were obviously non-Jewish. And, while many of these ritualistic crimes may have been committed out of animosity towards Christianity, one cannot say with certainty that these crimes would not have beencommitted if the babies of people who profess the Christian faith were not available, as it certainly appearsthat such mystical acts required the use of blood. Further, such accusations have preceded Christianityitself. One is reminded of the tales surrounding Moloch, a large bronze statue named after the HebrewKing Melech (technically, the same name, since Hebrew has no vowels, “MLK”), in which children wereregularly sacrificed by being tossed into a flaming pit called a “Tophet” that surrounded the idol, in the OldTestament. Also, there have been many accusations in the Arab world of Moslem children suffering asimilar fate as that of Christian children (including one rather recently, which will be considered in greater detail later). And, as with many of the cases mentioned in Dal’s book, one cannot discount them. It is for these reasons that the term Gentile is used. The rest of the text, unless otherwise noted, remains Dal’s:
All the civilizations where the Jews reside, for many centuries, have held the popular belief or legend that the Jews have killed non-Jewish babies in a brutal manner, because Jews need the blood of non-Jews for their mysterious ceremonies. Only recently, people have started to reject these accusationsand suggest that, in Europe, they are both absurd fairy-tales and slander. The accusations that Jews commitsuch acts were horrible if unfounded, of course; however, there are other examples in the chronicles of religious
human mutilation: The Indian idol admirers sacrifice themselves and other people by terribletorments, with the hope of acquiring future goods—oftentimes, for the purpose saving a soul. In Europe,among the Christians, a sect of assassins had appeared, and during two or three centuries, the inquisitionfires continued. Also, in Russia, during the last century, the self-incendiaries—that is, people who setthemselves afire—appeared. But not only did they burn themselves; they began to set others afire as well,including entire villages. There are these and other religious sects, who commit such acts in an effort tosave their souls.It was not just one group of people who have accused Jews of committing such deplorable acts;Jews were accused many times of that in court by a variety of people. On the whole, there was not onlytheir own confession in addition to other evidence; but there were such examples where the Jews wereexposed and, consequently, had recognized themselves as being true. One such event should obviously beenough for people to acknowledge the real existence of such villainous human mutilation, but thedefenders of Jews say something quite different: The confession was forced by torture and, therefore, proves nothing. Assuming, however, this argument is true, too, and believing all that was ever said andwritten on this problem in favor of Jews, with respect to forced confessions, there is still one circumstancethat will remain, which is never paid enough attention. This circumstance not only remains as unexplained by Jews but also is the proof of the crime itself—namely, it is not doubtful that, from time to time, thecorpses of babies, who were missing, were eventually discovered in such distorted conditions and withsuch signs of external violence that they attested to images of excruciatingly painful deaths. This is thekind of murder for which the Jews are accused. Also, the incidents of this nature exclusively occurred onlyin places where the Jews live. We must ask ourselves: In what type of circumstance can we attribute therenewed cases of babies who suffered painful deaths—babies who were carefully tortured up to the pointof their tragic deaths—if an accusation is not fair? What reason can we invent for the villainous torture of a baby, if it is not done for religious mutilation? The external signs on corpses indicate each time this isdiscovered, positively, that the death could not be accidental in any case but intentional. And, it is obviousthat these injuries sustained by the babies are deliberately done and take place over a long time: The whole body is poked or pricked. Then, scraps of skin are cut. The tongue was often cut out. The intimate partsof boys are either cut out, or the boys were circumcised. Occasionally, other parts of the body are cut out,and the palms are punctured. Signs of bruises from tight bandages put on and removed again are notuncommon; often, the entire skin has abrasions as if it was burnt or had something rubbing against it.Sometimes, the corpse was even washed, with it being discovered without any blood in it; nor was thereany blood on the undergarments or clothes, demonstrating that they were taken off during the murder and,afterwards, put on again. The parents and siblings of babies who have experienced such tragic deathswonder: For what possible reason would people commit such deplorable acts to innocent babies? Without a purpose, it could never be done; yet it continues to happen repeatedly over time. The ordinary killer, in anycase, would be satisfied with one murder. But a murderer who kills for some type of mysterious, important purpose cannot be rejected here.