Naturally, Jews have denied such charges. The Bible, they said, forbids killing and prohibits the use of blood. Anyone making such claims is merely whipping up anti-Semitism and inciting anti-Jewish action. Even today, the mainstream view is that all such charges are mere “anti-Semitic canards” comprising a most dangerous sort of Jew-hatred. Blood libel, say the Jews, has no basis in fact.
But is that true? Until recently, few would have disagreed. But then in the early 2000s, a Jewish-Italian historian, Ariel Toaff, undertook extensive research into the matter. He concluded that not all blood libel cases could be automatically dismissed, and that certain sects of Ashkenazi Jews may well have manifested their hatred of Gentiles in a ritual use of non-Jewish blood. Blood libel, it seems, has a substantial factual basis.
Passovers of Blood is certainly one of the most controversial books of the 21st century. If certain Jews did — and perhaps still do — harbour an intense hatred of Gentiles, and if they did — and perhaps still do — use human blood in certain religious rituals, then this has very ominous implications for present-day relations between Jews and non-Jews around the world.
-- Clemens & Blair, 2020, paperback, 350 pp.
been-there wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:40 amFirst of all, I admit I am new to this topic of 'Jewish ritual murder'.
That is because I always accepted the viewpoint that what is called the Jewish 'blood libel' was a completely false and unbelievable ancient calumny against Jews.
Therefore I never gave it any credibility, and therefore never bothered to familiarise myself with the details.
Now I have done that. And to my shock and suprise the evidence confirming the accuracy of the cases of it seems to me to be overwhelming.
Jeff's dishonesty and wilfully stubborn, self-delusional refusal to actually engage with the facts and evidence of it, seems therefore again quite revealing. I think it shows a mindset that CAN NOT think unassisted, can not revise, can not re-assess.
AND I think it AGAIN points to the successful utility of using the 'anti-semite' accusation to enforce conformity of view.
I read the wikipedia entry on 'blood libel' to understand what that enforced conformity of view is, and to check if I had perhaps been misinformed.
I also have been checking to see what scholarly views there are on this, yet another, Jewish-controlled and thought-policed HISTORICAL subject.
I came across an article reviewing a recently published book on the subject. The book is called ‘Blood Libel’ by Magda Teter, published this year 2020.
And here I observed an interesting method of what I now see as an obfuscating of the details of all the cases throughout history. Fascinatingly it mirrors the exact same issue that Jews who want to outlaw 'holocaust' historical revision have. A similar strategy is being used to discredit detailed information.
The same 'problem' Jews have in both cases is the DETAILS getting well-known due to advances in technology.
Before it was the invention of the printing press that was seen as the problem. Suddenly people right across Europe had access to detailed information of almost the EXACT SAME occurrences of ritual murder and of the similar accusations against Jewish communities believed to be committing them.
In this article, a reviewer BLAMED the printing innovation for spreading an 'anti-semitic' hate trope.
Obviously the equally possible alternative understanding is that the printing innovation was responsible for spreading not libel but the factual DETAILS and similarities of the cases all across Europe of these murders where Jewish communities existed.
As was observed here, the Jewish press made a big deal out of the recent painting of the medieval murder of Simon of Trent.The times of Israel wrote:Although the events in Italy [ritualised murder of a child called Simon] and England [ritualised murder of a child called William] appear similar on the surface, something took place between the two incidents.
For three centuries, accounts of Jewish “ritual murders” had been confined to local lore and monastic chronicles. There was not widespread access to the tales, so the blood libel had little credibility with the public. Then, in the mid-fifteenth century, Gutenberg’s printing press changed everything.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/myth-of-j ... ood-libel/
I didn't see the story anywhere else. Plus almost ALL the search results that came up of articles covering the story were JEWISH owned outlets aimed at Jewish readerships.
Here is the thing I just noticed.
A.) A recent book blamed the spread of an allegedly anti-semitic falsehood on the printing revolution which made sharing information available to anyone who was literate. They claim the problem was an innovation which took control of information out of the hands of the establishment: the Church, monarchy and aristocracy.
This is the explanation given for why this supposed 'blood libel' spread so widely across Europe.
B.) SIMILARLY the invention of — and easy access to — the internet has AGAIN revolutionised the control of information and taken it way from the establishment. And subsequently again the internet is blamed for more people now learning and accepting the alleged 'anti-semitic' “lie” that the 'holocaust' narrative is NOT reliable, accurate nor truthful history.
In both cases free flow of information has been seen as a problem by Jews.
They blame it for the widespread understanding of Jewish ritual murder.
They blame it for the growing understanding of 'holocaust' innaccuracies and deceptions.
They silence both by use of the catch-all 'anti-semitism' accusation.
Whether the information is accurate or not, is NOT seen as a relevant issue. As the recent BBC propaganda piece presented by David Baddiel demonstrated.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/myth-of-j ... ood-libel/
been-there wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:11 amGiovanni Gasparro is an artist who paints scenes connected with Catholicism.
His recent painting depicts what in Catholicism is called the martyrdom of Simon of Trento.
A certain small section of society and their press have very vociferously castigated the painting. They appear predominantly in search engines if you look it up: