Avlevy

The resilience, compassion, and contributions of Muslim communities help make our state stronger.  Tonight landmarks across the state are lit green as New York celebrates Muslim American Heritage Month.

If it wasn’t obvious before, the mask finally comes off with Candace Owens holding up The Talmudic Jew by August Rohling as proof for her claims about so-called Talmudic Judaism. At that point, there is no ambiguity about where this is going. The Talmudic Jew was published in 1871, at the height of European racialized 'Scientific' Anti-semitism. Just eight years later, in 1879, Wilhelm Marr would coin the term Anti-semitism itself. Jews were being emancipated legally while being demonized culturally, and this moment demanded a pseudo-academic justification for hostility toward them, something that could pass as research rather than prejudice. Rohling’s book served that function. Rohling was a Catholic priest and polemicist and not competent in Rabbinic Hebrew or Aramaic. The Talmud is not a book you quote for doctrine. It is a legal corpus built from arguments, disagreements, hypotheticals, and minority opinions, preserved precisely because disagreement is central to how Jewish law works (more on this below). In 1883, Rohling sued Joseph Samuel Bloch for libel after Bloch publicly accused him of scholarly fraud. Bloch challenged him to defend his citations. Rohling could not even translate a single page of Talmud selected at random. Between 1884 and 1885, independent scholars examined his work and demonstrated that his quotations were fabricated or mistranslated and that his entire framework rested on misrepresentation. In 1885, Rohling withdrew the case rather than face full proceedings. He never recovered academically. Rohling’s method was simple and dishonest. He invented quotations, mistranslated selectively, ripped lines from legal hypotheticals, erased context, and recycled medieval blood-libel accusations as if they were rabbinic law. From the opening pages, he presents Judaism as morally depraved and treats the Talmud as a single corrupt ideology rather than a record of debate. He announced his conclusions first and then retrofitted citations to support them (I recommend reading the intro) It is the same method Candace Owens is now operating under. The Talmudic Jew had zero standing in serious scholarship. Its survival was confined to places where truth was not the point, including Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, Soviet Anti-semitic tactics, Arab nationalist polemics, and later conspiracy culture. That is the lineage Owens draws from when she presents this book as evidence. This is not just asking questions. It is reviving a framework that has already been tested, exposed, and discarded. Texts like this resurface during periods of political stress and social realignment because they offer a ready-made moral culprit. First comes the claim that a group is morally alien. Then the insistence that criticism is being silenced. Then the rehabilitation of language that once would have been disqualifying. None of this is new. Only the packaging changes. People like to imagine that history repeats itself only in obvious ways, with uniforms and slogans. It doesn’t. It rhymes, and the couplets are getting closer. I don’t pretend to know exactly what the inflection point will look like, but I’m confident there will be one in the next 2 years. Pointing this out now is not alarmism, it’s pattern recognition.

The very obvious thing going on here is that Tim has been trying to sell his business and is in financial trouble. He is now effectively trying out to be another unhinged zionist influencer. Someone please just do the deal with him.