The Seven Moronic Fabrications of Thomas Klikauer and Danny Antonelli
Covering Everything from Jewish Ritual Murder and the Protocols of Zion to the Death of Jesus and Martin Luther
In an article in ‘CounterPunch’ from June 2023 I came across a while back but judged so… quite frankly… moronic that I hesitated to reply to it. Two writers Thomas Klikauer – who pretends to be sceptical inquirer but is actually an unabashed Marxist – and Danny Antonelli – who appears to be failed writer of music who doesn’t even update his own website – decided to write up ‘The 7 Poisonous Fabrications of Antisemitism’.
Given ‘CounterPunch’s’ reputation for good quality opinion pieces based largely on Patrick Cockburn I was rather surprised at the very poor quality of Klikauer and Antonelli’s article. They begin by describing Deborah Lipstadt’s horrible, deceptive and often factually inaccurate book ‘Denying the Holocaust’ as a ‘masterpiece’. (1)
We then read one of the most ludicrously inaccurate historical statements that I have ever read, which is:
‘The hallucination of Blood Libel started on 23 March 1475 when a young boy named Simon Unferdoren disappeared. The mysterious disappearance, and the speculative hallucinations about it, led to the invention of one of the most bizarre, antisemitic, and dangerous legends ever created by sheer human imagination. This antisemitic fabrication even influenced one of the worst antisemites ever – Heinrich Himmler – when writing in 1943, “we should proceed to investigate ritual murder among the Jews”, which might have come from him reading about the Massena Blood Libel.’ (2)
In the first instance the Saint Simon of Trent case of 1475 A.D. – which Klikauer and Antonelli are referencing – is by no means the first ‘Blood Libel’ (aka Jewish Ritual Murder) case and while one of the better documented it is in the ‘middle of the pack’ so-to-speak in terms of the historical timeline of Jewish Ritual Murder case.
The first actual reference to Jewish Ritual Murder is actually found in Josephus’ ‘Against Apion’ and is documented by the classical Greeks and as I have demonstrated in my article on it; it is almost certainly a genuine case and references the practice of human sacrifice to the Canaanite goddess Asherah who was a consort of Yahweh along with the goddess Astarte in the ancient Canaanite religion. (3)
It is also worth noting that this Jewish Ritual Murder reference must be treated as separate from the other later references to Jewish Ritual Murder because they are completely different in context and form. Although it does prove that – as sensible people have long been aware – jews are not incapable of committing such an act for religious reasons.
The first medieval reference to Jewish Ritual Murder is in the case of Saint William of Norwich in 1144 A.D. where jews were judged to have committed the act against the 11–12-year-old boy William. Even the latest academic case study into the death of William and the culpability of the jews cannot make a convincing argument that the medieval chronicler Thomas of Monmouth – who was a witness to the events and his primary jewish witness about the reality of Jewish Ritual Murder the convert from Judaism Brother Theobald – (4) was wrong and instead plumbs for the ‘safe’ speculative solution – on no actual evidence mind you - of William having committed suicide and the family blamed the jews to get around the prohibition of burying a suicide in consecrated ground. (5)
A similar situation prevails in the case of Saint Simon of Trent in 1475 where the authority on the case Ronnie Po-Chia Hisa cites jewish claims that the body of Simon was ‘washed into the cellar’ – which served as the jewish community’s mikvah - where his body was found and that it was all a local Christian plot to defame the jews for the death of the boy. (6)
Klikauer and Antonelli similarly fail with their reference to Himmler’s comment which was actually a reference to a 1943 book by German schoolteacher named Hellmut Schramm called ‘Der Judische Ritualmord: Eine historische Untersuchung’ (7) and which caused him to instruct the SS to conduct academic and criminal research into the matter. (8)
How this is a ‘poisonous fabrication’ I don’t know, but rather what is a ‘poisonous fabrication’ is Klikauer and Antonelli’s knowledge of the subject!
Klikauer and Antonelli mention the so-called ‘Massena Blood Libel’ of 1928 in detail when they state:
‘This was an instance of Blood Libel against Jews in which the Jews of Massena, New York, were falsely accused of the kidnapping and ritual murder of a Christian girl in September 1928. The girl was found in the woods later that afternoon roughly a mile from her home. She told authorities she had become lost during her walk and slept in the forest.’ (9)
What Klikauer and Antonelli don’t mention is that the ‘Massena Blood Libel’ of 1928 is not a good example of a Jewish Ritual Murder case and is very much an outlier. Most Jewish Ritual Murder cases were sparked by the discovery of the victim’s body and often the manner of death and the location of the corpse. In the ‘Massena Blood Libel’ of 1928 this was not the case and was instead a rumour that was taken as a serious possibility by the police when a 4-year-old girl named Barbara Griffiths went for a walk and didn’t come home.
While I haven’t looked into Massena in any detail, I will note that the timing is interesting (two days before Yom Kippur) and the Kapparot ritual (aka the ‘Sin Offering’ of a ritually sacrificed rooster or hen in Judaism) occurs on the eve of Yom Kippur which von Leers suggested might be the basis of the ritual murder sacrifice given the Hebrew word for hen is the same as the word for man. (10)
So, while it seems a clear-cut case of a false ‘Blood Libel’ on the surface. It might actually be a genuine case.
However, Klikauer and Antonelli don’t even consider the possibility of what they are looking at as they apparently have done next to no research and are thus unable to offer no real insights whatsoever beyond trite nonsense.
They continue by claiming that:
‘A close runner-up, in second place, is the myth: Christ-killers. The Christ-killer libel also established the Jews as seeking the destruction of Christianity and Christians. Not surprisingly, super-antisemite Martin Luther once said: “If they could kill us all, they would gladly do so.” Wasn’t it the other way around? One is hard pressed to remember a pogrom of Jews against Christians. Interesting to know is that it was only in 1965 that the official rejection by the Church of the Christ-killer libel was announced. Yet the libel found renewed expression in Mel Gibson’s 2004 feature film The Passion of Christ.’
Firstly this view of Luther as a ‘super-antisemite’ is very myopic since - as Lohse has pointed out - Luther always left the door open for sincere conversion (11) as well as believed that his version of Christianity would be attractive and lead to the mass conversion of the jews (12) and secondly it ignores the fact that it was Rabbi Josel of Rosheim who caused ‘Luther’s anti-Semitism’ by writing repeated letters to Luther asking him to ‘use his influence’ on behalf of the jews and to further jewish interests in Germany. (13) This triggered four book length attacks from Luther on the jews: ‘On the Jews and their Lies’, ‘Against the Sabbatarians’, ‘The Shem-Hamphoras’ and ‘David’s Last Word’.
What was Rabbi Josel of Rosheim’s response?
He began demanding Luther be – in modern parlance – cancelled and managed to get Luther’s anti-jewish books officially suppressed in Strasbourg. (14)
As to the issue of jews as ‘Christ-killers’ (aka the theological charge of Deicide) this has never been ‘repudiated’ officially at least although some Christian churches have sought to downplay it by pushing the idea that the Romans in fact killed Jesus – which is true in the most superficial of senses in the same way that an executioner technically is a murderer but it leaves out those who issued the judgment and the motivation behind said judgment – but you cannot contradict the Gospels and be Christian. It simply doesn’t work if one is to be Christian who fundamentally are the audience for the nonsense argument that the ‘jews didn’t kill Jesus’.
To quote the Gospel of Matthew on the trial of Jesus and the jewish crowd:
‘“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.’ (15)
And the Gospel of John on the jews:
‘You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.’ (16)
The reality is that if one is a Christian then one believes the Bible to be the literal and/or metaphorical truth and the Bible on this subject is very clear: the jews killed Jesus.
Klikauer and Antonelli do even worse when they move to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion when they claim that:
‘The fall of Europe’s last absolute monarchy, in Russia in 1917, raised The Protocols to the level of prophecy. After numerous investigations, particularly by the Russian historian Vladimir Burtsev, it was definitively and conclusively revealed that The Protocols were forgeries compounded by officials of the Russian secret police out of the satire of Joly – a fantastic novel (Biarritz) by Hermann Goedsche, and other sources.’ (17)
There are two things wrong with this sentence:
Firstly the ‘forgeries’ argument made primarily on the basis of Philip Graves, Binyamin Segel and Norman Cohn’s claimed parallels which have been reinforced by Umberto Eco’s analysis of dozens of works where such ‘plagiarism’ is apparently evident in the Protocols of Zion. I’ve already pointed out why Eco’s argument is itself contradictory and ridiculous in a previous article, (18) but it bears explaining why this contention is very obviously stupid and wrong.
The problem you see is that we have no ‘original text’ for the Protocols of Zion and this claim of ‘plagiarism’ – which is the cornerstone of the ‘forgery’ argument – is based on comparing the Marsden English translation of the Protocols of Zion from Russian against an English translation of the French original of Maurice Joly’s ‘Dialogues’ (Graves and Cohn) and a German translation of the Protocols of Zion from Russian against Hermann Goedsche’s German language novel ‘Biarritz’ which in turn has been claimed to be a German translated plagiarised of Joly’s ‘Dialogues’ in French (Segel).
You wouldn’t compare a modern German translation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth against say the original German of Goethe’s Faust then conclude that Goethe ‘plagiarized Shakespeare’ now, would you?
Thus, we can see that the entire argument that the Protocols of Zion are ‘plagiarism’ collapses, and we may further note its absurdity in the idea – promoted by authors as diverse as Cohn, Stephen Eric Bronner and David Aaronovitch – that the Protocols is not only a plagiarism of Maurice Joly’s ‘Dialogues’ but also of many other works such as Eugene Sue’s ‘The Mysteries of Paris’.
We already know the Marsden English translation is a bad one since – for example - one of the most commonly commented on and laughed at passages in the Protocols of Zion before they are dismissed with typically ignorant sneering. In this example, Cohn's claim about French fears about Paris Metro being represented in the 'subterranean tunnels' comments in the Protocols of Zion’s text actually results - as de Michelis has shown - from a garbled English translation of an original Russian verb and not from 'end of the nineteenth century French preoccupations'. (19)
Secondly Klikauer and Antonelli are simply lying about a ‘consensus’ being that the Protocols of Zion were created by the Okhrana (the Tsarist Russian Secret Police) since this idea has been decisively debunked by leading Protocols of Zion scholar Cesare de Michelis, (20) while the leading expert on what we may term the ‘Pre-History of the Protocols of Zion’ Michael Hagemeister wholeheartedly agrees. (21) Hagemeister has further pointed out that the ‘Protocols of Zion were created by the Okhrana’ thesis was created not out of scholarship but as the ‘official version’ of the anti-Protocols of Zion narrative by jewish activists and lawyers during the Bern Trials of the Protocols of Zion between 1933 and 1937. (22) This thesis was then simply adopted by Cohn who added his own gloss to it and presented it as the outcome of his own research when it was actually plagiarised without attribution from the work of Boris Nikolaevskii and even then, misrepresented Nikolaevskii’s opinion.
To quote Hagemeister:
‘Basically, Cohn did no independent research, preferring to compile the findings of others. Most of these stemmed from Boris Nikolaevskii. Although this is not clear from Cohn’s book itself (which was published after Nikolaevskii’s death and does not reveal his contribution), it is apparent from the correspondence between Nikolaevskii and Cohn’s Russian wife, Vera, from 1964 to 1966, which is available at the Hoover Institution in Stanford. As already mentioned, Nikolaevskii was convinced that the origins of the Protocols had nothing to do with Rachkovskii and the Okhrana, and that the key witness for that narrative, Alexandre du Chayla, was a “swindler”. It was time, he wrote, to abandon the accusations against Rachkovskii, as they stood in the way of researching the Protocols. Nevertheless, Norman Cohn held onto du Chayla and his tale.’ (23)
Nor are de Michelis and Hagemeister lone voices in disputing the myth that the Okhrana ‘created’ the Protocols of Zion since academic historians of the Okhrana had long dismissed this theory as utter nonsense.
For example, Charles Ruud and Sergei Stepanov wrote in 1999 that:
‘Many historians today contend that the Okhranka did target the Jews collectively as revolutionary at the turn of the century, and, as a prime piece of evidence, they point to the fraudulent Protocols of Zion, whose precise origins remain a mystery. But, even as no concrete evidence has come to light about when, where, and by whom their drafting took place, solid data on the actual publication of the Protocols before the revolution explode the thesis of Okhranka involvement. Only six different printings are known in Russian before the revolution, merely one of which can be remotely linked to the government.’ (24)
Similarly, Jonathan Daly has pointed out that Burtsev’s opinion about the origins of the Protocols – upon which Klikauer and Antonelli explicitly base their claim – was rejected by scholars of the Protocols of Zion at the time. (25)
I would add further that both de Michelis and Hagemeister have repeatedly noted that the Protocols appear to have something to do with the Zionist Congresses being held in Europe with de Michelis proposing that it has to do with the 1902 ‘Pan-Russian Zionist Congress’ in Minsk (26) while Hagemeister points out that some of alleged sightings of the early Protocols may date them to as early as 1895 contrary to de Michelis’ 1902-1903 dating, but that the evidence for this earlier dating is fragmentary and hardly conclusive. (27) De Michelis and Hagemeister also both note the Protocols similarity to – and potential plagiarism of - Theodor Herzl’s ‘Die Judenstaat’. (28)
Interesting: no?
Yet Klikauer and Antonelli fail to mention it.
I wonder why!
Klikauer and Antonelli’s litany of ignorant falsehoods continue when they claim that:
‘This links to myth 4 – the Chosen. Antisemitic beliefs hold that Jews think they’re better than other people. Sigmund Freud suggested the Chosen concept was the very origin of antisemitism. According to standard antisemitism, the Chosen people also have money (myth 5). And, naturally, the Jew’s loyalty is not just to money but feeds into their so-called Dual Loyalties (myth 6). Myth 6 allows antisemitism to question the loyalty of the Jews, as the infamous Dreyfus Affair has shown so brilliantly. Even Tricky Dicky – aka Richard Nixon – questioned Kissinger’s loyalty, once saying “the Jews are born spies.”’ (29)
As to the ‘Chosen’ status of the kews; aside from the fact that if a people believes themselves to be the ‘Chosen People’ of the creator of the universe and they define their status by their descent (as jews do) then they per force ‘believe they are better than other people’.
To quote liberal Reform Rabbis Lawrence Hoffman and Morris Kertzer:
‘Jews are nothing less than partners with God, in that they have been charged with the task of uprooting evil and perfecting the cosmos.’ (30)
And:
‘Israel was this chosen to honor and perpetuate God’s laws and to transmit God’s heritage.’ (31)
That is the left-wing and most charitable view to non-jews with which – for example – fellow Reform Rabbi Julia Neuberger (32) as well as Orthodox Rabbis Maurice Lamm (33) and the former Chief Rabbi of Switzerland Arthur Cohn agree. (34) Heck even secular jews like Lionel Kochan (35) and Josef Kastein (36) agree with this implicitly jewish supremacist interpretation of the concept of the ‘Chosen People’ and those are just a few of those I could mention and quote!
So yes, old Sigmund Freud might have been right!
As to the jews ‘having money’ Klikauer and Antonelli lazily don’t even offer an argument to ‘debunk’ this assertion, which is actually factually accurate since jews – for example – were by en large the richest people in medieval Europe (37) – routinely tried to bribe Popes (38) and Kings (39) to the extent that synagogues actually had to make rules forbidding it as bad for the wider jewish community – (40) nor was this an aberration peculiar to medieval Europe but rather has been the case till the present. (41)
So yes: the stereotype is not only true but as the jewish writer Barnet Litvinoff observed – using Switzerland as an example – jews use their wealth to assist them in wielding significant influence on their host countries:
‘Although numbering only 20,000 in all, Swiss Jews, through their geographical location and economic standing, wield an influence much greater than their numbers would otherwise justify.’ (42)
As to the so-called ‘Dual Loyalty’ issue; this is something of a misnomer. When jews are accused of ‘Dual Loyalty’ they aren’t being accused of being an American jew who also happens to support Israel but rather a jew in America who supports Israeli and/or jewish interests over American interests thus demonstrating that said jew is primarily loyal to Israel not America.
For example, Lucy Dawidowicz provides the following pre-Israel example of jews promoting jewish interests over and to the detriment of American national interests:
‘The AJC’s most spectacular success was its three-year campaign beginning in 1908 to get Congress to abrogate America’s treaty with Russia because it discriminated against Jews – from any country – in the issuance of permits to enter Russia. The AJC’s leaders objected to America’s acquiescence in Russia’s discrimination against American Jews, but the passion underlying the masterful political and educational campaign was directed against Russia for its brutal pogroms and persecution of the Jews within its borders.’ (43)
While Sir Leon Simon – a friend of Chaim Weizmann’s and an influential member of the Zionist cause – pointed out that jews have always been loyal to other jews first (and now the state of Israel) and not the country’s of whom they are citizens. (44) A point echoed by prominent French jewish writer Edmond Fleg (45) as well as alluded to by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe:
'I do not know to what extent, in your post with the U.S. Embassy, you are able to assist Israel; nonetheless, by putting on tefillin every weekday you can definitely help, and there would be no problem of 'dual loyalty'.' (46)
So as the Lubavitcher Rebbe eloquently pointed out: there is no ‘dual loyalty’ for jews, but rather just loyalty to Israel.
Klikauer and Antonelli’s last ‘poisonous fabrication’ is the laziest of the lot:
‘This leads us to the final fable (7): Oppressed to Oppressors. One marked expression of the 7th myth of antisemitism appeared in May 2010 when the words Free Gaza and Palestine were graffitied on the wall of the Warsaw Ghetto. The perpetrators had deliberately chosen the site. Yet, what is happening in Gaza is very different from what Germans did in the Warsaw Ghetto, where cases of hunger cannibalism were recorded. Jews died during physical effort, such as searching for food, and sometimes even with a piece of bread in their hands. Eventually, Germany’s SS deported them to the Treblinka death camp, where virtually all were killed by poison gas.’ (47)
I mean what is this even arguing? That ‘Free Gaza’ and ‘Palestine’ graffitied on the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto are somehow out of place?
How can that be when Gaza is in many respects an ‘open air concentration camp’ that was created after a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing by Israel (aka ‘Plan Dalet’)?
The only argument Klikauer and Antonelli really have is that what Israel has done – and is doing – to the Palestinians is somehow ‘technically different’ to the ‘Holocaust’ which is so bad an argument that Anne Applebaum’s attempt to ‘explain’ this logic about why ‘killing with poison gas’ is categorically different to just ‘killing with bullets’ falls flat on its face and falls apart on its own logic. (48)
In short Klikauer and Antonelli don’t’ have an argument just emotional appeals to the shibboleth of the ‘Holocaust’ and that’s it.
When you factor in how much Klikauer and Antonelli’s article – as I have shown – is lies, misrepresentations, bad arguments and casuistry then you have to ask the question:
Is it simple ignorance or sheer malevolence?
You decide.
References
(1) https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/01/the-7-poisonous-fabrications-of-antisemitism/
(2) Ibid.
(3) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/reconstructing-the-first-jewish-ritual
(4) I have discussed Brother Theobald’s testimony and demonstrated that it is likely to be true in the following article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/brother-theobalds-testimony-on-jewish
(5) E. M. Rose, 2015, ‘The Murder of William of Norwich: The Origins of the Blood Libel in Medieval Europe’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. 21
(6) Ronnie Po-Chia Hisa, 1992, ‘Trent 1475: Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, p. 27
(7) Available in English translation here: https://jrbooksonline.com/schramm/index.htm
(8) Darren O’Brien, 2011, ‘The Pinnacle of Hatred: The Blood Libel and the Jews’, 1st Edition, The Hebrew University Magnes Press: Jerusalem, pp. 37-48
(9) https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/01/the-7-poisonous-fabrications-of-antisemitism/
(10) https://jrbooksonline.com/schramm/foreword.htm
(11) Bernhard Lohse, 1986, ‘Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work’, 1st Edition, T. T. Clark: Edinburgh, p. 89
(12) H. G. Haile, 1980, ‘Luther: A Biography’, 1st Edition, Sheldon Press: London, p. 288
(13) Ibid.
(14) Ibid., p. 291
(15) Matt. 27:22-26 (NIV)
(16) John 8:44 (NIV)
(17) https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/01/the-7-poisonous-fabrications-of-antisemitism/
(18) https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/umberto-eco-and-his-fictional-case
(19) Cesare de Michelis, 2004, 'The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion', 1st Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, pp. 92-93
(20) Ibid.
(21) Michael Hagemeister, 2022, ‘The Perennial Conspiracy Theory: Reflections on the History of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, 1st Edition, Routledge: New York, pp. 39-56
(22) Ibid., pp. 24-25
(23) Ibid., p. 33
(24) Charles Ruud, Sergei Stepanov, 1999, ’Fontanka 16: The Tsars’ Secret Police’, 1st Edition, McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal, p. 203
(25) Jonathan Daly, 2004, ‘The Watchful State: Security Police and Opposition in Russia, 1906-1917’, 1st Edition, Northern Illinois University Press: Dekalb, p. 211
(26) De Michelis, Op. Cit., p. 76
(27) Hagemeister, Op. Cit., pp. 42-43
(28) Ibid., p. 42; de Michelis, Op. Cit., pp. 46-47; also, Stephen Eric Bronner, 2003, 'A Rumor about the Jews: Antisemitism, Conspiracy, and the Protocols of Zion', 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. 81
(29) https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/01/the-7-poisonous-fabrications-of-antisemitism/
(30) Lawrence Hoffman, Morris Kertzer, 1993, ‘What is a Jew?’, 5th Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York, p. 114
(31) Ibid.
(32) Julia Neuberger, 1996, ‘On Being Jewish’, 1st Edition, Mandarin: London, pp. xv; xvii
(33) Maurice Lamm, 1991, ‘Becoming a Jew’, 1st Edition, Jonathan David: New York, p. 92
(34) Arthur Cohn, 1972, ‘Of Israel’s Teachings and Destiny: Sermons, Studies and Essays’, 1st Edition, Ahron Press: New York, pp. 10l; 12; 26; 40
(35) Lionel Kochan, 1977, ‘The Jew and His History’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: London, pp. 7-8; 12-13
(36) Josef Kastein, n.d. (1939?), ‘Jews in Germany’, 1st Edition, The Cresset Press: London, p. 3
(37) For example: Cecil Roth, 1941, 'A History of the Jews in England', 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: London, p. 15; Rodney Hilton, 1975, 'The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages', 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. 183; Christopher Dyer, 2002, 'Making a Living in the Middle Ages: The People of Britain 850 – 1520', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 148; 178; Leon Poliakov, 2003, [1975], 'The History of Anti-Semitism', Vol. I, 1st Edition, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, p. 77; Michael Toch, 1995, 'Local Credit in an Agrarian Economy: The Case of Bavaria, 14th to 15th Centuries', pp. 801-802 in Michael Toch (Ed.), 2003, 'Peasants and Jews in Medieval Germany', 1st Edition, Ashgate: Burlington
(38) For example, see: Cecil Roth, 1946, 'The History of the Jews of Italy', 1st Edition, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, p. 179; Leon Poliakov, 1977, 'Jewish Bankers and the Holy See: From the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Century', 2nd Edition, Routledge & Kegan Paul: Henley, pp. 132-133; David Mocatta, 1973, ‘The Jews of Spain and Portugal and the Inquisition’, 1st Edition, Cooper Square: New York, p. 60
(39) For example: Jonathan Phillips, 2007, ‘The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 86-87; Lohse, Op. Cit., p. 291
(40) For example: Neville Laski, 1952, ‘The Laws and Charities of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews Congregation of London’, 1st Edition, The Cresset Press: London, pp. 14-15
(41) Cf. Benjamin Ginsberg, 1994, ‘The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State’, 1st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago; expanded upon by Jerry Muller, 2011, ‘Capitalism and the Jews’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton
(42) Barnet Litvinoff, 1969, ‘A Peculiar People: Inside the Jewish World Today’, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London, p. 144
(43) Lucy Dawidowicz, 1982, ‘On Equal Terms: Jews in America 1881-1981’, 1st Edition, Holt, Reinhart and Winston: New York, p. 75
(44) Sir Leon Simon, 1955, ‘The Land of Israel’, p. 197 in Ephraim Levine (Ed.), 1955, ‘The Jewish Heritage: A Symposium’, 1st Edition, Vallentine, Mitchell & Co: London
(45) Edmond Fleg, 1943, [1927], ‘Why I Am A Jew’, 1st Edition, Victor Gollancz: London, p. 32
(46) Aharon Dov Halperin, 2004, ‘Our Man in Dakar and Other Stories of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’, 1st Edition, Sifriyat Kfar Chad: Kfar Chabad, p. 121
(47) https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/01/the-7-poisonous-fabrications-of-antisemitism/
(48) Anne Applebaum, 2004, ‘Gulag: A History of the Soviet Camps’, 1st Edition, Penguin: New York, pp. 23-24