Diversity Macht Frei
December 17, 2017
I took a break from posting this week to research the history of Hanukkah. Like almost every other aspect of Jewish history, it turns out to be a fraud.
Until recently, Hanukkah was considered an insignificant festival, even for Jews. It is not one of their major holidays. But, starting in the 19th century, American Jews began to big it up and push it on the goyim, supposedly so their children wouldn’t feel left out over the Christmas season, more likely as a calculated vitiation of the foremost Christian festival, a deliberate defilement of Gentile unity.
For those inclined towards “TLDR”, I’ve left the most in-depth historical background and analysis to a skippable second section.
Almost all of the information that we have about the “Revolt of the Maccabees”, the events that form the basis of the Hannukah celebration, comes from the 1st Book of Maccabees and the 2nd Book of Maccabees, both written by Jews. So, as is so often the case, even in modern times, what we are left with is the Jew version of history. And, as in more recent historical episodes such as WW2 or the “Russian” Revolution, conscious effort must be made to take alternative perspectives into account.
According to the Jew version of history, the one whose basic outlines are repeated by Theresa May and Donald Trump, the Seleucid king whose kingdom included Judea, Antiochus IV, developed a sudden hatred of Jews for no reason and decided to suppress all the particularities of the distinct peoples within his realms and enforce uniformity of customs and laws among them. Non-Greeks had to adopt Hellenic ways. As a calculated taunt to the Jews, he had a pig sacrificed in their temple, banned circumcision and slaughtered Jews who remained loyal to their religious law. This precipitated the “revolt of the Maccabees”. Again according to the Jew version of history, the Jews fought heroically against superior odds, eventually winning their independence.
Now let’s get to the real version of history, the kind you don’t hear mentioned by presidents and prime ministers, but find only in obscure academic tomes.
First, Antiochus IV didn’t develop a sudden hatred of Jews for no reason. The Jews had mounted a violent rebellion while he was off invading Egypt. This distinctive pattern of Jewish behaviour, the “stab in the back at a critical moment”, has been a speciality of theirs down through the centuries and has often provoked intense antagonism.
Second, the struggle, fundamentally, was between various corrupt Jews vying for office with one another. Just as, in the modern world, Israel has been described, even by Israeli newspapers, as a virtual gangster state; in ancient times, things were no different. Supreme power in the country rested in the hands of the High priest. This office was held originally by Onias. His brother Jason then approached Antiochus IV and offered him a large bribe if he would appoint him high priest instead. Since Antiochus IV needed money (partly because of the growing threat from Rome) and didn’t care much one way or the other, he said yes. So Jason became high priest. Another Jew, Menelaus, then approached Antiochus IV and offered an even larger bribe if he could become high priest. Again, the king said yes, dismissing Jason and appointing Menelaus.
When Antiochus IV was forced to turn back from his invasion of Egypt (see more on this below), there was a false rumour that he had been killed in the fighting. Jason, the ousted former high priest, gathered an army and attacked the other Jews in a bid to seize power. This was the fighting that Antiochus construed as a rebellion against his rule.
The origin of the conflict, then, had nothing to do with a proud assertion of national independence against a tyrannical foreign overlord. It was instead a familiar tale of corrupt Jews vying for an important office which they could then use to exploit their fellow Jews and extract money from them.
Moreover, it had nothing to do with proudly Jewish Jews challenging other Jews who wanted to go Greek. All of the corrupt Jews were Hellenisers. They all recognised the superiority of Greek culture and civilisation and wished to see their fellow Jews embrace it.
Later, other Jews resentful of Greek ways did get involved. These people, known as the Maccabees, rejecting the Greek spirit of rationalism and inquiry, the essence of European civilisation, preferring instead to cling to Oriental superstition. These Maccabees were the Jewish equivalent of the Taliban or Islamic State in our own time. When western leaders celebrate Hanukkah, this is who they are honouring.
Intriguingly, one of the complaints the Jews had about Antiochus was that he was forcing them to accept the immigration of non-Jews.
“And that he should settle strangers to dwell in all their coasts, and divide their land by lot.”
In their Hanukkah fable, Jews celebrate their resistance to exactly the kind of nation-destroying diversity they now impose upon European Man through puppet rulers such as Theresa May. The fact that ignorant goy rulers are made to impose death by diversity on their own peoples while celebrating Jewish resistance to the same could be construed as a ritual humiliation intended to add mockery to the crime of White Genocide.
The background to the events that form the basis of the Hanukkah celebration is as follows.
After Alexander the Great’s death, the territories that he conquered were divided up into smaller kingdoms ruled by his generals and their descendants. The Seleucids were one of these dynasties, ruling Syria; the Ptolemies were another, ruling Egypt. At the time the conflict broke out, Judea was under the control of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV. All of the kingdoms formed from Alexander the Great’s conquests became repositories of Greek culture and radiated Hellenistic influence around them.
The Seleucids and Ptolemies vied for dominance of the region through a long series of wars. Although the Seleucids were gradually acquiring a dominant position over their rivals, neither was destined to endure. Rome was soon to triumph over Carthage (founded by the Semitic Phoenicians) in their epic conflict spanning more than a century and was now ascending to superpower status. Soon it would absorb the Hellenistic kingdoms and dominate Judea.
The assertion of Roman power in the region may indeed be the key to understanding the conflict that gave rise to the Maccabean revolt.
Antiochus first took reprisals against the Jews after he had been forced to return from his unsuccessful expedition to Egypt. His armies had not been defeated, however. He had been intimidated by Rome. His campaign against Egypt had been going well. As he was poised to take it further, however, he was confronted by a Roman envoy, Gaius Popillius Laenas. When the envoy arrived, Antiochus extended his hand in greeting. Instead of shaking it, the Roman handed him a decree from the Roman senate and told him to read it. The decree instructed him to withdraw his forces from Egypt or consider himself at war with Rome. Antiochus replied that he would need time to consider the matter with his advisers. With a stick, the envoy then drew a circle around him in the sand and told him to give his reply before he had left it. Shocked by this arrogance, Antiochus replied that he would do as the senate had asked. His armies then withdrew.
Did the Jews have any hand in bringing the Romans into the game? We have no hard evidence of this, but it would go a long way towards explaining Antiochus’ subsequent behaviour towards them. Jews are the masters of this kind of intrigue, playing one goy power off against another. We do know that Antiochus had shown no hostility to Jews until then. We also know the claim the Jews make in their 1st Book of Maccabees, namely that Antiochus IV attempted to impose a uniformity of customs and laws among all the peoples within his realms, is false. An action of this type would have left a record among the non-Jewish peoples, and no such record exists. For some reason, Antiochus IV developed a unique hostility towards the Jews.
The Maccabean revolt did not break out until some time later, in response to Antiochus’ crackdown. But the first Book of Maccabees records an approach being made to the Romans, asking for their assistance against the Greeks and promising them loyalty in return. (Of course the Jews would ultimately be no more loyal to the Romans than they had been to the Greeks.)
So Judas chose Eupolemus the son of John, the son of Jacob, and Jason the son of Eleazar, and he sent them to Rome to make a league of amity and confederacy with them. And that they might take off from them the yoke of the Grecians, for they saw that they oppressed the kingdom of Israel with servitude. And they went to Rome, a very long journey, and they entered into the senate house, and said: Judas Machabeus, and his brethren, and the people of the Jews have sent us to you, to make alliance and peace with you, and that we may be registered your confederates and friends. And the proposal was pleasing in their sight.
Is it possible the Jews had actually reached out out to the Romans even earlier, precipitating their original intervention against Antiochus? We have no way of knowing. But if we had only been left the Jew version of 20th century history, then we would have no way of knowing what had really prompted the “Russian” revolution or, indeed, Hitler’s reaction to it. Even this fairly recent history has to be uncovered through elaborate research in non-standard sources. Think what secrets might have lain buried in the unwritten counter-Semitic history of the 2nd century BC.