Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Origins of Anti-Semitism (1 Viewer)

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
Setup: This is the opening of an essay I've been working on. I am currently doing research for it, and this is only the first draft. I would like to know what your feelings are about it, and I would especially like to have insight from Jewish posters, as I am not Jewish myself. I know this theory was expressed to a certain degree in Nietzsche's work, but here I would like to more clearly cultivate it (Nietzsche was, of course, misinterpretated by the Nazis dur to his sometimes esoteric manner of writing) as well as express my own veiwpoints.




As we enter into the 21st century, a supposedly more enlightened generation is still ensconced with the narrow-mindedness so prevalent in our forebears. In times of peace, educated souls can look upon these “idiosyncrasies of the degenerate” with a kind of amusement. However, in times of crises, such as the ones which seem almost assured to lie ahead for a generation which will be the first since the Great Depression to have a lower standard of living than the generation that proceeded it, even the intelligentsia can become enamoured with such troglodytic half-thoughts. And one that always seems to lead the pack in such times are those relating to anti-Semitism. Before the coming onslaught, before rationality is a fondly forgotten attribute of a lost generation, it is important that we do what we can in the short time we have now to eradicate such ancestral leanings from our society, lest the mistakes of the past revisit themselves tenfold. It was with this thought in mind that the following essay was written . . .


From the time Judeo-Christian theology came to the western world, ie Rome, anti-Semitism has seemed to follow proportionately. Why does the Jewish culture seem to inspire such hatred amongst the people whose religion is owed to them? The one attribute that is perhaps most endemic in the Jewish culture is that of guilt. This is especially true when one compares the Jewish culture to the hedonist cultures of Ancient Greece, Rome and to a lesser extent Egypt.

When the Roman Empire conquered the lands of Israel, the Jewish culture over several generations began to introduce itself to Europe in the form of Christianity. Originally, because Judeo-Christian beliefs were so in contrast with the pagan/hedonistic lifestyles of the Romans, this movement faced violent opposition and Christians and Jews both were violently persecuted. The question then becomes why it was that Christianity eventually gained acceptance, but anti-Semitism remains strong even to this day? And why is it that the Christians, whom understood persecution and could empathise with the Jewish plight, continued the Anti-Semitic tradition?

To answer these questions one must look at what happened to Rome as Christian theology began to overtake pagan ritual, this of course being the decline of the Roman Empire, and the eventual emergence of two separate empires: the Byzantine Empire in the west, and the Holy Roman Empire in the East. Both empires adopted Christianity, though the Holy Roman Empire eventually became the central province in Catholicism, and the home of the Papacy.

As Rome declined, Christianity grew in proportion. There are no coincidences in the course of history, and one must simply contrast the goal of Rome, that is to spread civilisation and to make progress in all of life’s endeavours, and the mission of Christianity, which is to concentrate energies towards the afterlife, sacrificing the pleasures of this world. (GIVE EXAMPLE HERE) As the Christian epidemic continued (and based on the results, what else could one refer to it as?), roads and other modes of transportation deteriorated. The architecture, art, philosophy, scientific learning and culture of old Rome was sacrificed to build lavish churches and other shrines to the Christian sky-god. This is how, over time, the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire. Rome and its territories, even the barbarian hordes, had almost fully accepted Christians and their teachings. Yet anti-Semitism only grew. It seems confounding, and yet, it is completely in line with human nature, because along with Christianity, the Jews also brought with them the concept of guilt, that is the concept of feeling bad about something that makes one feel good. A concept previously foreign to Rome and its territories. In fact, it is concept almost uniquely and strangely Semitic. This isn’t to say other cultures were completely unfamiliar with guilt, but only for doing something that in some way harmed someone or something else, a completely linear and rational response. But to feel guilty about doing something pleasurable, that in no way harmed anyone else, and in fact may give pleasure to others as well as to oneself: this was unheard of, particularly in Rome.

Most people would theorise that Anti-Semitism is routed in the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of Matthew, wherein the Jews are said to be solely responsible for the death of Christ. However, this is not the origin, but is rather systemic of anti-Semitism.

When the fathers of Roman Catholicism were taking religious texts to place in the bible, they elected which articles would be excluded, among these were at least three known Gospels of Christ. The reasoning behind the exclusions of these Gospels, which, in most bibles, are still excluded to this day, vary from things such as “dark imagery” that the assemblage didn’t want associated with the New Testament, to the date when the text had been written, being that it was too far removed from the actual event to be taken at face value. Keeping in mind that the Gospel according to Matthew was written over ninety years after the death of Christ, whereas the other Gospels were written no more than seventy years AD, some as early as 40 or 50 AD. This alone would have been reason enough to exclude Matthew’s Gospel, especially when one considers the discrepancies, rather near contradictions, between Matthew’s and the other Gospels. Most notably among these discrepancies is the fact that Matthew’s Gospel explicitly places upon the Jews the responsibility for Jesus’s death; whereas the other Gospels make it clear that all man, Romans, Jews and even Jesus’s own disciples, were in some way responsible for Jesus’s death, and were subsequently forgiven by Jesus for this and all sins prior. Thereby, in addition to being more out-of-date, fundamentally anti-Semitic and used to insight hatred, something which is most antithetical to the Christian doctrine “Love thy neighbour”, Matthew’s Gospel also contradicts one of the major edicts of the Roman Catholic Church; “Jesus died for our sins.”, for how could Jesus forgive those who were not responsible for the ultimate sin of killing the Son of God? Other texts, it should be noted, were excluded from the Bible for far lesser reasons. In fact, the only reason to include Matthew in the New Testament is precisely that it offers an interpretation different from the other Gospels, an interpretation that could be used to insight hatred toward the Jews. “The Jews killed Christ” has long been the rallying call of anti-Semites for generations, and one must assume that those who had been charged with the great responsibility of crafting the New Testament must surely have been able to foresee such an outcome. In other words, anti-Semitism had to have been already prevalent in at least some levels of the new Christian empire for Matthew’s Gospel not to have been considered for exclusion. And if this be the case, than the New Testament could not, therefore, be the origin.

When one thinks of Ancient Rome and Greece, perhaps first is the culture, civilisation, philosophy, art and technology that they developed and spread throughout the world. But closely second was their hedonistic appetites. Roman and Greek life was centred around enjoying everything this world had to offer: their gods were the gods of wine, love, virility, and strength; the Jewish god is the god of Guilt. Considering then this contrast, one can now begin to understand why Romans, even after converting to Christianity, rather especially after converting to Christianity, had such contempt for the Jews. A culture that was once carefree had now been gilded in the cage of Judeo-Christian doctrine. A culture whose people formerly enjoyed orgies, homosexuality, incest, great gluttonous feasts, warring and fighting, now could not so much as think of such things without feeling pangs of guilt and embarrassment. The “pleasures” of life were taken from them, and who was to blame? After all, their new and omnipotent, all-knowing God could not be at fault, nor their lord and saviour Jesus Christ and his followers. But the Jews, the people who according to the Gospels betrayed Christ and allowed him to die on the cross, they could shoulder the blame for the Roman peoples’ newfound frustration and fear of a previously unknown afterlife, in which every action, and even every thought, of this life will be used to judge them. The Jews are the ones who let people know about this afterlife, it is their sky-god who threatens to send them to hell if not properly obeyed. It is then their fault, as far as the Romans were concerned, that they now lived with constant fear and guilt.

As Roman society continued to deteriorate, Rome and its territories gradually fell into what has become known as the Dark Ages. It is during this bleak period that Christianity is at its peak in Europe, and not coincidentally so too was anti-Semitism.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
What's going on? I've never had to wait this long to get a reply. I guess I'll take my own advice and ask some specific questions.

Is it interesting?
Was it convincing?
Any weak points in the arguement?
 
Definitely interesting as controversial subject
matter always grabs attention. Definitely
well written and with an impressive
vocabulary.

I'm not sure if you want to actually debate
this subject or if you simply want a review
of your work. And your theory on why the
Romans' hedonistic lifestyle conflicted with
the Jews' god-yielding mission was surely
interesting.

But I would venture more into the biblical
line of thinking. I don't believe anti-semitism
started with just the book of Matthew, as
opposed to the entire New Testament as
well as the old Testament in harmony
together.

I believe the bible as a whole makes it clear
that the Jewish religion/nation rejected
Christ. If you want to debate it later, just
say so. If not, I'll presume you were just
looking for fair criticism.

I believe that's where it started though your
theories were certainly sound. And also
the peer pressure, mob mentality of
humankind in general--which is pounce on
a victim in numbers. And the Jews have had
so much persecution already, the fact that
it continues to this day is almost a scientific
thesis on peer pressure and how man can
jump on the bandwagon of any violent
crusade.

But Eleuth, as you might or might not already
know, you're a very gifted writer and one of
the better ones I've encountered as of late.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"I'm not sure if you want to actually debate
this subject or if you simply want a review
of your work."

Since when am I not up for a good debate?
(RE: 'Prologue of new book' in critique forum)

"I believe the bible as a whole makes it clear
that the Jewish religion/nation rejected
Christ."

This essay is still incomplete, and I mean to prove that anti-Semitism proceeded biblical texts.

I may or may not extend this into a far-reaching book entitled; "Jew, Blacks, Gypsies and Homosexuals: Easy Targets". Or more controversially; "Kikes, Niggers, Pikeys and Fags: Easy to Hate". (I imagine that will raise some eyebrows) I want to show why Hitler and other hatemongers/warmongers, including religious organisations, single these people out. (They're large enough to be a good target, and they live virtually all over the world; yet they are small and isolated enough in the places where they live to be unable to defend themselves against a mass onslaught. Making them the perfect foil to unite the majority).

But before that, this essay (and three others, one for each group) will first establish why the majority so easily turns against these people. As I don't believe that people are lemmings who will simply follow the instructions of their leaders, I have to first establish that the majority WANTS to hate these people; leaders then simply cultivate and take advantage of this desire. My goal with this book will be to reveal the very roots of hatred, opening the way for others to attack these roots. That's why I need this argument to be a strong as possible, because it will be attacked by the people who rely most on hatred. I also need it to be as interesting as possible, because if people don't read it, then what's the point?

"But Eleuth, as you might or might not already
know, you're a very gifted writer and one of
the better ones I've encountered as of late."

Thanks, but I think I'm going to have to get a lot better to sucessfully get my point across with this book.
 
lol if you have the balls and the audacious
publisher needed to actually name your
book Kikes, "Niggers, Pikeys and Fags:
Easy to Hate", Ill probably buy a copy.

I'll post more on the subject later.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"lol if you have the balls and the audacious
publisher needed"

Yes and yes. But I also intend to preface this with a Lenny Bruce bit that will be on the back cover. Do you know the one I'm talking about?
 

Airborneguy

Senior Member
I have to agree with mitchell (since I am not wasting time on other parts of the forum, I finally had time to read this!). It is a GREAT piece of writing, I can tell you that, but I don't believe that this is the proper forum to debate it's merits. I believe anti-semitism originates a little further up in the timeline and is based on a totally different reason. Great writing, good topic, and I give you even more credit if you are not Jewish for speaking on something like this, Jews tend to believe this is only their realm and should not be touched by anyone else.
 
Yes, I vaguely recall one of the back covers
of Lenny Bruce's books about Christ
and Hoffa both hiring convicts, or something
to that effect? A sarcastic sentiment would
be a good idea.

I agree that it's really not the right place
to debate this--at least not my side of the
argument.

You may be right, that anti-semitism
developed well after ancient Jewish
and Christian times, and I'll await the
thesis, whenever it comes out. (Though
I do believe personally, it started way
back when as I was once involved in
a similar thread regarding The Passion
Of The Christ)

However, I would disagree that it was
just the book of Matthew that could
hypothetically create anti-semitism.
The entire bible, both old & new testament
clearly paints the Jewish nation in a
negative light. (not individual people,
since even the apostles were Jewish, but
the established Jewish system)

I also must contest the idea of people not
being lemmings. :)) A lot of very
unprovoked, sadistic, animalistic attacks on
people by people have happened, and for
no other reason than just mob mentality.
People who take part in murder, gang-rape
or beatings on helpless individuals have no
political reasoning behind their actions.
They're resorting back to animalistic
instinct--and sometimesy manipulated by
others who have an evil agenda.

I would venture to say, that people who
really are violently anti-semitic (though
they might lazily use the old cliche, that
the Jews rejected Jesus) really don't know
why they hate Jews so much except that
it makes them feel all warm and evil
inside. By the same logic, why do KKK
members hate blacks? For political
idealogies or psychological differences?
No, I would have to believe its just
because they can, they want to, a
villainous feeling of superiority that
hurting another person can bring them.

But I'm listening.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"I have to agree with mitchell" :shock:

Why not debate this here? I think the best way to strengthen the argument I am making is through debate.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"Are There Any Niggers Here Tonight?"

"Oh, my god, did you hear what he said? Are there any niggers here tonight? Is that rank! Is that cruel! Is that a cheap way to get laughs? Well, I think I see a nigger at the bar talking to two guinea owners and next to them....Now why have I done this? Is it only for shock value? Well, if all the niggers started calling each other nigger, not only among themselves, which they do anyway, but among others. If President Kennedy got on television and said:'I'm considering appointing two or three of the top niggers in the country to my cabinet'-if it was nothing but nigger, nigger, nigger- in six months nigger wouldn't mean any more than good night, god bless you...-when that beautiful day comes, you'll never see another nigger kid come home from school crying because some motherfucker called him a nigger."
---Lenny Bruce

This is what I'm thinking of putting on the back cover (of course I'm going to have to get permission first)
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"Jews tend to believe this is only their realm and should not be touched by anyone else."

In this case, I think you're confusing the average member of the Jewish faith with Zionist leaders. (Or is this what you meant?) That's something that will also be covered in my book.

I think that most Jews don't mind other people speaking out against anti-Semitism; in fact I think they encourage it. If a jew complains about anti-semitism, or a minority about racism, or a homosexual about gay-bashing, etc. then it just looks like another person trying to make excuses for their life. But when someone outside of those groups speaks up, then it give the cause more credibility.
 
hahah, yeah use that.


i saw a documentary on lenny bruce a while
back. it's really interesting and sad how
innovative he was and how he was pounced
on by society at the time because of it.

His progressive artistry and its persecution
actually destroyed his career and life.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
That's why I think a quote from him would be so appropriate for my book. Plus it explains why I used those words in the title.

Would PA let me put that on the back cover and let me keep the title? I'm not sure if Author House would. They don't mind swearing and potentially offensive material in the book, but I doubt they would allow it on the cover. (Which is ironic, since I'm trying to destroy the hateful nature of these words. Can you imagine an entire book shelf with that title? Lenny would be proud.)

If I show this piece to a major publishing house, they will probably mess with it and completely ruin it; meaning once again I'll be forced to self-finance.
 
I really don't know. I am impressed with
some books that PA has released under
their name...and yet, I don't think any
traditional publisher would allow that
for a title. PA is trying to be taken
seriously as a traditional publisher...so I
have my doubts.

btw, my argument was basically that
the bible as a whole painted the Jewish
nation in a negative light. Were you going
to touch on that later on? A lot of people
think it was just the gospels, but a lot of
it could have stemmed from the earlier
books like Hosea and Chronicles, when
it reveals the chronic infidelity of the Jews
when it comes to following their God.
And then later on, past the gospels, where
it is stated that God has rejected the
Jewish nation, because they rejected his
son.

I don't blame you for not going into the
religious aspect, especially if you feel
that in later times the anti-semitism
started. But to suggest that it was just
the gospels that could have lead to
anti-semitism, I don't think would be
accurate, and yet is a belief held by
many.
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"but a lot of
it could have stemmed from the earlier
books like Hosea and Chronicles, when
it reveals the chronic infidelity of the Jews
when it comes to following their God."

Could you give me some specific passages so I can do research? (Actually, I'm considering reading the whole bible cover-to-cover as a primer for this book). Based on what you say, that doesn't seem to be specifically anti-Semitic, because Christians lack of faith is also shown in the bible.
 
Well let's see...

First of all the term Jew, meaning
descendants of Judah, (and more
importantly the two tribe, southern
kingdom) isn't even used in the bible until
the book of Kings, and right about when the
10 tribe kingdom fell. So going before
that time period might be confusing,
between Jew, son of Abraham, Israelite, 2
tribe or 10 tribe and etc.

The Israelites had a bad record of
infidelity (esp. after Solomon) in which
their worshiping other Gods was likened
to adultery. Ranging from the book of
Judges all the way to the end of the
Hebrew scriptures. There are numerous
references in Jeremiah and Daniel and
Ezekiel in which the sins of Israel are
detailed. The most interesting though, I
think are in Hosea when in the first chapter,
it compares Jerusalem to a wife of
fornication that God is divorcing...and
God actually instructed his prophet to
marry a woman of fornication to illustrate
this point.

Jerusalem was even destroyed at one
point (I believe the common belief is
586 bc?) by Babylon. And then yet
again restored to God's favor after
repentance was shown by them.
(A pattern that goes on and on for many
books) Yet it never regained its
independence as an individual nation.

Anyways, the belief is that Jesus came
to save the Jews and repair the
damage that had been done. By now
they were ruled by Rome--and this was
pretty much the last straw in God's
attempt to save the nation's special
status as the "chosen people". But when
it became apparent that the Jews (as a
religion and as a nation) were not
accepting him as the Messiah as a united
whole, Jesus speaking for God announced
that their covenant relationship was
over.

Though supposedly Matthew is the least
trustworthy gospel, two revealing
statements were made by Jesus, that
the Christian religion still holds to.
Matt. 21:42, 43:
Matt. 23:37, 38

And as even Mel Gibson knows, the
Jewish religious leaders spurred on the
crowds, and they demanded Jesus
be put to death for blasphemy. Sure,
Rome and "we" all killed him...but at
the request of the Pharisees and the
crowds of blinded Jewish commoners.

Then later on, apostles reiterated that
Jews were no longer a favored people
simply because of their RACE. While
individual Jews such as the apostles
were being accepted into God's kingdom
it was based on works and on faith in
Jesus as the new corner stone of faith.
Gal. 3:27-29
Romans 11:25, 26

And then in Acts 10:9 and a few verses
onward, the point was hammered down,
that God was now even accepting
gentiles into his kingdom--which is the
final slap to the Jewish nation that
always looked down on gentiles as
undeserving and unclean.


Christians do lack faith today, and are
an embarrassment. Arguably though, that
lack of faith was not shown as much in
the bible as the failing of the Jewish
nation. The 1st century congregation was
just getting started and it was much later
after the death of all the apostles that
the Catholic church became so corrupted.
 

americanwriter

Senior Member
Interesting debate. And an interesting piece of work, but I think you're trying to argue too many points for this to fit as an essay.

From a Christian's perspective, I'll throw two cents here on the anti-semitism. I don't know of many Christians, being true believers, who actively seek out to persecute those of the Jewish faith. We would be setting ourselves against God's chosen people and thus making ourselves enemies of God. That would be rather a stupid thing to do. But neither are we to align ourselves with their teachings in that we have been called to Christ under a new doctrine of faith, not in the law, which no one of the Jewish faith has been able to keep since its inception.

But as Christians we know that ALL those who reject Christ, whatever their professed religious belief, make themselves enemies of Christ. We have our marching orders and we are to follow Christ no matter what. Jesus said it truly, that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword, truth that accepted by some and rejected by others would divide even parents and children and siblings. And surely it has. Christians, such as we are, are those whom God said would be "a peculiar people unto himself," children by adoption. I for one do not blame the Jews for Jesus death. They were instruments of God's will and instruments of purpose for Jesus in that he was forordained from the foundation of the world to die on the cross. The Jewish leaders of the time who feared Jesus' teachings, because those teachings seemed to be in conflict with scriptural laws, and because Jesus' teachings convicted them on many things in their misunderstanding and misapplication of the holy scriptures, had no more choice in whether Christ went to the cross than Pilate had in finally ordering the crucifixion. It was God's plan that Jesus would die for the people, and it was going to occur. Judas was an instrument, selected to fulfil a portion of the scriptures that God's plan would move forward. Peter denied Christ three times, and the folowers of Christ were scattered. Just as the prophets foretold. Christ's followers, with God's approval, could just have easily risen against the Jewish leaders, but God did not permit this. It was His holy purpose that Christ, the chosen Lamb without blemish, should die for the people, and that it would be the Jewish leaders of the time that would deliver Him to Pilate. But remember too, that Christ went willingly. It was for that purpose He came into the world. His life was not taken from Him, He laid it down for the sins of the people.

Among the majority of Christians today, it isn't a matter of fixing blame upon the Jewish people that Christ died (though many would like this to be the case), for the scriptures and prophets foretold that He would be delivered up to die and that "His own would not receive him." The Jewish nation, though God's chosen people in the old testament, have been in conflict with God for centuries, and even the scriptures tell that that conflict will continue even through these last days.

God's chosen people, the Jewish people, have always faced persecution for their faith and will until Christ's return. God has already said this. So too, will those who are called Christians. We know this. Those who seem to struggle hardest against what is happening in the world are those who do not understand that they cannot save this world. Anti-semitism in so far as religion is concerned will remain because those who are not with Christ are against Him. God drew that line in the sand a long time ago. As for racial prejudice, that too will remain so long as mankind yields to the inherent sinfulness of selfishness, and ego, and pride, and self-agrandizement, self-glorification. As for those who practice homosexuality, there too, Christians know that those who do such things are an abomination to the Lord. God's word is clear on that. "Those outside of Christ God will judge," according to God's word. Those who live by the law, will be judged by the whole of the law. Those in Christ will have his advocacy and the covering of His blood. They will not be seen in their sinfulness, but clothed an cleansed in the Christ's purity.
 
Well we agree in some respects and
disagree in others, americanwriter.

But I'll stick the to literary argument
rather than focusing on the religious.

While I admit to being confused
regarding prophecy equalling
predestination, I can't understand the
thought that The Jews (or worse yet
"certain" Jews) were a tool that God
lovingly used to perform his own will.

True, Jesus would not have wanted his
followers to start a violent revolt. Yes,
he offered his life willingly for man's sins.
BUT clearly there is a difference between
the way Jesus viewed the Romans,
the common Jewish people, and the
pharisees.

Luke 23:34. He asked forgiveness
for the Romans because they did not
know what they were doing.

Luke 13:34. He called the children of
Jerusalem "children" or "chicks" that
he wanted to gather together and
save from destruction.

John 8:42. He compares Pharisees
to sons of Vipers, hypocrites, from
Satan, and deserving of everlasting
doom.


So whether or not predestination
enters into it (which i can't see personally,
since with evil things God cannot be tried)
Jesus certainly felt some were more
bloodguilty than others. (His murder
and murders of other prophets)
 

eleutheromaniac

Senior Member
"but I think you're trying to argue too many points for this to fit as an essay."

How so? Can you be more specific?

"I don't know of many Christians, being true believers, who actively seek out to persecute those of the Jewish faith."

Individual Christians probably don't (which goes to my point about people not being lemmings), but that's only because most Churchs no longer actively preach anti-Semitism or anti-heresy (at least not to the extent they once did eg Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, etc.). This essay (as noted in the intro) is more about the possible future then about the present. During rough periods, people are angry and look for someone, anyone, to blame. Leaders know that if they don't take advantage of their people's anger, they will become victims of it. These four groups are the most common foil for these leaders to do so, for reasons mentioned earlier and will be further examined later.

"God's word is clear on that."

I don't know that it is, as homosexuality is only mentioned once in the entirety of the bible, the infamous "Man shall not lay down with man as he does with woman". Some say that it is also subtly mentioned during the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, but you really have to be reading into it to see it as specifically being against homosexuals. The point is that NOTHING is mentioned in the Bible only once. How many times is stealing mentioned? Adultery? Murder?..... Coupled with the fact that most biblical scholars agree that some parts of the Bible have been creatively edited to suit the ends of powerful leaders, and one has to assume that this passage was added in later, as a means to insight hatred against homosexuals. (I'll go into further detail in the essay dealing with homosexuals). The reason I include homosexuals is because they fit the same mold that Jews, blacks and gypsies do (see above) and they were all equally persecuted by the Nazis.

PS: as you probably presumed, this essay presupposes that the Bible is a mythical relic, and nothing more. It also presupposes that everything within the Bible is not literal history, but mythologised history (this will be covered in part of the book as well). I don't assume that Jews are hated because God is punishing them, I assume they are hated for cultural reasons and to suit the ends of people in power. This part of the book establishes the cultural reasons.
 
Top