The Famous Roman Lawyer and Politician Cicero and the Jews

See the Wikipedia write-up of Cicero here. See previous posts about the Jews from other famous individuals here, here and here. See the problems of Judaism here. Learn more about the Talmud here. See here for an excellent short video of an honest Israeli talking about the problems with the Talmud, Judaism, and Israel.

Cicero on the Jews

Marcus Tullius Cicero is one of the best known and most admired of all figures in Roman history and long has been the idol of major intellectual figures in world history such as John Calvin. (1) He also has the honour to have written one of the most quoted paragraphs in the history of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, which appears in his defence speech of the former governor of Asia; Lucius Valerius Flaccus, who stood accused of corruption charges and one of the specific charges was that Flaccus had prevented the jews of his province sending the tribute due to the temple of Jerusalem and diverted that money instead into his own treasury.

The intellectual tendency in dealing with this charge has historically been to claim that Cicero was merely using invective and rhetoric to get his client cleared off the charges. This is; of course, possible and indeed we can see the idea that Cicero's use of rhetorical and oratorical gesture; as pointed out by Marshall, (2) supports this to an extent. However, to make such an argument is to assume that the use of rhetorical and oratorical gesture as well as the art of rhetoric itself makes a charge false, incorrect or exaggerated.

This is obviously problematic as it assumes that the art of rhetoric and gesture is the art of lying, which is not so but rather it is simply the art of best representing your case to your audience. As such then Cicero is merely guilty of doing his best for his client and that we cannot blithely assume that he is making up the charges he levels at the jews.

What has not been generally remarked on; outside of academic treatises on the relations between jews and Romans, is that Cicero did not mention jews only once: he also mentions them in a speech he made to the trial of a noted friend of the jews; Aulus Gabinus, who had profited greatly from an arrangement with the newly conquered jews of Judea during his term in office. (3)

Cicero calls the jews a 'nation born to slavery' and states that Gabinus' actions; usurping the established process of giving the job of taxing the provinces to up and coming Roman politicians and military men [as governance experience] and instead awarding it to the jews, were tantamount to treason to the Roman state.

To quote Cicero:

'And as for the miserable tax collectors, (miserable man that I also am, when I see the miseries and suffering of those men who have deserved so well at my hands), he [Gabinus] handed them over as slaves to the Jews and Syrian nations: themselves born for slavery. He laid down as a rule from the very beginning, and he persevered in it, never to decide an action in favour a tax collector. He rescinded contracts that been made justly and he took away all the garrisons established for the their protection. He released many people required to pay tributes and taxes from such payments at whatever town he was living in or whatever town he arrived at and he forbade any tax collectors or they representatives to remain. Why need I enlarge on this? He would be considered a cruel man if he had shown such a disposition to our enemies, as he has shown towards Roman citizens. Especially towards those of the class which has hitherto always been maintained by its own dignity and the goodwill of the magistrates.' (4)

We can thus see from the above that Cicero is showing a not inconsiderable hostility to the jews; as a people, in passing and we may point out that by extension that Cicero's claims that Gabinus was a 'glutton and robber' (5) is based on the idea; later enunciated in his 'Pro Flacco', that the jews corrupt Roman officials with their gold. (6) In 'Pro Flacco' Cicero even refers back to his charges against Gabinus when he states that because the jews (i.e. Gabinus and his jewish supporters) had been defeated the gods had been pleased as well as placated and that the tax collectors were once again allowed to go about their unpopular but necessary work.

Cicero's reference in 'Pro Flacco' to the happiness of the gods at the defeat of the jews is reinforced by his point that his friend; Pompey the Great, had not touched the jewish temple or been infected by the ideas of Judaism as they were at odds with everything that the Roman Empire stood for and believed in. As Goodman observes this was quite correct: (7) as Judaism was the most extreme of all current barbarous faiths to the Romans with the only historical comparison being the vicious religion of Carthage. So dangerous were jews and Judaism considered that they were outlawed from becoming citizens during Cicero's time and for a while afterwards: (8) a view that Tacitus suggests was due to their wholly alien nature and religious intransigence. (9)

In essence Cicero was saying; in relation to Pompey, that any possible positive association with the jews was a significantly negative thing as the jews were classed as the lowest of the low by the Romans (ergo his comment about the jews being a 'nation of slaves').

This is both due to the fact that large numbers of jews had recently been sold in Rome as slaves and also because it was Cicero's own view. We know this because Cicero refers to the jews as active agents attacking senatorial and republican interests in Rome rather than just pawns of larger and more powerful interests. This is interestingly supported by Suetonius' assertion that the jews were very supportive of Julius Caesar (10) who Cicero was ideologically opposed to and regarded as a tyrant.

That Cicero saw the jews as a powerful interest group is suggested in 'Pro Flacco' when he asserts that the area chosen for the trial of Flaccus by the prosecution was chosen specifically so as to allow large demonstration by mobs of jews. (11) The problem with suggesting that this is a rhetorical trick is that in order for Cicero to have made the assertion: it had to be credible as otherwise its use was pointless. If the assertion was credible then there would have to be significant numbers of jews in Rome who were able (i.e. not slaves) to actively oppose a trial of this kind.

Further to this Cicero makes clear that he is making two points not one here: in so far as he states that the jews export gold out of Italy (and other provinces) to Jerusalem every year to pay their tithe to the temple in Jerusalem (i.e. enriching themselves at the cost of Rome). In doing so Cicero is telling us that jews had enough money to be able to do this (i.e. they were not slaves or among the poor) and there was a community of jews who were free and active proponents of their religion.

This is confirmed by a comment that Plutarch states Cicero made during his prosecution of Varres (lit. 'boar' or 'pig'); the former Roman governor of Sicily, who was defended by a Roman aristocratic god-fearer; i.e. a gentile who had sworn allegiance to the jews in all things and abandoned the gods of his ancestors, named Cecilius. Plutarch tells us that Cicero opened his argument by making fun of his opponent by stating: 'What has a Jew to do with a pig?' (12)

Cicero is here showing that he is aware that of the phenomenon of the god-fearers in Rome; as well as that they had some notable neophytes from among the highest echelons of Roman society, (13) as he calls Cecilius what he in effect is: a jew. If we understand that to Cicero: god-fearers were also to be counted jews then we can read Cicero's assertion of the 'mobs of jews' slightly differently. In that while large numbers of jews could possibly have been in Rome at the time; which this is traditionally used as evidence of, it is more likely that the jews Cicero is referring to is far less to do with actual jews and more to do with the numerous god-fearers. (14)

If we make the reasonable assumption that Cicero's assertion about the location of Flaccus' trial in relation to mobs of jews has some basis in fact; as otherwise why assert it in the first place, then we can suggest that nearby there would have been a significant amount of god-fearers and in all probability a smaller amount of jews. This means in effect that what Cicero was talking about was the local jews whipping up their sworn followers into mobs and going; as many would have likely been Roman citizens, to the locale of trial to influence the verdict against Flaccus.

This then makes sense of Cicero's assertion (as it tells us why he mentioned it and also why it was plausible to the listeners) as well as his known strongly pejorative comments against the jews in so far as Cicero even went as far in 'Pro Flacco' as to call the jews:'our enemies'. Or put more simply: the eternal enemies of the Roman people.

We may further note that Cicero's teacher was the anti-jewish Greek thinker Apollonius Molon: who wrote a whole treatise; which has sadly been lost, attacking the jews and had had a lot of experience with them on his home island of Rhodes. If we understand that Molon almost certainly taught the young Cicero about the jews and then Cicero; in the course of his public life and pro-republican advocacy, came into contact with jews doing precisely the same things his old teacher had described then his reaction would have been both as strong and as brutal as it seems to have been.

In essence Cicero took no prisoners when it came to jews and took every reasonable opportunity to attack the jews when chance presented itself and his anti-jewish comments in 'Pro Flacco' should not read as a purely rhetorical exercise, but rather as an expression of fundamental beliefs that Cicero held about jews.

Or put simply: Cicero didn't like the jews or Judaism one bit.

References

(1) Bruce Gordon, 2009, 'Calvin', 1^st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 25-26

(2) Anthony Marshall, 1975, 'Flaccus and the Jews of Asia', Phoenix, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 139-142

(3) Martin Goodman, 2008, 'Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations', 1^st Edition, Penguin: New York, p. 389

(4) Cic. Prov. 5:10

(5) Ibid. 5:11

(6) Cic. Flac. 63

(7) Goodman, Op. Cit., p. 390

(8) Martin Goodman, Jane Sherwood, 2003, 'The Roman World 44 BC – 180 AD', 2^nd Edition, Routledge: New York, pp. 103; 120

(9) Tac. Hist. 5:5

(10) Suet. Aug. 84

(11) Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 139

(12) Plut. Cic. 7

(13) Harry Leon, 1961, 'The Jews of Ancient Rome', 1^st Edition, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, p. 17

(14) Ibid, p. 1
5

Transhumanism Discussion Admits Changing Brain Structure- This is Going on With Human Experimentation

As you can see from the discussion below, if you go 6 minutes and 30 seconds into the video, you will see Max More admit they have the technology to alter the brain structure of individuals. This is what I was talking about here, here and here.

For more information about classified and hi-technology, see here. For more information about Transhumanism, see here. For some excellent documentaries on the subject, go here. You can also watch the bottom video here that features the lady in the discussion below. Her name is Francesca Ferrando. In it she talks about humans being infected with viruses.

See Walter Block - "Anarcho-Capitalist" Libertarian Defend the "Undefendable" or Intelligence Agency Stasi Techniques

As you can see from the screenshot below, the video here, and Walter Block's book here, he is essentially defending the exact same techniques the intelligence agencies are engaging in. Including blackmail, slander and libel. (CLICK ON THE SCREENSHOT BELOW TO MAKE IT BIGGER.) 

Apparently, in his mind... these are "Libertarian" principles.  One might begin to wonder why none of these supposed Libertarians ever seem to mention the insane level of surveillance the population is under by intelligence agencies. This extremely intrusive level of surveillance includes having access to the brains of political dissidents (some who are Libertarians themselves,) and shooting them with microwaves and electromagnetic weapons. Isn't this kind of relevant to the case for freedom? Isn't it contradictory to their professed principles? Why are none of the people or the websites that Walter is associated with, (the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell.com to name two,) talking about this?

I know why...it's because these websites are associated with the CIA. These websites are all a part of the modern day counter-intelligence program that never ended called COINTELPRO. (See here also.)

I think it is important to ask ---- is keeping quiet about this classified technology and these Stasi stalking techniques compatible with the Libertarian principles of "non-aggression" that Walter holds? My personal opinion is it is more compatible with East Germany than Libertarianism.

Just for the record, Walter knows what these people are doing with electromagnetic weapons. Just like many of the other pseudo-Libertarians listed here, here and here. Many of these supposed "Libertarians" are Zionists and they are strong supporters of Israel. When it comes to compromising their principles, they are exactly like the Pharisees who Jesus charged with being hypocrites. In others words, they say one thing and do the exact opposite. When it comes to Israel and Judaism, they are willing to completely ignore their principles. What they really believe in is enforcing Jewish rule over Gentiles.

Here is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff ---- if they are not talking about organized Stasi-like stalking techniques or classified technology and electromagnetic weapons, there is a good chance they might be a Judas goat. For more information about counter-intelligence, otherwise known as COINTELPRO, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. For a more extensive amount of articles about classified technology, see under the Classified and Hi-Technology category on my blog.

Click on the Image Above to Make it Larger

Jewish Talmud Pedophilia: The Jewish Talmud - Sex with 3-Year-Old Baby Girls and Little Boys Under Nine

Introductory Note: For past posts on the Jewish Talmud, look under the Talmud category of my blog here. I would highly suggest this post also.  There you can begin to go through the Talmud yourself. You can also see interesting commentary that was written on the Talmud. For more articles about Judaism see here. 

 (See screenshots of the Talmud passages at the end of this article!)

For nearly a century, the Jewish-dominated Hollywood film industry and big media have conspicuously influenced America. 

What kind of moral foundations do Jews of the media rest upon, that they could consciously ignite and fan the flames of a sexual inferno that continues to ravage our society?

Virtually all the media moguls who founded Hollywood and the big three TV networks were immigrants, or their children, from predominantly orthodox Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

The Talmud is the holiest book in Judaism. 

In the late 19th century, most European Jews were a people of the book. But their book wasn’t the Bible. It was the Babylonian Talmud. To this day, the Talmud remains Judaism’s highest moral, ethical and legal authority.

Three Year Old Brides

When Christ accused the Pharisees of his day of being Satan’s spiritual children, he fully realized what they were capable of. Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia. He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” ¹ Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. ² Has ben Yohai been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.

The Pharisees Endorsed Pedophilia

The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three-year-old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” ³

In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia: “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4

Out of Babylon

It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.

A temple prostitute of Babylon

But with the expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.

Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.

Sex with a “Minor” Permitted

What exactly did these sages say?

The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man.” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” ⁵ Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. ⁶

A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” ⁷ The Talmud also says, “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” ⁸ Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.

Sex at Three Years and One Day

In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.

R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanh. 55b)

A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)

A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)

It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yeb. 60b)

[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)

The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”

The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine-year-old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” ⁹ But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”

No Rights for Child Victims

The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” ¹⁰

The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for, “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” ¹¹

In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.

Pedophilia Widespread

Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:

There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.

The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” ¹²

These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” ¹³ This passage says: “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.

A Fascination with Sex

Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.

The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.

Today, the Talmud’s outspoken pedophiles and child-rape advocates would doubtlessly spend hard time in prison for child molestation. Yet here is what the eminent Jewish scholar, Dagobert Runes (who is fully aware of all these passages), says about such “dirty old men” and their perverted teachings:

There is no truth whatever in Christian and other strictures against the Pharisees, who represented the finest traditions of their people and of human morals. ¹⁴

Aren’t Christ’s words more appropriate?

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:27, 28.)

Endnotes:

¹ Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
² Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
³ Sanhedrin 76a.
⁴ In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
⁵ Sanhedrin 69b.
⁶ Sanhedrin 55a.
⁷ Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
⁸ Sanhedrin 55b.
⁹ Sanhedrin 55a.
¹⁰ Kethuboth 11a.
¹¹ Kethuboth 11b.
¹² Yebamoth 60b.
¹³ Sanhedrin 76b.
¹⁴ Dagobert Runes, A Concise Dictionary of Judaism, New York, 1959.

Kevin MacDonald Prof. Cal State Jewish Influence On Western Culture

For books from Kevin MacDonald, see here. When talking about Judaism, one might want to ask the question ---- what exactly is meant by crypto-Judaism or "secretly practicing Judaism?"

Most people do not know enough about Judaism to be able to judge it properly. Were they expelled from nations in the past simply because they refrained from eating pork or because they observed the Sabbath?  Seriously, think of how stupid that sounds. 

At the 13 minute point of the video it becomes speculative when he is referring to how the Y chromosome can be traced back to Aaron and Moses. See here for more about Jews and DNA. Also see this video which supports the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. The Christian interpretation is much more logical and reasonable. Hence, the Christian emphasis on LOGOS or reason and logic in the Gospel of John. 

Instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith. The goal of our instruction is the love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith - 1 Timothy 1:4

Interesting Video About Michael Jackson That Many People Don't Know About

The Rabbi that is featured in the video below is from the Simon Wiesenthal Center. To learn more about it, see here.

The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax- Watch the Documentary

For previous articles about the Holocaust, see here and here. See here, here and here for more about the phony Elie Wiesel who is the most famous Holocaust survivor. See here for his importance in the establishment of the Holocaust museum. Isn't that pathetic given his lack of credibility? 

See this post about the famous phony Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, see this post about the documentary about the Holocaust by Steven Spielberg and its problems. Next, see this post here, also, see this comment from the Jewish director Oliver Stone about Holocaust debate, see this to learn about a woman who has more guts than most men. See here to learn about the hidden history of Zionism and how they worked with the Nazi's. See here to learn about the Zionist Transfer Agreement. See here to learn about Jewish Nazi's in World War II.