, 2012

339 Einstein a false god of science; copied relativity idea from Poincaré & Lorentz - C K Raju

Einstein a false god of science; copied relativity idea from Poincaré &
Lorentz - C K Raju


(1) Disgraced lobbyist Abramoff now working at Kosher pizzeria

(2) Einstein a false god of science; copied relativity idea from
Poincaré & Lorentz - C K Raju

(3) Palestinian Authority stood with EU against Turkey's push for UN
flotilla probe

(4) EU Considering MORE research grants to Israeli Military

(5) ADL forces rewrite of Oberammergau's Passion Play

(1) Disgraced lobbyist Abramoff now working at Kosher pizzeria

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 24.06.2010
09:37 PM

Disgraced lobbyist Abramoff now working at pizzeria

By Ben Nuckols The Associated Press

Posted: 06/22/2010 07:03:21 PM PDT

http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci_15353405

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jxP4IbBBgsSi9781GvIje8ckTSWAD9GGK9T00

This Jan. 4, 2006 file photo shows Jack Abramoff arriving at the federal
justice building in Miami, Fla. Abramoff has found a new job at a kosher
pizzeria in Baltimore. The owner of Tov Pizza, Ron Rosenbluth, says
Abramoff began working there Monday, June 21, 2010. (The Associated Press)

BALTIMORE - Disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff has landed a job
at a kosher pizzeria in Baltimore soon after his release from prison.

The owner of Tov Pizza, Ron Rosenbluth, said Abramoff began working
there Monday. He is learning about the business and will eventually help
with marketing. Abramoff is an orthodox Jew.

He was released this month from a minimum-security prison camp in
western Maryland after serving about 3 1/2 years for fraud, corruption
and conspiracy. The former Washington power broker's activities led to
the conviction of a congressman.

He reported to a halfway house run by a nonprofit that arranged the job.
The restaurant owner says he has hired halfway house residents before
and he thinks Abramoff could bring traffic to his 26-year-old business.

(2) Einstein a false god of science; copied relativity idea from
Poincaré & Lorentz - C K Raju

From: Sandhya Jain <sandhya206@bol.net.in> Date: 12.06.2010 09:37 AM

Einstein got it wrong, and how!

C K Raju

12 June 2010

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1259

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32557667/Ckr-TGA-Acceptance-Speech

[Today, 12 June 2010, Dr C. K. Raju, Distinguished Professor and
Director (Academic), Inmantec, receives the Gold Medal for the year 2010
from the Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science, at the University of Pécs,
in Pécs, a city in Hungary declared the European Capital of Culture for
2010. The award is being conferred on Prof. Raju, among other reasons,
for pointing out a mistake made by Einstein and correcting it. The full
citation is at

http://www.telesiogalilei.com/tg/index.php/academy-award-2010

In physics, he defined a product of Schwartz distributions, and proposed
an interpretation of quantum mechanics, dubbed the structured-time
interpretation, and a model of physical time evolution. He also noted
that every aspect of special relativity was published by Poincaré in
papers between 1898 and 1905, and that Einstein made a mistake on which
much of modern physics rests. He has proposed appropriate corrections.
This award is in recognition of these deep insights into these areas of
physics.

Prof. Raju played a key role in building India's first supercomputer
Param, and is well known for his path-breaking work on mathematics and
the calculus. His researches are described in several acclaimed books
including Time: Towards a Consistent Theory (Kluwer Academic, 1994;
Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol. 65), The Eleven Pictures of Time
(Sage, 2003), and Cultural Foundations of Mathematics (Pearson Longman,
2007). (See http://ckraju.net, for more details.) - Editor] *

Acceptance speech for the TGA Gold Medal Award, 2010

Dignitaries on the dais,

fellow Laureates,

friends,

I am indeed honoured to be here today to receive this award in this
august assembly in this historic city and cultural capital of Europe.

Bernardino Telesio and Galileo Galilei are both symbols of resistance to
authority. Therefore, it is apt that a key reason why the award is being
given to me is for having pointed out Einstein's mistake, and for having
corrected it—for Einstein is one of the greatest figures of scientific
authority today.

At the outset I would like to state that the issue is not so much the
special theory of relativity, which is a very fine theory, even though
it is counter to Newtonian intuition. There is no doubt at all that the
theory was the work of a genius. The question is who was that genius:
Poincaré or Einstein? The second question follows naturally from the
first: compared to Poincaré, a mathematician, did Einstein, a
non-mathematician, even understand the full mathematical implications of
the theory of relativity?

The third question brings us back to the large mass of people who
blindly follow scientific authority: following in the footsteps of
Einstein, have they fully understood the special theory of relativity?
If not, how should its understanding be corrected today? And what
possible practical value does that correction hold for us tomorrow?

Unfortunately, instead of approaching these questions in the spirit of
scientific enquiry, people react to them emotionally. Einstein is, for
them, the biggest symbol of scientific authority, and they want to
somehow hang on to the story they have heard about him from childhood.
The less they know about the theory of relativity and its history, the
stronger their belief, and the greater their distress that this symbol
of scientific authority is being attacked. The issues could be easily
settled in many ways: for example, the historical issue could be settled
by reading the papers of Poincaré, Lorentz, and Einstein.

Somehow, most people cannot or will not read those papers, and instead
proceed in a roundabout way, by reliance on authority, and through
dubious guesswork. They guess that scientific authority cannot make such
a mistake, exactly as people in Galileo's time guessed that religious
authority was infallible. They start questioning the motives of the
critic, and so on.

Physics texts play their own role in propagating such myths. Most
physics texts (fortunately, not all) maintain that the Michelson-Morley
experiment proved the absence of ether. The simple fact, which anyone
can check (but most do not) is that the Michelson-Morley experiment was
performed to discriminate between two ether theories: those of Fresnel
and Stokes. The experiment came out in support of Stokes theory, which
involved a mathematical absurdity, and was hence rejected by Lorentz.
The whole myth of the Michelson-Morley experiment obscures the key point
of relativity, which is that Newtonian physics never defined a proper
clock; therefore it was impossible for the experiment to have measured
the speed of light! Why Newtonian physics never defined a proper clock
is another story, and I won't go into that here.

If we follow Poincaré's line of thought from 1898 to 1904, this point
about the need to define a physical measure of time comes out with great
clarity. Authoritative sources would tell us that Poincaré believed in
ether or that he "waffled". However, those are plain falsehoods, as
anyone can check by reading Poincaré, or even reading just the extensive
quotes from him that I have provided in my books. It was Poincaré who
coined the phrases "principle of relativity", and "Lorentz transform".
In his celebrated 1904 paper he spoke of an entirely new mechanics,
which would be, above all, characterized by this fact, that no velocity
could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature can fall
below absolute zero. That is the theory of relativity in a nutshell.

Could Einstein have arrived independently at the theory of relativity?
Such claims of "independent rediscovery", just when a dependent
discovery was possible, are a scandalous part of current history of
science. However, let us look at Einstein's case on its individual
merits. It is well known that Einstein had read Poincaré's work on
relativity from 1898 until 1902 with great excitement, and had discussed
it with his friends. The only question is whether he read Lorentz's 1904
paper and Poincaré's 1904 paper. He denied reading those. However, as
Whittaker first pointed out, Poincaré used the word "relativity" for the
first time in his 1904 paper (he had earlier used the term "principle of
relative motion"). Since Einstein's paper contained no new idea or
formula, and repeated that word, Whittaker concluded that Einstein had
borrowed his ideas. I further pointed out that Einstein casually used
the strange terms "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" introduced
very circumspectly by Lorentz in the very paper Einstein later denied
reading. Whittaker's arguments, and mine, have been met with great
hostility by those in scientific authority, though no one so far could
address the points raised.

Cases where one student copies from another, but denies it, are
commonplace for a teacher. The simple way to resolve such cases is to
test the understanding of the students verbally. The one who does not
understand has copied. One cannot thus interrogate the past, but
mistakes are proof of lack of understanding. If a person claiming
"independent rediscovery" shows lack of understanding through a mistake,
that is proof of copying according to my "epistemic test". That is
exactly what happened in this case: Einstein failed to understand what
Poincaré, the mathematician, understood: namely, that relativity changes
also the character of the equations of physics. They can no longer be
the ordinary differential equations of Newtonian physics, but must be
functional differential equations (which, Poincaré took for granted,
must be retarded). Einstein never understood this aspect of relativity
till his death. That settles the matter: Einstein published later, his
claims of "independent rediscovery" are seriously suspect, and he never
fully understood the implications of relativity. Possibly as a patent
clerk he realized that he could copy ideas from frontline thinkers, for
there is no legal patent on ideas. For almost a century now, it would
seem, people have worshipped a false god of science.

There is a saying that people who do not learn from history are
condemned to repeat it. In 1994, I pointed out, in my book Time: Towards
a Consistent Theory (Kluwer), that the use of functional differential
equations led to a shift away from the Newtonian paradigm of ordinary
differential equations, going beyond textbook relativity. For example,
the century old contradiction between Newtonian mechanics and the
entropy law of thermodynamics could be easily resolved with functional
differential equations. In 2004, exactly a century after Poincaré's
seminal paper on relativity, I published the first solutions of the
functional differential equations of retarded electrodynamics, in a
significant physical context—that of the classical hydrogen atom. And,
in 2005, exactly a century after Einstein's paper on relativity, and in
a lecture intended to commemorate that event, Sir Michael Atiyah, a
person regarded as the leading mathematician in the world, repeated my
claim, first made in my 1994 book, that the use of functional
differential equations could also explain the puzzling features of
quantum mechanics. Atiyah claimed "independent rediscovery", and even
after he was personally informed of my work, the Notices of the American
Mathematical Society ran a prominent article on his lecture, in June
2006, crediting Atiyah with the suggestion to use functional
differential equations in physics, and referring to it as "Atiyah's
hypothesis". My earlier work was credited only after a long
correspondence, in a short and difficult-to-spot letter in the Notices
of the AMS in April 2007.

I pointed out that such a belated acknowledgment, without an apology,
was worth little. I again applied my "epistemic test" and pointed out
that "Atiyah's hypothesis" involved a serious mistake. Functional
differential equations are a natural consequence of relativity, their
use requires no hypothesis, so the claim about "Atiyah's hypothesis"
involved a conceptual mistake, apart from a historical mistake in
crediting Atiyah. I wrote a letter to the journal, along these lines.
The journal however refused to publish it, preferring to leave the
mistake uncorrected. Although many prominent scientists from India and
abroad signed a petition that the letter should be published, and the
matter debated publicly, the Editor of the Notices and the American
Mathematical Society ignored the petition and hung on to the decision to
suppress the matter. This is how scientific authority functions at the
highest level. One can well imagine how it functions at lower levels,
and how much it misleads us about the truth. Those who place their trust
in it deserve what they get: they and their progeny can continue to
believe science is all about implicitly trusting those in positions of
scientific authority. As for me, I am not in the business of mobilising
popular opinion, or winning a popularity contest: my aim was to find the
truth, and I have found it—the truth both about science, and about
scientific authority. Knowledge was what I sought, and I have found it.
That is reward in itself.

On the pleasant side, there are a number of interesting possibilities
that can be explored with the new technique of functional differential
equations. As I argued in my 1994 book, if we make absolutely no
hypothesis, and drop even the traditional hypothesis of causality, then
the functional differential equations of physics must be of mixed-type,
and not retarded, as Poincaré had thought. This leads to a number of
interesting consequences, for quantum mechanics on the one hand, and for
biological organisms on the other. The qualitative consequences are
already startling, for this physics is non-mechanistic, and leads to a
structure of time, as I have explained in my books and papers. The
further quantitative consequences I hope to explore in future. Apart
from these fundamental areas, there are many other practical areas to
which functional differential equations could apply—areas ranging from
quantum computers, biological macromolecules, controlled fusion, the
galaxy, and even the stock market. Such applications would be a fitting
answer to those who worship scientific authority.

I thank the Academy once again for the honour it has conferred on me,
and hope that it will succeed in its mission to promote reliance on open
debate, rather than trust in authority, as more appropriate to science.

Thank you!

C. K. Raju

(3) Palestinian Authority stood with EU against Turkey's push for UN
flotilla probe


From: Kristoffer Larsson <kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu> Date:
24.06.2010 07:14 PM

Leaked documents show PA undermined Turkey's push for UN flotilla probe

Asa Winstanley, The Electronic Intifada, 22 June 2010

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11350.shtml

A document sent to Ibrahim Khraishi, Palestinian Authority
representative at the UN in Geneva, proves that the PA attempted to
undermine Turkey's push for a UN Human Rights Council investigation in
to Israel's attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla (Patrick Bertschmann/UN
Photo)

The Palestinian Authority attempted to neutralize a United Nations Human
Rights Council resolution condemning Israel's deadly attack on the Gaza
Freedom Flotilla, leaked UN and Palestinian Authority documents obtained
by The Electronic Intifada show. Israel's 31 May attack killed nine
Turkish citizens, including a dual US-Turkish citizen, and injured
dozens of others aboard the Mavi Marmara in international waters.

The Electronic Intifada (EI) today publishes one of the documents it
obtained, containing proposed amendments to a draft Human Rights Council
(HRC) resolution. Annotations to the resolution indicate the Palestinian
Authority (PA) stood with European Union (EU) countries against Turkey's
calls for robust action to hold Israel accountable.

The PA's apparent collusion to shield Israel will recall for many its
efforts to undermine UN action on the Goldstone report last October.

Apparently written by a European delegate, the document's amendments
would have seriously diluted Turkey's original wording. The most
damaging change would have removed the call for an independent UN
investigation under HRC auspices. The document was provided to EI by a
source who described how it was obtained inside the UN Office at Geneva,
and asked to remain anonymous.

Turkey rejected the EU-PA amendments, and the final resolution on 2 June
declared that the council "Decides to dispatch an independent
international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of
international humanitarian and human rights law resulting from the
Israeli attacks" ("The Grave Attacks by Israeli Forces against the
Humanitarian Boat Convoy," United Nations Human Rights Council,
Fourteenth session, A/HRC/14/L.1, Adopted on 2 June 2010).

The language in the final resolution was very similar to the January
2009 HRC resolution which led to the Goldstone report, the independent
investigation that detailed war crimes committed during Israel's 2008-09
invasion of Gaza.

Yet annotations apparently made by a European diplomat on the draft
resolution obtained by EI make it clear that the PA consented to removal
of this wording. A PA-backed alternative paragraph instead proposed that
the HRC: "Requests the UN Secretary-General to ensure a prompt,
impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to the
[sic] international standards."

This difference is key because the Turkish wording specifically calls
for an investigation under the authority of the HRC. Yet the weaker
EU-PA version would have allowed the UN secretary-general to merely
endorse an Israeli-led inquiry provided he considered it "credible."

One of the document's annotations explains that "TK [Turkey] has checked
with their capital and they are still under high-level instruction to
insist on language as originally proposed." The note adds that "PA and
PAK [Pakistan] can agree to both proposals" -- i.e to replace the
independent HRC investigation with one merely approved by either the UN
Security Council or the secretary-general.

Similarly, while Turkey had -- according to the annotations -- insisted
that the resolution specifically condemn the Israeli attack, the "PA and
PAK is [sic] OK with the EU proposal" to replace reference to "the
outrageous attack by the Israeli forces against the humanitarian
flotilla" with the more ambiguous "use of violence during the Israeli
military operation." The EU alternative could be interpreted as
including condemnation of "violence" by passengers attempting to defend
themselves with water hoses or sticks against the unprovoked Israeli
military attack in international waters.

Public statements by both French and UK diplomats support EI's
interpretation of the document. After Turkey succeeded in getting its
wording into the 2 June resolution, the UK and France abstained, and the
Netherlands, Italy and the US voted against.

Explaining his country's abstention, French representative Jean-Baptiste
Mattei expressed a wish for a "unanimous stand" and said his government
"regret that proposals for amendments to the text made by the EU" were
not accepted. Peter Gooderham for the United Kingdom concurred with this
wish "to reach consensus" and even mentioned he was "grateful for the
efforts of the co-sponsors in this regard" ("UN Human Rights Council,
Archived Video", Fourteenth session, 2 June 2010).

The Palestinian Authority was one of the resolution's co-sponsors.

Imad Zuhairi, the Deputy Permanent Observer of the PA to the UN in
Geneva, said in a phone interview that the position of his delegation
was that "no matter if it's Geneva, the Human Rights Council, or the
Security Council, there should be a transparent and international
independent investigation committee in accordance with international
standards."

Zuhairi claimed his delegation had been "not against or with" the EU
effort to scupper the HRC investigation. He criticized the Security
Council resolution wording as "ambiguous" and said the PA would "reject
by all means any internal investigation" by Israel. He added: "what we
care for is our [Palestinian] people in the occupied Gaza Strip."

When questioned specifically on the comment in the document that the PA
can "agree" to removal of the HRC investigation, Zuhairi said the
comment was inaccurate, and said that whoever had written it was mistaken.

However, the annotations in the draft HRC resolution leaked to EI are
corroborated by a second leaked document which reveals an earlier
attempt to dilute the HRC resolution, but this time directly by the PA
itself.

The second document, and the email to which it was attached, were leaked
by a source unconnected to the first document. EI was given access to
the second document on condition it not be published.

The second document is in the widely-used Microsoft Word format and the
"Track Changes" feature has been used, so the exact changes made to it
are unambiguous. An examination of the Word document's metadata reveals
that it was initially created by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
("Disisleri Bakanligi") before the PA added its changes.

The email to which it was attached was written by Feda Abdelhady Nasser,
a diplomat at the PA's UN mission in New York, and sent to Dr. Ibrahim
Khraishi, the PA representative at the UN in Geneva where the HRC is
based. It is copied to Riyad Mansour, the head of the PA mission at the
UN in New York.

Abdelhady Nasser explains that the attached document contains the PA
mission in New York's edits to the draft resolution being proposed for
adoption by the HRC.

The document itself proves that the PA representatives replaced the
proposed Turkish wording in which the HRC "Decides to dispatch an
independent international fact finding mission ..." with much vaguer and
more indirect language that: "Calls upon the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to dispatch a fact
finding mission ..."

This language would have removed the entire issue from the auspices of
the HRC. Taken together, the evidence indicates that the PA was directly
involved in trying to dilute and undermine Turkey's robust position and
to protect Israel from accountability.

Recent reports suggest that the "investigation conforming to
international standards" approved by the Security Council and the US
administration will be conducted by Israel itself, observed by Northern
Ireland politician David Trimble who recently co-founded an organization
called Friends of Israel, and Canadian Brigadier-General Ken Watkin.

A separate investigation by the HRC, as stipulated in the 2 June
resolution that passed with 32 votes in favor (three against, nine
abstentions) would represent a challenge to the authority of the Israeli
investigation. If the Goldstone report is a precedent, an HRC
investigation is far more likely to be critical of Israeli actions.

In October 2009, the Goldstone report was finally adopted by the HRC.
Despite the PA initially withdrawing support for the South African
jurist's investigation into Israel's 2008-09 onslaught against the Gaza
Strip, Mahmoud Abbas, who extended his expired term as PA president
under contested "emergency laws," was forced into a humiliating U-turn
after an outpouring of disgust and protest from Palestinians around the
world.

Asa Winstanley is a freelance journalist based in London who has lived
in and reported from occupied Ramallah. His website is www.winstanleys.org.

(4) EU Considering MORE research grants to Israeli Military

From: Josef Schwanzer <donauschwob@optusnet.com.au> Date: 23.06.2010
03:22 AM

http://ipsnews.net/newsTVE.asp?idnews=51871

EU Considering Aid to Israeli Military

By David Cronin

BRUSSELS, Jun 18, 2010 (IPS) - A leading Israeli supplier of warplanes
used to kill and maim civilians in Gaza is in the running for two new
scientific research grants from the European Union.

Israel's attacks on Gaza in late 2008 and 2009 provided its air force
with an opportunity to experiment with state-of-the-art pilotless drones
such as the Heron. Although human rights groups have calculated that the
Heron and other drones killed at least 87 civilians during that
three-week war, EU officials have tentatively approved the release of
fresh finance to the Heron's manufacturer, Israel Aerospace Industries
(IAI).

Two projects involving IAI have recently passed the evaluation stages of
a call for proposals under the EU's multi-annual programme for research,
which has been allocated 53 billion euros (65.4 billion dollars) for the
2007-13 period.

The Union's executive arm, the European Commission, has confirmed that
IAI is one of 34 Israeli "partners" involved in 26 EU-funded projects
for information technology which are under preparation.

Among the other Israeli firms being considered for such funding are
Afcon, a supplier of metal detectors to military checkpoints in the
occupied Palestinian territories, including the Erez crossing between
southern Israel and Gaza. Afcon was also awarded a contract in 2008 for
installing a security system in a light rail project designed to connect
illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem with the city centre.

Mark English, a Commission spokesman, said that the procedures relating
to the projects have not yet been completed. But the Israeli business
publication Globes reported last month that Israeli firms stand to gain
17 million euros from the latest batch of EU grants for information
technology. According to Globes, this will bring the amount that Israel
has drawn from the EU's research programme since 2007 to 290 million euros.

Israel is the main foreign participant in the EU's science programme.
Officials in Tel Aviv say they expect Israeli firms and research
institutes will have received around 500 million euros from the
programme by the time of its conclusion.

Chris Davies, a British Liberal Democrat member of the European
Parliament (MEP), expressed anger at how the Commission's research
department appears willing to rubber-stamp new grants for Israeli
companies. Such a "business-as-usual" approach is at odds with tacit
assurances from officials handling the EU's more general relations with
Israel, he said.

In late 2008, the EU's 27 governments agreed to an Israeli request that
the relationship should be "upgraded" so that Israel could have a deeper
involvement in a wide range of the Union's activities. But work on
giving formal effect to that agreement has stalled because of the
subsequent invasion of Gaza. ...

(5) ADL forces rewrite of Oberammergau's Passion Play

{I myself do not like "His blood be upon us and our children". However,
inherited guilt is an inherent concept in the Bible (Old Testament) -
Peter M.}

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date: 07.06.2010 03:00 PM

ADL Rewrites New Testament: Oberammergau's Passion Play

By Harmony Grant Daws

3 June 10

http://truthtellers.org/alerts/adlrewritesnewtestament.htm

Every ten years since 1635, the small alpine town of Oberammergau,
Germany has produced a six-hour Passion Play memorializing the final
hours of Jesus Christ. About half the town's citizens help produce the
play. Amateur actors fill the stage. The citizens are fulfilling their
ancestors' 375-year-old vow to God to produce the play every decade
since He delivered them from the bubonic plague.

Over the past two decades, the town has been the stage for a different
kind of passion play. Few places in the world more perfectly present the
drama of Jewish power and aggressive intent to deny public expressions
of Christianity.

For the past two decades, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League—ever-ready
to stifle any virile expression of Christianity—has taken its editing
scissors to the play's script. Jewish crimes have been expunged. Today,
the Jews play a bleached and sanitized role in the death of Christ.
(What did Jesus say of the Pharisees? Whitewashed tombs?) Romans now
stand guard outside Jesus' first entrance to Jerusalem, "making it clear
who is really in control." The Jewish high priests debate theology, many
siding for Jesus. The infamous blood oath—"His blood be upon us and our
children"—has been axed from the script. Even Judas, incredibly, is pure
at heart. He wants "to facilitate dialogue with the priesthood and is
duped into betraying Jesus. It is one of the best roles in the play.
When Judas understands that he has been manipulated, he storms the
Temple, demanding Jesus' release." ADL even wrote in a new scene in
which Jesus stands outside the Temple, holds up a Torah scroll and leads
His followers in reciting in Hebrew " the major Jewish prayer known as
"Sh'ma Yisroel" – "Hear O Israel, the Lord is God the Lord is One.""

AJ Goldman in Forward says the play has become a lovely and moving piece
of art, now " less about Jesus and more a rare chance to experience a
legendary tradition." He protests that it is no longer anti-Semitic.

Yet for ADL, even the censoring and trashing has not been enough. Its
experts attended a preview May 8 and reported, " the play continues to
depict damaging stereotypes of Judaism and presents Jewish leadership as
deceitful, legalistic, vindictive and xenophobic." Goldman's Forward
article explains the locus of the conflict: Jewish leaders hate the
Gospels, basically. Before the 2000 production, the play's dramatic
advisor tried to convince ADL head Abe Foxman that the play was about
love and redemption. Foxman bitingly replied, "If you want to give me
love and understanding, there are a lot of other Christian subjects.
Give me another play; if it's about a Crucifixion in which the Jews kill
Christ, you can never clean it up enough."

For Foxman, the Gospel itself is anti-Semitic and dangerous, as is
Christian evangelism to Jews. His book, Never Again? The Threat of the
New Anti-Semitism, alleges that "with every annual reading or
reenactment of the story of the death of Jesus in Christian churches,
millions of Christians imbibed the notion that the Jews had been guilty
of the worst crime in history. Into our own time, the deicide libel has
been used to justify hatred of Jews and violence against them, including
from Christian pulpits." Violence from Christian pulpits even includes
the commission to witness to Jews, according to Foxman, which is seen as
attempted genocide of their souls!

Jewish leaders, captained by Foxman, have been radically successful in
their assault. In Oberammergau, the gospel has been stripped. Its
testimony is unspeakable in public. A 375-year-old religious
tradition—vowed by a city, to thank God for deliverance—has been knifed
of its content. (What happened to the sovereignty of old culture? What
happened to the sanctity of traditions?) Nothing could more clearly
state unbelieving Jewry's intent to make the New Testament itself
unspeakable, unacceptable…illegal.

And still, it is not enough. This year the ADL led a 16-page report from
interfaith experts, denouncing the play. They want it decimated
completely. The report, "supported by the American Jewish Committee,
B'nai B'rith International and the National Council of Synagogues,"
calls for "a totally new script using contemporary biblical studies and
historical research in order to eliminate continuing damaging negative
stereotypes of Jews and Judaism."

This is about the Bible, plain and simple. The original passion play was
lifted from the pages of the Christian Scriptures. The text was taken to
the stage. Germans simply dramatized the Pharisees' vengeful,
unrelenting persecution from the book of John; Judas' ugly, searing
betrayal which Matthew witnessed; the Jewish masses' homicidal contempt,
retold by Mark; the agony of Christ, gut-wrenchingly recorded by Luke.
History proves what happened. After Jesus' return to the Father,
Christians were persecuted relentlessly. The Jewish Talmud, to this day,
records Christ as an evil bastard, now in hell, writhing in boiling
semen. (Gittin 56b-57a)

What happened is really not debatable. But it is unacceptable to speak.
Anti-Christian Jews can be blamed for nothing. Their leaders must be
portrayed as always wise, balanced, good and moderate. As a people, they
were never xenophobic or legalistic. And they had nothing, nothing, to
do with Jesus' death. The nails went through His hands and feet as if by
magic. There was no murder.

Isn't it interesting? Jewish leaders allow others no such exoneration.

In Germany, there is no such convenient bleaching of history. A
radically different situation prevails. There, no one can be free from
their ancestral guilt. No reparations can be enough. It is actually
illegal to deny German blood guilt, their culture of hate, their cries
through complicity of "Gas them! Gas them!" Under Germany's Holocaust
denial laws, only Jews may revise German history (as in Oberammergau). A
person who even questions the Holocaust can go to prison. It is illegal
to deny the intentional, mechanized murder of six million Jews. It is
illegal even to question the methods used by the Nazis. In Germany, the
streets themselves are painted with the memories. Black tulips are grown
in memorial sites. Every year on Holocaust Memorial Day the whole of
Europe grieves for its guilt and vows it will never be repeated. A
timeline of some of the billions spent on Holocaust memorials can be
seen here: http://timelines.com/topics/holocaust-memorials.

History, we know, is written by the conquerors. There can be no
remaining doubt about Jewish power in the western world today. Jewish
leaders are the scripters of history and Christians are silent and
cowed, submitting our sacred Gospels and traditions to Jewish scissors
as if they mean nothing.

The world would look vastly different if this weren't true—if Jews
enjoyed less power, if they mourned or even admitted what they did to
Jesus and then to Christians. Picture it. ...

No comments:

Post a Comment