There is much written about him in Robert Wistrich's book, "The Jews of Vienna in the Age of Franz Joseph," where he is described as a a "forger" and a "charlatan," and the writer of many anti-Jewish works:
"Using Talmud quotations torn out of context, his appearance as an expert witness in the ritual-murder trial of Tiszaeszlár in 1882 became a scandal when the Protestant theologian Franz Delitzsch proved that he had committed perjury and falsification. Rohling’s writings were rejected by the official Church as obscene, and his license to teach was revoked. Through the promotion of antisemitism in Austria by Karl Lueger and Georg Heinrich Ritter von Schönerer, and by the Boniface Association in Germany, Rohling succeeded in reaching many Catholics. His writings were widely disseminated and influential; Rohling’s antisemitic agitation was still cited by Julius Streicher [Der Sturmer, Nazi Newspaper]"
In Rholing's book “Five Letters on Talmudism and the Blood Ritual of the Jews” Rohling claimed:
Jews kidnap and murder Christian children for religious purposes.
Christian blood is mixed into matzoh dough to sanctify Passover rituals.
Judaism obligates Jews to murder non-Jews when advantageous.
Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented
Holocaust Propaganda, Hamas & October 7
Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity
One Man’s Journey to “Holocaust Denial”
Auschwitz Lies
What Do You Think of the Jewish “Holocaust” Historical Hypothesis?
Even Grok refused to translate the entire book for me, but it offered this list of its claims:
- The Talmud permits and encourages deceit, fraud, theft, usury, adultery, and even murder against non-Jews (central thesis: presented as a systematic "corrupted morality" treating non-Jews as subhuman).
- Jews are the "kings of capital," "princes of trade," and "rulers of the press" (despite being only 0.3% of the world population, they dominate finance, commerce, and media).
- Jews are a parasitic nation living off others (quoted from Schopenhauer: "lives parasitically on the other peoples and their soil"; Herder: "a parasitic plant on the trunks of other nations").
- Jews are inherently deceitful and untrustworthy (Kant quoted on their "reputation of deceit" via usury; medieval anecdote advising never to trust a Jew fully).
- Jews cause economic ruin through usury and monopolies (e.g., in Romania: accused of exploiting natives, monopolizing capital/food, causing crises via "horrendous usury").
- Jews drive revolutions and control secret societies (influenced 1789, 1830, 1848 revolutions; ties to Freemasonry; Crémieux quoted on a "new Jerusalem" replacing emperors/popes).
- Jews will face violent backlash due to their own actions (liberal protection temporary; predicts "mob" will hold "bloody judgment" over this "great enemy of society").
- Modern "reform" Jews are just continuing the same agenda under new names (embrace of "modern ideas" like equality/revolution as proof of ongoing quest for domination).
- Jews are responsible for moral corruption (dominate prostitution, obscene literature; seduce Christian women while protecting their own).
- Extreme solution endorsed via Fichte quote: Only way for Jewish civil rights is to "cut off their heads in one night" or send them all to Palestine.
Here is a section from the book "Antisemitismus" by Wolfgang Benz (Benz is considered a reliable historian by even Nazis like @KarlRadl that discusses Rohling).
In his own day, Rohling was rejected by the Catholic Church as obscene!!!
I managed to get a translation from DeepL that I will post.
I fed it into Grok and ChatGPT. Here are some extracted highlights. Turns out, he was sort of a Zionist, ...exile them all to Palestine to protect society."
- Jews, despite being only 0.3% of the world's population, have become the "kings of capital," "princes of trade," and "rulers of the press," dominating global finance, commerce, and media through cunning and exploitation.
- Jews are a "parasitic plant" on other nations, living off their hosts without contributing, lacking a true fatherland, and driven by an inherent "usury spirit" that leads to deceit and economic ruin of Gentiles.
- The Talmud equates non-Jews with beasts or idolaters, stating their souls originate from devils, their graves do not purify, and killing a non-Jew is not punishable like killing a Jew.
- Jews are inherently untrustworthy and hypocritical, permitted by the Talmud to lie for peace or self-interest, with even God depicted as lying or needing rabbinic approval in Talmudic stories.
- Modern Jews, including reformers, secretly uphold Talmudic principles while embracing "modern ideas" like revolution and equality as a guise for seeking world domination, subjugating thrones and altars.
- Jews orchestrate revolutions (e.g., 1789, 1830, 1848) through Freemasonry and secret societies, with figures like Crémieux aiming for a "new Jerusalem" to replace emperors and popes.
- Jews engage in ritual murder, as alleged in cases like the Damascus affair of 1840, where they are accused of killing Christians for blood rituals, covered up by Jewish power and gold.
- Emancipation of Jews leads to moral corruption, with Jews dominating prostitution, obscene literature, and seducing Christian women while protecting their own, turning societies into hotbeds of vice.
- The only solution to the "Jewish question," per quoted philosopher Fichte, is to "cut off their heads in one night" and replace them with non-Jewish ones, or exile them all to Palestine to protect society.
Jewish souls are portrayed as divine in origin, while non-Jewish souls allegedly come from the devil or animals.
The Talmud supposedly permits or encourages lying, deception, and fraud against non-Jews, especially for self-interest or “peace.”
It is claimed that stealing from non-Jews is permitted, or that non-Jewish property is considered ownerless and free to take.
The text asserts that killing non-Jews is permitted or treated lightly, while killing Jews is portrayed as uniquely grave.
The Talmud is alleged to teach that saving a non-Jew’s life is forbidden or spiritually blameworthy.
Jews are described as believing they have dominion over the world and all other nations by divine right.
The Messiah is said to usher in a future where all nations serve Jews, Christians are destroyed, and Jews rule politically and economically.
The text claims the Talmud teaches that Christians are idolaters who should be destroyed, including statements attributed to rabbis about killing “the best among Christians.”
Jesus is portrayed as being depicted in the Talmud as a heretic, sorcerer, criminal, or illegitimate figure, and Christianity as a false or criminal religion.
It alleges that sexual relations with non-Jewish women are permitted, while similar acts with Jewish women are criminalized.
The text claims Jewish law excuses or minimizes sexual abuse, exploitation, or coercion of non-Jewish women.
Jews are accused of being taught that oaths sworn to non-Jews are invalid and may be broken without moral consequence.
The Talmud is said to allow usury, extortion, and financial exploitation of non-Jews as legitimate or divinely sanctioned.
Jews are depicted as believing they may manipulate courts, testimony, and legal systems when dealing with non-Jews.
Non-Jews are described as excluded from true morality, justice, and salvation, regardless of conduct.
The text alleges Jews believe collective punishment, deception, and violence against outsiders are religiously justified.
Jews are accused of teaching that their own sins are automatically forgiven, especially on the Day of Atonement, without restitution.
The work claims Judaism mandates eternal hostility toward Christianity and Christian states.
The text ultimately asserts that Judaism is inherently hostile to moral civilization, and that Jewish integration into non-Jewish societies is fundamentally impossible.
- The Talmud teaches a corrupted morality that permits and encourages deceit, fraud, theft, usury, adultery, and murder specifically against non-Jews, treating them as subhuman or animals whose property and lives are forfeit to Jews.
What the F*CK is going on in the world? How can @megynkelly and @JDVance and @ggreenwald and @ComicDaveSmith and so many others stay silent about this? How can @TPUSA even consider an association here?
(@TuckerCarlson claims he "hates" identity politics?)
I made a public folder of the materials I found. PLEASE double-check me. The last thing I want is to be inaccurate. I'm dealing in foreign languages and cross-checking AI engines... Errors are possible. drive.google.com/drive/folders/…
At a certain point, denial stops being plausible.
@martyrmade has reached that point.
Yesterday, he told his audience that two self-identified Nazis know “10× more” about WWII than he does, and held them up as “genuine experts” for further study.
2/x - Let's start with Radl
@KarlRadl (Karl @SemiticControversies on Substack) identifies himself as a National Socialist (i.e., a Nazi)
3/X
It's a pen name, (apparently) taken from a famous Nazi of the past.
1/x Tucker is a Master of the Dark Arts of Communication. But from time to time, he slips and gives us a clear glimpse into his motivations.
A definitive thread
How is it that Darryl Cooper came to be blaming Zionists for installing Churchill and orchestrating WWII?
2. The argument that influential Jews installed Churchill to do their bidding comes directly from the world's most famous Holocaust denier, David Irving.
"[In a Yiddish accent] We make you Prime Minister, you make war on Germany".
3. A bit on Irving: In one of the most famous court cases of the modern era, Irving was found to be a "deliberate" falsifier of history. (Entire opinion: ) drive.google.com/file/d/1P_vnFe…
"When they say they will kill you, they will kill you–if you do not kill them first."
"For these are people who mean what they say. If you do not destroy them, they will destroy you. There are precedents for this."
He stands by it, but feels Israel, apparently through ethnic cleansing (a contradiction of the ICJ standard?) has embarked on a genocide of the Gazan Palestinians.
He's convinced this - not removing Hamas from power and freeing the hostages - is Israel's true war aim.
The interview didn't end well, but @bartov_omer is ok by me.
He's correct that there is ominous, startling language and thought emanating from Israel. He's correct that the aid distribution has been a disgrace.
Is this how the moral high ground is supposed to look?
1/5
If you argue that expertise isn’t necessary, then accuracy becomes your only credibility. Get the facts wrong, and you’ve proven your critics right.
Re: Smith/Murray. We dinged Dave on 4 errors that he makes repeatedly.
We agree that non-experts have much to contribute.
2/5 1. As @aroberts_andrew points out, NO, Churchill did not call World War II a mistake, or regret his actions.
(Roberts is the World's foremost Churchill expert, so this one has got to sting.)
3/5 2. NO, James Baker's "not one inch" proposal (in 1990, not 1991, which is very significant) was NOT a quid-pro-quo for the dissolution of the Soviet Union, nor was it ever agreed to or put in writing.
We need look no further than the first review listed for a perfect example.
"A Sensational Idea!"
Take a few words out of context, drop a word, add an exclamation point—and the original scathing, dismissive Time magazine review is transformed into a favorable notice.
Here is my tweet from yesterday which presents the entire Time Magazine review. Spoiler alert: Time did NOT like the genocide idea.
Considering that @martyrmade posted these piles of books as his "sources" only a month ago, and that "Lying About Hitler" is in the pile, the notion of him not being aware of the details is dicey.
He read an entire book about the David Irving details!
I'm worried here about pushing my relationship with @martyrmade to the breaking point. That's sincere, though hard to explain to friends.
Darryl has more than once forced me to recheck my arithmetic and taught me things I didn't know. I'm smarter for tangling with him.
But as the great Jewish mobster Hyman Roth said: "This is the business we've chosen."
We're clashing over ideas — personal relationships must take a backseat. Anything less is to accept personal corruption. Frank disagreement is not disrespect.