At the height of the Great Cultural Revolution, the Chinese had the temerity to embark upon a monumental, nature-changing enterprise: they decided to exterminate ALL flies. The spirit of their solidarity was so powerful that they succeeded. For a while, they enjoyed peaceful summer evenings without this great annoyance. No buzz, no fuss: life was great without flies!

But soon they discovered that mighty eagles weren’t seen anymore in the welkin. Big noble salmon much favoured by connoisseurs died out in their rivers. And soon the opulent palace of Chinese nature began to collapse as a house of cards, for it had thrived on flies as much as on eagles. Every species is a precious cornerstone of the world. Remove it, and the consequences are unpredictable. The Chinese understood this, laid off the remaining flies, and soon they had salmon again for dinner and eagles to compare their helmsmen with.

This story comes to my mind when I note the vehemence of good and progressive folk confronted by ethically doubtful tendencies. One may doubt the inherent goodness of Traditionalists, Nationalists and Nativists. But should one exclude them from discourse? People often react to any reference to David Duke or Roger Garaudy or Abbe Pierre as our grandmothers to obscenity. This appears to be the good and correct approach to avoid causing undeserved distress to Jews. However, the equally extreme opinions of Jewish supremacists are being spread freely by the mainstream media. Thus, slanted discourse comes into being.

The problem is not only (not even mainly) in deflating the sacred freedom of speech. There are worse consequences. Joe Public, a silent participant in the discourse, is a sane, normal and good person. He does not choose one of the proposed extremes but seeks the middle ground on their spectrum. We all do it instinctively: when presented with differing tendencies, we try to capture the middle ground between the extremes. Good people slant discourse and pervert our judgment. TOP

For instance, the media debates whether Iraq should be bombed right away, frisked first or left in peace. A good sane man, Joe Public, takes the middle ground and opts for the frisking. Our position – ‘stay out of Iraq for good and even forget its name’ – loses, for it is an extreme opinion, much like the ‘bombing’ one, and not the middle ground. In order for us to occupy the middle ground, discourse should include opinions as extreme as those of Muraviec and Perle, but together with their polar opposites.

It is very possible that these opinions will be as unpleasant to us as those of the Jewish chicken-hawks in the Pentagon. As an Israeli citizen, I wouldn’t enjoy an appeal to nuke Israel or to remove all Jews from positions of influence in the US. However, these unpleasant opinions would provide a much needed balance to the present assault of philo-Semitism. Joe Public, while exposed to these opinions, will take his middle ground. This good man will say: ‘Oh no, we should not nuke Israel! Maybe trade embargo and naval blockade will be sufficient’. Or: ‘Oh no, not our wonderful Jewish mayor, but Perle and Wolfawitz can go’. TOP

An extreme position will usually lose. The adversary knows it and ensures the presence of his own extreme voices in discourse. David Duke is forever barred from participation in discourse for he was a KKK leader, but Yossi Halevy, an ex-member of the Kahane Band (surely racist) writes for the New Republic, and torture-promoting Dershowitz writes for the NY Times. In order to ensure they are not extremists, they bring in Nathan Lewin and Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni is a tenured professor at George Washington University and a friend of Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal and Abe Foxman. Lewin is a candidate for a federal judgeship. They call for the execution of the family members of suicide bombers.[1] After their prime appearance, Dershowitz comes in as a moderate and says, ‘the same level of deterrence could be achieved by levelling the villages of suicide bombers after the residents are given a chance to evacuate’, and the extremist Lewin disparagingly likens this to “using aspirin to treat brain cancer”). David Duke never reached this level of bestiality, but he is excluded from discourse while they are not.

Consider Israel. The full spectre of opinions in our country stretches from Jihad extremists who would like to expel all Jews to Marzel extremists who would like to expel and kill all Gentiles. In this spectre, my own position is but the middle ground: no expulsions, no killings, but peaceful life together for all the communities. In normal discourse, my position would win, and united free Palestine would come into being. But the discourse is slanted: at first, extreme Arab opinions are blocked. Then, moderate Arabs find themselves ‘extremists’ and are effectively blocked. Eventually the softest non-Jews – Ahmad Tibi and Azmi Bashara – take the place of extremists and are excluded from discourse.

The exclusion of one extreme causes the drift of the middle ground when the other extreme is not in place to plug it. Thus, instead of being in the dead middle, the supporters of equality for Jews and Palestinians find themselves at an extreme end. As extremists they are excluded from discourse. Though 30% of Israelis and Palestinians support the idea of one state with equal rights for all, according to a pre-Intifada survey by Haaretz, their opinion gets zero representation in discourse. TOP

ORDER IT NOW

On the other hand, leaders of Jewish terrorist organisations regularly write for Haaretz. Haggai Segal, who was sentenced (and later pardoned by the President) for the murder of Palestinians, is a frequent writer on its liberal pages. But the opposite opinion, that of Hamas and Jihad, is carefully excluded even from the Palestinian mainstream. Thus, the drift of the middle ground continues unchecked. Likud politicians are not extremists: they ensure they are not by including extremists of their kind in discourse. Ariel Sharon is not an extremist, for he promotes his right-wing opposition of Liberman and Landau. Now, these thugs do not want to be extremists either, and they promote a new voice, Baruch Marzel, a man-eating ogre from the Jewish settlement of Hebron. Next to Marzel, Jack the Ripper is a soft guy. Marzel’s people have a tribune in the liberal Haaretz; they are included in discourse.

Their Western counterparts, the Jewish chauvinists Conrad Black and Mort Zuckerman, are active participants in discourse by virtue of their ownership of a large chunk of media. But their mirror opposites, Horst Mahler or Nick Griffin, are excluded. Without these extremists, the moderate voices of the anti-globalisation and anti-Zionism are excluded as well, for they find themselves on the extreme. The founding fathers of American democracy were ready to die for the right of their opponents to express their opinion publicly, for they intuited that in order to promote one’s ideas one should ensure the presence of more radical voices on the spectrum.

In balanced Palestinian discourse, the opinions of Hammas and Jihad should be presented. We can productively argue about suicide bombings only if the voices of their fervent supporters are included and considered. Otherwise, a dynamite-loaded belt is their only way to express their opinion. What is worse, without them Edward Said is glossed as an extremist.

Germany is a classic case of the ‘no flies, no eagles’ policy. After its defeat in WWII, Nationalist opinion was excluded from discourse. Now, the meek spirit of Germany is crushed. Germany spends every extra pfennig it has on paying Zionists and arming the Jewish state. It imports every willing descendent of Jews from the former Soviet Union and allows the local Jewish leaders to brainwash these disoriented refugees into hatred of Germany and separatism. I have met these unfortunate people who arrived in Germany with a very weak Jewish identity, if any at all. Their children are pushed into separate Jewish schools protected by hard men with machineguns and paid for by the German taxpayer; they are taught that Israel is their home, while Germany is a hated place they should keep a wary eye on. It creates many psychological problems for the children who seek solidarity and identification with the country they live in but are brainwashed into rejecting it.

I wrote about the recent visit of Israeli President Katzav to Berlin: “the German Left betrayed its duty to demonstrate against the supplying of the apartheid state with nuclear-bearing submarines”. My friend Ingrid K wrote from Berlin:

I did not want to stand with very few others, lost between the police-protected Neo-Nazis and the stupid fraction of anti-anti-Semites feeling eternal warm-solidarity-with-Israel even as a third and more desperate party a half-mile away chanted “weapons-for-Israel”. In Germany, the Left has come to a sad level of powerlessness and disorientation. Its disorientation culminates in the growing praise of a group of ‘Left’ political writers (part of them connected with New Kach!) fighting the upcoming ‘new anti-Semitism’ in Germany. Young people who are engaged in anti-racism or against neo-Nazism are feverishly obsessed with discovering the hidden anti-Semitism in the Left and in their own souls. (It’s like we Germans stop thinking when it comes to anti-Semitism.)

Haaretz published[2] an extensive interview with a German ‘left-wing journalist, human rights activist and intellectual’, Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, ‘one of Germany’s leading authorities on human rights in Iraq’. This ‘left-winger’ calls for war on Iraq, pledges his support for the Jewish state, for Globalisation, for America and for banks, while describing himself ‘a Marxist’. Such freaks are a direct result of the slanted discourse that excludes the German nationalist tradition. If this tradition were included, Hans Publik would find his middle ground between calls to expel Jewish immigrants and calls to give them their present exalted status; he would integrate them into society and firmly stop the attempts of Jewish leaders to promote their alienation and create a fifth column inside Germany. Ingrid K concludes her report from the German scene:

To stand up for Palestinians is a kind of courage test and risks one’s being cited an anti-Semite. Sad but true, the little political group I’m working with feared to post the ingenious essay of Michael Neumann ‘What is Anti-Semitism’ (that I translated into German) on our Homepage. No courage. But one must not give up.

Ingrid still does not understand the reason for German meekness. Otherwise she would call for true freedom of speech and full participation in discourse for the people she hates, the German extreme anti-Globalist right. The sheer presence of Horst Mahler in discourse would make the publication of my friend Michael Neumann’s well-thought piece the non-controversial intellectual exercise it was meant to be.

In France, Roger Garaudy is excluded and ostracised. The French sainted Abbe Pierre, who dared to express some modicum of support for the old ex-Communist, found himself excluded as well. For sure, the opinions of Garaudy are not to everybody’s liking; but his absence from discourse has turned very moderate people and friends of Palestine into extremists. TOP

The post-WWII exclusion of the Nationalist Right was done for the best of reasons. But that was the case with the flies in China. The Jews always had strong influence in Europe, and in my opinion, not always a beneficial one. Still, before the war their influence was counteracted by the Church, by the non-elitist Left, by the Nationalist Right. The ‘no flies’ policy turned this strong Jewish influence into a decisive one, and the edifice of European and North American civilisation began to crumble like a house of cards. Globalisation, neo-liberalism and the withering of European culture are the results of lack of balance.

Christianity is one of the victims of bias, and it is the cornerstone of European art. A recent French film, The Brotherhood of the Wolf, demonises the Christian Church without much subtlety: a half-human monster wears a cross that flashes at us relentlessly, the gang of murderers is led by a priest, its lair is full of crosses and crucifixes, church devotees perpetrate a long chain of ritual murders of innocent women and children in order to bring France back to the faith.

ORDER IT NOW

A mirror image of the movie would substitute a Rabbi for the Priest, make the monster brandish the Star of David and have a bunch of observant Jews commit ritual murder for their nefarious needs. For sure, such a movie would never be screened in France after 1945. (Although this sounds similar to the book on ritual murders published in Syria to a chorus of universal condemnation.) But the French movie producer Samuel Hadad was not condemned or criticised. The French audience is so used to attacks on Church and Christianity that they did not even consciously notice its not-so-subliminal message; it sank directly into their unconscious.

This film did not horrify the French, as at the same time they were treated to The Body, produced by Rudy Cohen. My reader and friend Francois B. describes it:

The Israeli soldiers are like the cowboys, brave and immortal, and the Palestinian terrorists like the Indians, stupid and cowardly. The villain of the movie is a Catholic very high up in the Vatican hierarchy, like No2 or No3 after the Pope, and the very honest, pretty and unreligious Israeli archaeologist calls the Holy Shroud from Torino ‘a vulgar fake’.

This film did not horrify the French either, as they are used to films like Amen, which attacked the late Pope Pius XXII. Suggestively, the Cross on the movie’s posters turns into a Nazi swastika.

‘One evil thing does not justify another one’, good people usually say. ‘Jewish racists are bad, and anti-Christian films are perhaps unpleasant, but it does not mean we should welcome anti-Jewish racists and support anti-Jewish movies. We shall speak against them all.’

The problem is, good people are quite unable to stop the anti-Christian and pro-Jewish tendency, for the Jewish supremacists today control a major chunk of world media and wealth. Besides, the tendencies are unstoppable: they can only be counterbalanced. What good people can do is stop the opposite thought, and they do that very efficiently. In my essays I have frequently noted the advantages of Christian and Muslim universalism over Jewish particularism. The editor of La Fabrique, the good Jewish leftist Eric Hazan, refused to publish my essays, for “despite their literary qualities they include some ideas which are difficult to promote in France, namely, the superiority of Christianity”. I am sure Eric Hazan would not publish a treatise on the vast superiority of Judaism either, but it would be printed in millions of copies by the publishers of Goldhagen and Oriana Falacci. This has the look of job-sharing: Jewish supremacists promote Jewish supremacy, while the Leftists’ job is just to stop the balancing attempt by appealing to universal values. Thus good people participate in slanting discourse as much as bad ones.

The attempts to find anti-Semitism in the gentle writings of the friends of Palestine are enabled by the lack of real and explicit enemies of the Jewish paradigm in all its aspects from Soros to Sharon, from Judas to Maimonides, from Freud to Popper, from Podhoretz to Gusinsky, from Lubawitscher Rebbe to Sulzberger. Such people exist but their voices are silenced. We do not have to love them, or agree with them, but we need them as active participants in our discourse, as otherwise the middle ground of the Western world will remain somewhere between Peres and Soros.

For as long as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, Mort Zuckerman owns the USA Today, Gusinsky bosses over Russian TV, Soros commands multi-billions of funds and Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, we need the voices of Duke, Sobran, Raimondo, Buchanan, Mahler, Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists. If we accept their exclusion from discourse, Jewish bigotry will be tolerated while anti-Jewish bigotry is removed. Then, the middle ground for Joe Public will be ‘a little bit of Jewish bigotry’, or ‘Zionism lite’, in the words of my dear friend Bob Green.

Millennia before the Great Cultural Revolution, the Chinese knew the secret of harmony: the non-Manichean balance of opposing ideas, the principles of Ying and Yang. Properly balanced, Jewish ideas can be beneficial: anti-Christian zeal would limit Church excesses, just as materialism and egoism can keep the feet of Man on the ground while his head is in heaven, feminism can balance male chauvinism, and the sex obsession of Freud can balance the asceticism of spiritualists. Balanced, even Zionism will shrink to the humane proportions of Jewish love for Palestine. But balanced it should be. TOP

The Martial Arts of Discourse

(Response to the article ‘In the Same Camp as Hamsun?’ by Haakon Kolmanskog[3] in the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen.).

Usually, newspaper polemic is akin to epee fencing: one tries to keep the opponent at arm’s length, avoid his thrusts and draw his blood. The thoughtful and friendly query of Haakon Kolmanskog deserves a quite different attitude and a most sincere reply. Haakon poses a question:

We can’t be indifferent if friends of the Palestinians are branded anti-Semites. Who will benefit in allowing the Zionists to have a free go playing the anti-Semite card against anyone who criticise them?

The sad answer is that we have no means of stopping their playing it. For years, the friends of Palestine tried to evade the label by saying:

Israel behaves horribly, but it has nothing to do with the fact that it is defining itself as ‘the Jewish state’. It has nothing to do with Jews elsewhere, and therefore criticism of Israel is not related to anti-Semitism.

But this easy answer was rejected by the Masters of Discourse. Friends of Palestine were forced into daily confessions of their love of Jews, as the suspected heretics of Middle Ages had been of their orthodoxy. Their protestations are without avail, for our opponents can effectively decide what is and what is not anti-Semitism. They can decide because they hold commanding heights in discourse: by virtue of media ownership, economic power and international connections integrated into one armoured fist.

And they use this power by stretching the definition of anti-Semitism as they find fit. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, according to Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard University and to a plethora of other Judeo-American pundits. Anti-Americanism is a new, virulent form of anti-Semitism, wrote David Quinn in The Sunday Times. ‘Anti-Globalisation is anti-Semitism’, ‘the Green policies of Environmentalism’ is ‘anti-Semitism now’ are frequent headlines in Israeli newspapers. ‘Christianity is anti-Semitism’ is the recent title of Goldhagen’s book. In 1990’s Russia, anti-market forces were described as ‘anti-Semites’. Recently, Christine Mohn in the Nationen described Russian Communists as ‘anti-Semites’.

ORDER IT NOW

In no way can you, Haakon, nor your friends in this uniquely free newspaper, define ‘anti-Semitism’. Likewise, you cannot define ‘Communism’. Definitions of these terms are forced on us by the Masters of Discourse. We can work only with them, the existing and prevailing definitions, though we might regret their existence sometimes and offer our own understanding of the phenomena they classify. Alternatively, we can invent our own definitions, as did the Trotskyites: they called Communism ‘Stalinism’. But that was a sectarian escape.

What we can and should do is analyse the definitions forced upon us. If all the above is, indeed, anti-Semitism as decreed by the Masters of Discourse, what is this legendary ‘Semitism’? Surely it has nothing to do with the Semitic race? It is, by their definition, a fusion of Zionism, Americanism, Globalisation, Neo-Liberalism, anti-Communism, destruction of Nature and reduction of the Church. As the Masters of Discourse declared this ‘Semitism’, and their definition is the only one that matters, I can freely acknowledge my (and hopefully your) ‘anti-Semitism’.

Accepting their definition is tactically much better than fighting it. In Oriental martial arts one lets the brute strength of the adversary work against him. That is exactly what I try to do in my essays that you printed. The adversary is strong: let it be his undoing. TOP

II

Let us deal now with the second question of Haakon. How should we view the anti-Semitism of Hamsun the Nazi? he asks. The answer is that we should place Hamsun in his historical context.

ALL participants in WWII were homicidal racists, in modern terms. While the German Nazis killed a lot of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally deranged, the democratic US deported thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent or locked them up for years in concentration camps; the Soviets deported ethnic Germans, Chechens and Crimean Tatars and destroyed their centuries-old villages and homes. Britain invented concentration camps in the Boer War when Hamsun was a child, and deported the ethnic Germans from British Palestine. The British Bomber Harris probably killed as many innocent civilians as any German war criminal.

The great Knut Hamsun, whose beautiful books we cherish, was a man of his times. He was a contemporary of the Russian Jewish writer and publicist, Iliya Ehrenburg, whose brilliant early novel, Julio Jurenito, was rightly acclaimed by Lenin. Ehrenburg was a worldly communist and humanist, a great friend of Picasso and Matisse, of Aragon and Castro. He also pioneered the anti-Zionist genre with his sarcastic novel, Lazik Roitschwantz. However, during WWII, Ehrenburg wrote in the Pravda: “Kill the German! Kill this sausage- and sauerkraut-eating vermin! Exterminate his seed!”

Horrified, Joseph Stalin personally responded to this call to genocide by disavowing Ehrenburg in the Pravda: “We are not fighting the German people”, he wrote, “but the Nazi regime”. He was true to his words, and in 1945 derailed the Henry Morgenthau plan to cripple Germany and starve millions of Germans to death.

Was the anti-Semitism of Hamsun the Nazi ethically worse than the anti-Germanism of Iliya Ehrenburg the Jew? Yes: if you think that Jewish life is much more precious than the life of a non-Jew, in which case you find yourself in the nauseating company of Eli Landau and Ivett Lieberman, two Israeli MPs who called for the extermination of a thousand Palestinians for each murdered Jew, and of Madeleine Albright, who thought the killing of half-a-million Iraqi children for the protection of Israel “worth it”. No: if you share my belief in the equality of Man. That is why you have no reason to reject your great national treasure, Knut Hamsun; just view him in the context of his time. TOP

While the time of Hamsun and Ehrenburg is over, Elie Wiesel is still very much with us. In his book, Legends of Our Time, this Jewish writer wrote: “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate – healthy, virile hate – for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German”. Not ‘the Nazi’, but ‘the German’. For this sermon of hate he received the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize from the Norwegian Academy, in company with the Cambodia-destroyer Henry Kissinger and the Kana-murderer, Shimon Peres. Armed with this recognition of the Norwegians, Elie Wiesel called (at Christmas Eve!): War [with Iraq] is the only option”.[4] If you need to feel guilt, feel guilt for this Nobel Peace Prize.

This vast difference in the feelings of Norwegians towards their national genius Hamsun and towards Elie Wiesel the schmaltzy hate-monger leads us to a conclusion: in prevailing post-WWII mainstream discourse, the taboo on criticism of Jews has caused strong bias and undermined the humanist idea of the Equality of Man. Pre-war anti-Semitism has been superseded by another extreme, philo-Semitism, a belief that Jews can do no wrong and should never be referred to except in the most complimentary terms. This equally racist attitude has created severe misbalance in politics and discourse. It has to be corrected in order to save our planet and mankind from the triumphant ‘Semitism’ of their definition.

III

The third question of Haakon was:

Israel’s president Moshe Katsav recently visited Germany. He was last Monday confronted by German neo-Nazis carrying Palestinian flags and banners saying “Hands off Palestine – No German armaments to Israel”. It was a disaster! If the neo-Nazis hadn’t thought of it themselves, I guess Ariel Sharon would have phoned them to give them the idea. I’m wondering if Israel Shamir shares my concerns and if he agrees with me that at all means we have to avoid a situation where Nazis march in support of Palestine? Or if it means nothing since “Anti-Semitism” has become an empty and meaningless phrase and only a weapon in the hands of Israeli Zionists? Is this a question of no importance?

In the Gospel, the Disciples of Christ acclaimed him as ‘the King who comes in the name of the Lord’. The Pharisees demanded: Rabbi, rebuke your disciples! But Jesus replied: If they keep silent the stones will cry out.[5]

ORDER IT NOW

This prophecy was fulfilled in Germany. The German Left betrayed its duty to demonstrate against the supplying of the apartheid state with nuclear-bearing submarines, the most fearsome weapons of mass destruction of our age, for it to target the peaceful cities of man. The German Left accepted the thoroughly racist concept of ‘Jewish property’ and transferred billions of dollars to Sharon and his American Jewish partners.[6] ‘Fear of the Jews'[7] befell them, and caused them to forget their ideals. The Left is the salt of the earth by virtue of upholding the values of equality, mercy, humanity. But if the salt has lost its taste, it is to be thrown out and walked on by the people.[8] The Left kept silent, therefore the stones cried out. Whoever demonstrated against the monstrous decision to arm Israel is surely blessed. TOP

Haakon describes these people as ‘neo-Nazis’. I greatly doubt this definition. German law is very strict, and the real Nazis are in jail or in exile. The neo-Nazis of our day usually support Israel: representatives of Israeli parties were welcome guests at their gathering in Holland. They even marched together in Amsterdam under Israeli banners and with anti-Muslim slogans.

The Masters of Discourse can call whomever they wish ‘neo-Nazi’. Nasser was ‘Hitler’, Arafat was ‘Hitler’, Saddam Hussein is ‘Hitler’. In Russia, they gave this name to everybody who objected to privatisation, Americanisation, globalisation. As the majority of these people were actually communists, the Masters of Discourse coined the term ‘Red-Brown’. They called the veterans of the Battle of Stalingrad ‘Nazis’. They wrote that for them there is no real difference between the Communists and the Nazis. The Russian people responded to it by forming a new Left-and-Right alliance against these globalising, predatory forces.

They followed the great example of Mao Zedong, who allied with the Right Nationalists of the Kuomintang when the very existence of China was endangered. Recently, the exiled Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, billionaire and a media-lord and man of impeccable Jewish origin who embraced Christ, publicly joined this alliance in an earth-shaking interview with Zavtra, the leading newspaper of the Left-and-Right. He was warmly welcomed by the jailed leader of National Bolshevik Party, writer Edward Limonov, who is often described as an ‘anti-Semite and neo-Nazi’. Zeh lo kol kach pashut, as we say in Hebrew: life is not as simple as comics and the Masters of Discourse present it.

WWII is long over. Present-day Communists are not ‘Stalinists’, present-day Traditionalists are not ‘Nazis’, present-day ‘Semitists’ are not the Democrats of yesteryear. If we forever look back to the fields of Stalingrad and to the ravaged Finnmark, we are liable to overlook the new dangers mankind faces. The dreadful fate of Palestine calls us, the men of thought, to develop new paradigms for the new situation.

Philo-Semitism is Racism

(Norwegian daily newspaper Nationen (Oslo) on 28.11.02 published an op-ed attacking me.[9] Here is my reply. I used contributions of our comrades Dave Kersting and Michael Neumann.).

I do not like philo-Semites, i.e. people choosing to fight anti-Semitism, of all ills. In this world, so full of trouble and real suffering, there is something deeply pervert in persons preferring to protect and support – not the poor, not the refugees, not the oppressed, but the wealthy, influential and well-connected group actively engaged in ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The Chief proponent of this well-endowed movement is an American Jew, the head of ADL, Abe Foxman. Two years ago he was caught taking large sums of money from the super-thief Marc Rich, a crook who cheated American tax-payer and found refuge in Switzerland. For years Foxman and his organisation collected dossiers on people who objected to apartheid and sold them to Mossad and to South Africa of Forster. They broke into houses, stole documents, run professional surveillance of the left activists in California. Last year, Foxman and ADL were found guilty in the US court of law, and paid millions of dollars to people they intimidated and smeared. Foxman’s best chum is Ariel Sharon, the mass murderer of Sabra, Shatila, Kibie and Jenin. A new book by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, “The Assassination of Robert Maxwell: Israel’s Super Spy” confirms the professional philo-Semites have permanent ties with Mossad, the long arm of Israeli apartheid, memorable to you by Lillehammer murders. In brief, the philo-Semites are sleazy guys taking money from sleazy crooks in order to cover up the creeping genocide of Palestinians.

It is not strange, as the very emphasis on “anti-Semitism” is disgustingly racist, as if it were worse than racism against anyone else. People who decry “anti-Semitism”, instead of “racism” or “ethnic-prejudice”, are actually saying that there is something really special – and particularly bad – about discrimination against this one particular group. In other words, they are racists.

Your average Norwegian does not hesitate to say he dislikes Swedes. Sometimes he corrects himself and says he actually hates Swedes. Older Norwegians freely speak of their hatred to Germans. So do Jews: recent bestseller by a philo-Semite Goldhagen called all Germans ‘willing executioners of Hitler’. ‘Every Jew must maintain in his heart holy hatred to Germans’, quoth Elie Wiesel, another professional philo-Semite. Somehow nobody is worried about these racist statements; Wiesel even received Nobel peace prize from the Norwegian Academy.

Germans are not exclusion. A Jewish scribe, Daniel Pipes, wrote a piece together with a Dane Lars Hedegaard in the Canadian daily National Post (August 27, 2002), published by the Jewish media lord, Israel Asper, a great friend of my country, saying:

“Predominantly Muslim immigrants constitute 5% of the population but consume upwards of 40% of the welfare spendingÖ Muslims are only 4% of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim”. I am not sure one can be more racist than that, even if one mobilises Der Sturmer. But somehow nobody is worried about it. TOP

The racist talk of anti-Semitism is used to protect Israeli racism. It is amazing that some people still pay attention to it, and their crocodile tears drip into newspapers. I wonder why the Third Reich did not try to stop the Allied forces by claiming they are led by ‘anti-German prejudice’. One imagines Russian soldiers at Stalingrad listen to such a broadcast and drop their weapons in shame. Or is it only anti-Jewish prejudice that is objectionable? Apparently, it is the case for philo-Semites: the Guardian wrote about assassinated Dutch racist leader that though he hated Muslims and Arabs, he was not a bad guy, as he liked Jews. Can one be more racist than that?

The piece by Christine Mohn is true to its racist genre. She described me as ‘an ethnic Jew who defines himself as a Christian’. Like Adolf Hitler, she thinks ‘once a Jew, forever a Jew’, baptism notwithstanding, he can only ‘define himself as a Christian’. However, non-racists are of different opinion. A philo-Semite is a potential Jew, as he considers Jews being more equal than other people. A Jew by birth can leave Jewry if he believes in equality of Man as did St Paul, Marx and Trotsky. Here the opinions of the Church and of the Communist party coincide.

Indeed, that was the vision of Abram Leon, a young follower of Trotsky, who perished in Auschwitz in 1944. In his important book, The Jewish Question: Marxist Interpretation (I am grateful to Noam Chomsky who introduced me to this author), this communist of Jewish origin described the Jews, “people-class”, historically attuned to exploitation of others. A man of Jewish origin always could leave ‘the Jews’ and join mankind, wrote Leon.

But Ms Mohn is totally ignorant of Judaism. She writes: “The phenomenon of ‘Chosen-ness’, as understood in Jewish tradition, has nothing to do with closeness to God or superiority versus non-Jews”. We can believe her, or we can believe the late Chief Rabbi of Israel, the greatest modern proponent of Judaism, Rabbi Kook, who wrote: “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle”[10] TOP

Philo-Semites would like us to speak ‘good, or nothing’ about Jewishness. But this is the prerogative of dead. In the modern discourse, we freely discuss shortcomings of Islam and Christianity, of capitalism and communism, and indeed, Jewishness should be discussed as well. It is not a racist discourse: leading modern debunkers of Jewishness are people of Jewish origin from Karl Marx to Israel Shahak. It is not a right-wing discourse either: The First International of Marx condemned, after long and lively debate, philo-Semites as well as anti-Semites.

Racists are often nasty and stupid. Indeed, Christine Mohn succeeded to concoct a nasty piece proving her inability to read and understand the text. For instance, she writes, “The most important content in Shamir’s political agenda is that Jews are best characterised as Christ-murderers”, while I write just an opposite: “There is no collective guilt over many generations. The Jews should not be blamed for killing Christ anymore than French blamed for sending Joan of Arc to the stake”.[11]

To conclude, I would quote an American socialist thinker Dave Kersting: “We should feel offended by this dramatic concern about anti-Semitism – at a time of openly racist horrors against the NON-Jewish population of Palestine, who are suffering from the undisguised ethnic-supremacy of the Zionists. Disproportionate concern about “anti-Semitism” is a key weapon in the most brazen actual ethnic violence of our time and place”

Our comprehension of the world starts at juxtaposing observations. Four blind men describe an animal they encountered: it is like a column; no, a snake, no, a barrel, no, a tooth. Their impressions would be of little value unless there were a man of vision to integrate them and draw a picture of an elephant.

Various manifestations of Jewish spirit produced a cascade of differing impressions almost defying an integration attempt. Zionist Jews in Palestine created a many-tiered rigid caste society, where natives are excluded, imported ‘guest’ workers have no rights, army and security apparatus controls everything and a call for equality disqualifies the caller from holding a public office. Globalist financiers of George Soros kind, followers of Karl Popper’s Open Society offered and created other systems. There are impressions of activity by Jewish media moguls, Hollywood producers, museum curators, art dealers, human rights activists, New York bankers and Washington neo-conservative ideologists.

The observations are valid and important; now they should be collected and systematised until the ground is ripe for a man of vision who would draw a picture of the elephant. It is not an easy task, for it is an article of faith in our world, ‘thou shalt not draw an elephant’. This commandment is enforced by the fierce Jewish opposition to such endeavour.

This forbidden and mammoth task was undertaken by the Anonymous (and possibly collective) author of WHEN VICTIMS RULE: A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America, (further called The Critique), two-thousand-pages-long collection of observations of various Jewish activities. This work in progress is posted on www.jewishtribalreview.org and probably will remain there for quite a while. Its sheer size is just one of the reasons why it is not likely to emerge as a printed book. While describing the challenge that moved him, the Author writes:

The biased discourse so aptly described by the Author causes much mental anguish to Americans of Jewish origin, separates them from their Gentile compatriots and even more regrettably contributes to the loss of life in Palestine. That is why a good new deconstruction of Jewish history, politics, identity, religion and tradition is certainly needed, especially as the critical works of 1920s and 1930s became outdated. The Author has followed the trail blazed by Professors Albert Lindemann of the University of California, Kevin MacDonald of California State University, Israel Shahak of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Elliot Horowitz and other researchers.

The Author collected immense amount of data, sometimes trivial, sometimes relevant facts and opinions. The bibliography is colossal, as if the book was produced by a Jewish Studies department of a well-endowed American University. It could be a companion volume to Encyclopaedia Judaica. Severely abridged, it would be readable and still impressive. In the full form, it will be used whenever there is a discussion on the Jewish influence in American politics or media. For instance, recent debate Neumann-Blankfort would be easily substantiated by referring to this book.

However, this interesting book is regrettably short of insight. While noting and criticising ‘Jewish pre-eminence’, it does not offer an answer to the paramount questions: What does it mean? How it was achieved? Why it is achieved? Without an attempt to answer, the book remains but an important database. TOP

ORDER IT NOW

The Author is worried that he will be considered ‘anti-Semitic’, but my main objection is quite an opposite one, namely, The Critique is too ‘Jewish’ by its outlook, and not only because some pages appear as a Jewish vanity publication, listing prominent and successful Jews. It is true, there are lists of Jews in unorthodox business of robbery and murder, but even this thing is not unusual. Isaac Babel happily described Jewish gangsters of Odessa, while the stories of Jewish-American gangsters were published many times and are quite popular with Jewish readers.

Probably the word ‘tribal’ is the key to its ‘Jewish-ness’ and to the relative failure. The view of Jews as a tribe is a very Jewish view, promoted nowadays by Adin Steinzaltz, the chief Talmudic authority in Israel. He called the Jews: ‘family’. But this view does not furnish us with a good explanation of the Rise of the Jews and of its consequences. If the Jews are ‘a tribe’, sort of extended family, what is the secret of their magic attraction and strange successes? There are many ‘families’, from Sicilian Mafia to Hong Kong Triads, but can they measure up to the Jewish influence, nay, centrality in the Western world? By adhering to this Jewish ‘clannish’ view the Author overlooked the ideology behind the Jews. For instance, he quotes:

Raphael Patai, a Jewish scholar, claims that, for all the knottiness surrounding the modern day issue, being Jewish can best be described as nothing more than “a state of mind”

And smugly adds:

This kind of “state”, of course, won’t afford you citizenship in today’s state of Israel, nor acceptance into any Jewish community anywhere.

True? Not really. This state of mind is shared by Conrad Black, a Gentile who became a Jewish media mogul without undergoing circumcision. He is an accepted and valued member of the Jewish community and a potential citizen of Israel. Technically, by virtue of his marriage to his Jewish wife, but much more so by his state of mind. Plenty of Gentile Americans share this state of mind. On the other hand, a factory worker or a peasant born of Jewish parents technically entitled to the place in the community and to the Israeli passport but lacks this state of mind and would be out of place in the Jewish community. In Israel there are many immigrants of Jewish origin who were thoroughly de-Jewified but decided to come to Israel. They do not fit into the Jewish society and form its outcast fringe.

While rejecting insightful remark of Patai, the Author accepts some misleading Jewish declarations for their face value. He writes:

Yet modern Jewry’s deep animosity towards Christianity stems from the accusation that institutional Christianity was seminal to anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages.

It is the traditional Jewish point of view, deeply un-historical and anachronistic. In the same vein, the Author could say,

Yet modern Jewry’s deep animosity towards Palestinians stems from the accusation that Palestinians were seminal to anti-SemitismÖ

In both cases, Jewry was on the offensive, not a defensive side. The Jews attacked Christians from the days of the Apostles, just as they attacked Palestinians by depriving them of their livelihood from the very beginning of Zionist immigration. The Author probably noticed his mistake and tried to correct it without harmonising with his preceding statement:

Judaism had, of course, antipathy for Christianity from the latter’s very inception.

So, the reader has a choice of two contradicting statements: the Jewish animosity is a reaction to Christian anti-Semitism, or it is a primary attitude of Jews. The Author goes on, getting deeper into the bog of anachronistic contradictions:

Christianity evolved out of Judaism; it was founded and propagated by Jews dissatisfied with the direction of the seminal faith as guided by its leaders. “Popular hatred of the Temple priests and the rich”, says Lenni Brenner, “became the basis of Christianity, and the New Testament must be seen as the last major production of the Jewish religious genre”.

Again, it is a traditional Jewish point of view, debunked by Professor Israel Joseph Yuval of the Hebrew University. Yuval proved that while Christianity ‘evolved’ from the Biblical Judaism, the Rabbinic Judaism came to existence AFTER Christianity appeared as a reactionary response to it. Lenni Brenner can be forgiven for his weak grasp of ancient history, but the Author should know that Christianity rose and won the day when there were no Temple priests neither ‘filthy rich’ anymore, after AD 70.

No study or deconstruction of Jewishness is meaningful, unless one understands that Jewry was born in order to fight Christ and Christianity. It found other uses: to make money and share influence. Likewise, an army can be used for many purposes, to harvest potatoes or extinguish fires, but it is created to fight wars. The Author collected much evidence of Jewish hostility to Christianity, but he failed to comprehend its key role in Jewish attitudes.

He failed for he adopted basically Jewish materialistic ‘export vision’ of history, world and self. He quotes:

As even Mark Twain noted, “With most people, of a necessity, bread and meat take first rank, religion second. I am convinced that the persecution of the Jews is not due in any large degree to religious prejudice”.

It is an erroneous observation of a myopic Yankee. In the course of history, people gave up their bread and meat, wives and children, died and killed for the sake of their faith. While persecution of the Jews was not due to religious commandment, the relentless Jewish assault on Christendom can’t be comprehended without this framework. TOP

The Jews promote the Tribe vision, as it sounds quite harmless and stops potential escapees: why indeed should one escape one’s own tribe that one belongs to by virtue of birth? Again, if it is just a tribe, it really makes no difference what sort of positions its members occupy. The Tribe vision allows the Jews to claim for their own – the Apostles and Karl Marx, and many wonderful people of Jewish origin. This vision proclaims: once a Jew, always a Jew. However, reality is different: two thousand years ago there were millions of Jews, while by 8th century they disappeared almost completely. Spain succeeded to undo its Jews. If descendents of Jews were Jews, there would be hundreds of millions Jews nowadays.

The non-tribal character of Jews is well illustrated by the fate of the Jews of China. This community was successfully assimilated, and all efforts of Israeli and American Jews to bring them back to ‘Jewish conscience’ failed, for it makes no sense to be a Jew outside of Christ’s ecumene.

Indeed, what is a Jew? Everyone has a small part of his personality that stops him from embracing (=being together with, or identical to) Christ. It is excessive care for one’s property, anti-collectivism, godlessness and fight against God = Christ, dishonesty, elitism, some sorts of creativity, disregard for others. That is a small Jew inside us. The fiery catharsis of Christ’s incarnation, mission, passion and resurrection expelled this slag from the body of Church. Presence of slag is to remind us of the catharsis, and to help us to contemplate of God. Provided there is no God but God, rebels against God take the side of the Prince of the World, and he takes their side.

That is why great theologians and mystics from St John to Martin Luther, from Muhammad to Fr Serge Bulgakov contemplated on the Jews. For them, the Jews were a visible proof of God’s attention to Man, a living memory of Incarnation and a negative example of what can go wrong. A Jew who understood it and acted correspondingly ceased to be a Jew. A Gentile who accepted the Jewish mode of behaviour turns into a Jew. The ‘pre-eminence of Jews in America’ is another form of re-stating words of Marx: America has been Jewified and accepted the Jewish values.

The Author failed to understand this spiritual meaning of Jews and Jewish influence. Not a tribe, but ideology, that is the essence of the problem. Pre-eminence of Jewish ideology and Jewish values in America is the true problem of America and the world. The Author quotes words of a Jewish commentator, Robert Kamenetz: TOP

I began to suspect that Jewish identity, as it has evolved in the West today, could be a real barrier to encountering the depths of Judaism. In other words, being Jewish could keep you from being a Jew.

And exclaims:

What on earth is one to make of this observation!

However, Marx proposed an answer: Judaism is sordid form of Christianity, while Christianity is sublime Judaism. Kamenetz (like many good and spiritual Jews) felt that immersion into the depths of Judaism (=Christianity) leads to rejection of Jewish identity. Such people should be supported and assisted to leave the Jewish fold. The leaders of the Jews are aware of the danger and that is why they fight the church and derail its efforts to save the Jews from Judaic tendency. In my opinion, the greatest Jewish achievement in the US was the Boston proclamation by Bishops of the Catholic Church that Jews do not need salvation, effectively reducing Christianity to the level of ‘faith for goyim’.

Judaic spirit is a real danger to the tripartite ecumene of West-Russia-Islamic world. But biological approach proposed by the Author does not help. One of modern ideologists of European Traditionalism, Horst Mahler, a great adversary of Jewish supremacy, stressed the spiritual element of the struggle:

Hitler failed for he attended to biological (racist, tribal) aspect of Jews, while it is the spiritual aspect that had to be fought. Only in April 1945 he recognised that the Jews represent certain Spirit that can’t be defeated but by spirit. The belief that there is no God, that Man is self-sufficient (Humanism), that the World is realizable without recourse to the concept of the Absolute Spirit (God), is the triumph of Judaism over other peoples. On this basis alone these peoples are delivered to Globalism and ordained to destruction.

Without spiritual background, the tribe-based research of the Author offers no solution but copying of the Jewish strategy. TOP

II

Offensive or Defensive?

(Second Part of discussion with www.jewishtribalreview.org. Chad Powers’ response to the first part can be found on that site.)

It is good we agree on many points, and it is equally good we differ on others. Probably the greatest difference in our reading emerges from your words:

“Being Jewish” Ö manifests itself as primarily a defensive allegiance against the non-Jewish Other.

In my opinion, it is an OFFENSIVE allegiance, and it is not hair-splitting on my side. The same error of confusing offensive with defensive repeats itself in the two chapters on anti-Semitism in WVR. The Author brings numerous examples of ‘Jewish extreme sensitivity’ to what they consider ‘anti-Semitism’, and it includes such unlikely culprits as vegetarianism and lack of reference to Jews. For the Author, it implies extreme defensiveness of the Jews. But let us apply some basics of psychology.

If a person is dead certain that he is hated, he probably knows of a very good reason to be hated. Jews in Israel have no doubt the Palestinians hate them, for they would hate Palestinians if the situation would be reversed. If you steal, rob and kill you are sure you should be hated. If you install yourself as a Master Folk over subservient population, if you eradicate their culture, demean their traditions, make fun of their faith and emasculate them, you KNOW you should be hated. The Palestinians are not Jews and they do not hate the Jews, but many Jews do not understand it, as they extrapolate their own feelings to their enemies. TOP

The anti-Semitism fighters within the Jewish community are the Jews actively engaged in warfare against the host society. They consider themselves the Herrenvolk and the Gentile Americans are their flock to be controlled and shepherded. For them, all protestations of Gentile innocence are of no avail: the Jewish anti-Semitism-fighters KNOW the goyim have a very good reason to hate them.

ORDER IT NOW

Holocaust supplies an easy external explanation for their fears, but in 1920s it was supplied by ‘Russian pogroms’ and in the 19th century by ‘Inquisition’. In case one runs out of reason there is a very good explanation of Elie Wiesel, that of totally irrational anti-Semitism. Still, these explanations are just a cover for the real reason: these people took over America’s discourse, and they expect their successes to be met with hatred of the subjugated people.

Search for anti-Semitism is an active offensive search for the remaining pockets of resistance within American psyche. It is akin to the search-and-destroy operation carried out by soldiers in the conquered city. In their eyes, palpable absence of anti-Semitism in the US is a clear proof of total surrender of the Americans to their new elite. While discussing ‘anti-Semitism’, the Author could consider the search for anti-Semitism as a sterling proof of the searchers’ guilt. An innocent sane person has no reason to believe he is hated, and there is no reason to commit them to psychiatric asylum.

In “free societies”, anyone who wants may write, and publish, works that attack Christianity; assail the “historical revisionism” of Afro-centrism; deconstruct the myths of Hinduism; defame the Pope; disdain Republican, Democratic, communist, or any other ideology; emblazon the whole of Islam as a hotbed for irrational mania and terrorism; write entire volumes about the alleged worldwide Japanese economic “conspiracy”; and vilify the entirety of the nebulous entity known as the “white establishment” and anyone dictated by skin colour to be within it. But, curiously, in the vast expanse of deconstructive engines of all and everything, one cannot criticize the sacrosanct domain of Jewish history, politics, and identity, unless the critic is willing to be systematically marginalized in all walks of life, prepared to be tarnished and branded as a contemptible hate-filled “anti-Semite”, risk losing her or her job, and be categorically lumped into mainstream society’s moral and intellectual garbage dump reserved for the likes of the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan.

BACK In the forthcoming struggle, it makes sense to know who your enemy is and what sort of victory you hope to achieve. In my opinion, the enemy is Jewish supremacy carried out by organised Jewry.

Now, following Isaac Deutscher and other thinkers, I would distinguish between Jewry and Jews, i.e. people of Jewish origin. Jewry is a structure, a state without territory, an offensive ideological formation. Jews, people of Jewish origin could belong to Jewry or reject it completely and become ordinary Americans, French or Palestinians, like thousands and thousands of their predecessors, from the Apostles to St Teresa of Avila to Karl Marx. It is a question of personal choice, but we are not indifferent to the result. Isaac Deutscher put it neatly: let Jewry perish and Jews live.

There is always a problem how to distinguish Jews – members of Jewry and ordinary people of Jewish origin. In the days of old, religion provided sufficient indicator for a person’s relationship to society. The Jew was in the state of declared warfare with the society, as Marx put it. If he would not like to be anti-social, he would accept Christ. Nowadays, it is not that clear: Christianity in America isn’t posited as the only alternative, nor a religion is considered necessary. TOP

Fortunately, we have three criteria. They are

1. Support for Jewish supremacy in Palestine,

2. Preference of Jews over non-Jews, and

3. Support of anti-Semitism fighters.

These three parameters allow us to separate goats from lambs by non-ethnic criteria. Conrad Black, a friend of Sharon and of Foxman, neatly falls into Jewry, while my friend Michael Neumann finds himself on the side of angels.

Now, what sort of victory should one wish for? In my opinion, the first goal is liberation of discourse, removal of means of mass communication from the clutches of Jewish supremacists, democratisation of access to media. In the longer run, cutting Jewry to its natural size. Let the religious Jews pray in their synagogues, but in case they take their synagogue with them to a bank or to a newspaper office, the affirmative action anti-discrimination law should be enforced. The Jews constitute two per cent of the US population, and that is exactly the maximum share they should have in the resources and administration. TOP

It is very generous approach: nowadays, in the Jewish state, non-Jews constitute 50 per cent of population but occupy no important positions at all. But Christian approach is not a mirror copy of the Jewish one.

Eventually, Jews will leave Jewry and join all-American population. Our three criteria would allow us to see whether we deal with sincere conversion, or a trick. If a person sends his money to Jews, instead of general population, if he calls to support Israel, if he alleges Christian customs make him feel uncomfortable, he belongs to Jewry and should be treated as such. If he freely intermarries and communicates with the others, if he cares for all and not for Jews only, if he values the spirit of America, he is just an American.

III

I regret that you misunderstood Michael Neumann’s opus (Blame Yourself: American Power and Jewish Power) you described as Defence of Jews. Yes, Neumann tried to make light of the Jewish power and to magnify the power still in Gentile hands. On my list I run Jeff Blankfort’s response. Jeff refuted him, in brief but poignant description of the vast powers of the Jewish lobby. (I would recommend you to link or display Blankfort’s piece). You, in your response, perceived Neumann’s essay as a usual Jewish dissimulation.

But actually Neumann tried to encourage you, the Gentile America, to cheer you up, to remind you that you still have the immense strength of your sinews and your mind. He was worried that your spirit is crushed by comprehension of the Jewish power. He behaved like Jesus in the Sufi poem by Jalal ad-Din ar-Rumi, who whipped a sufferer around town, until he vomited a huge snake. Why did you beat me? Asked the healed sufferer and Jesus replied: if I would tell you the truth about the snake you would die of fear. TOP

It is necessary to make people aware or the great unjust and discriminative concentration of power and wealth in hands of a small group. But it is also tactically reasonable to play this power down, like Mao Zedong did when he called the nuclear might of the US, ‘a papier-m’chÈ tiger’. Neumann’s call for more civil courage was timely: unless you will speak up nobody will do it for you.

Your response to him was a bit too suspicious. There are many guys with Jewish names who prefer equality to Jewish supremacy, because they know: Jewish supremacy is not rule by Einstein or Freud, it is rule by Mort Zuckerman, Ariel Sharon, Richard Pearle et al. Together we can win the game.

Though I am flattered by being described as ‘anomaly’, but as a matter of fact, I receive many letters to the contrary. Just today I received a letter from an anti-Zionist (or should I say ‘pro-equality’) activist of Jewish origin in California: TOP

When speaking at an event last year on the subject of “Washington as Israel’s Most Important Occupied Territory”, I began my speech by describing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as “funny papers” compared to the reality not only in Washington but in most of the cities of the United States including San Francisco and Berkeley where I was speaking. Most people who refer to the Protocols have not read them – and I am convinced, given the times and language in which they are written and the terms used, that it is indeed, a forgery, but a forgery that, ironically, presaged what we see today in the US and to a lesser extent in other Western countries, albeit today’s version is much more sophisticated and solidly based in reality. In short, life imitating bad art. And no sector of our society is immune. TOP

There are hundreds of similar letters written by people who explicitly reject any claim of organised Jewry on their soul. That is why I believe in possibility to undo the Jewish hegemony in full partnership with ‘Jews’. Again, it is not an ethnic divide: goys Black or Murdoch are as pro-Jewry as Zuckerman.

You write:

The key to Black joining the powerful “tribe” of course, in any sense, rests upon his Jewish connections — in this case his wife, Barbara AmielÖ

I think this is an error of judgement. Black is not a weakling managed by his wife. A lot of people have Jewish wives (or Jewish husbands). It means nothing. Probably every family in the US elite has a member of Jewish origin (probably your family as well). It is quite normal way of assimilating minorities. In such a way, other successful and powerful minorities were integrated and dismantled in the course of human history. The Jewish leadership hopes to perpetuate its control over these descendents of Jews, but Jews can be assimilated and dejewified like everybody else, if America is alive. That is the challenge for America: to dejewify Jews before Jews will jewify them. TOP

Sources

1. http://www.shma.com/may02/nathan.htm and http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/6-articles2.html

2. ‘Vicious circles closing in’, Haaretz, Interview, 5/10/02

3. IN THE SAME CAMP AS HAMSUN?

By Hakon Kolmanskog

During the last year Klassekampen has published several essays by the Israeli writer and novelist Israel Shamir, who is an extraordinary and controversial writer. His texts are quite provocative and sharp, so sharp that even seasoned friends of the Palestinians show difficulties accepting him.

He writes about “Jewish controlled newspapers” and “the friends of the Jews in the US” without blinking. He believes the State of Israel is worse than the apartheid state of South Africa, and that this state is upheld by the Jewish lobby in the US.

Shamir is not afraid of being labelled “anti-Semite”. He says this label is used against anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support the Jewish occupation of Palestine.

Klassekampen can by no means confirm the content of Shamir’s texts, but does today still publish a new text written by him. This is also a provoking and controversial one.

We publish the text since we are of the impression that many readers find his texts refreshing and thought-provoking while dealing with theme which is usually dominated by black and white thinking and dead-locked ideas. Shamir has written enlightened and well about how the differences between orthodox and liberal Jews may be less than we outside Israel imagine. Klassekampen wants to treat the questions he raises in full earnest, but demands that he also declares his own stands.

Everybody who has read Norman G. Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry are aware of the fact that today the terrible mass-slaughter of Jews during the World War 2 is exploited economically and symbolically by the State of Israel. The myth of Holocaust (as a unique and incomprehensive event) is, together with the branding as “anti-Semite”, against all dangerous criticism of Sharon & Co.’s occupation policies towards the Palestinians.

But to understand these contexts, to realise there is a connection between Jewish identity and the brutality of Israel’s occupation policies, must not make us indifferent to us if friends of the Palestinians are branded racists or anti-Semites. One thing is that anti-Semitism has deep roots in Europe. Nobody should ignore this, especially not those fighting a racist policy against the Palestinians. And then we must ask: Who will benefit in allowing the Zionists to have a free go playing the anti-Semite card against anyone who criticise them?

ALLEN AND HAMSUN

Some of Israel Shamir’s wordings, including in today’s essay, seem to indicate that Shamir doesn’t see this point, or that he gives a damn about it. Today he writes things like “As ‘Arab-lover’ and ‘Nigger-lover’, ‘anti-Semite’ is a branding expression which stains the one who is making use of it (…) It was used against TS Elliot and Dostoevsky, Genet and Hamsun, St.John and Yeats, Marx and Woody Allen, and this is a much better company to be with”.

ORDER IT NOW

Weirdly, it looks as if Shamir shares his Weltanschauung with the Zionists: Zionists do not separate between the Jewish film-maker Woody Allen’s slightly ironic attitude towards his own people and the Anti-Semitism of Hamsun the Nazi. Shamir doesn’t want to do that either, and seems to accept that both are “Anti-Semites” and join their camp. Why not engage in a political struggle in order to use “the Anti-Semitism” brand when it’s actually relevant? Wouldn’t it deprive Ariel Sharon of a strong political weapon?

Israel Shamir should clarify his stand on such issues and clearly explain it to the World: Does Shamir think that friends of the Palestinians should feel comfortable with being put in the same camp as Hamsun? Or should we fight such “parallels”? Maybe there is something in the dogmatic dualism of the Zionists we ought to resist? Or what?

Shamir was born in Russia, but moved to Israel in 1969 and lives by now in Yaffa. He has served as a paratrooper in the Israeli army and worked as Moscow-correspondent for the leading Israeli daily Ha’aretz during the dismantling of the Soviet Union. He lost his job at the newspaper when he demanded the right of the 1948 Palestinian refugees to return home. For us up in the cold North it is obviously quite difficult to grasp the crazy situation in which both Jews and Palestinians live. More frenzied, feverish and [unyansert] environments for debate are hard to be found. Maybe this is the reason why Shamir employs words, phrases and wordings which makes us react negatively? Or do we simply disagree?

Israel’s president Moshe Katsav recently visited Germany. He was last Monday confronted by German neo-Nazis carrying Palestinian flags and banners saying “Hands off Palestine – No German armaments to Israel”. It was a disaster! If the neo-Nazis hadn’t thought of it themselves, I guess Ariel Sharon would have phoned them to give them the idea. I’m wondering if Israel Shamir shares my concerns and if he agrees with me that at all means we have to avoid a situation where Nazis march in support of Palestine? Or if it means nothing since “Anti-Semitism” has become an empty and meaningless phrase and only a weapon in the hands of Israeli Zionists? Is this a question of no importance?

4. http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,864318,00.html

5. Luke 19:39-40

6. see my essay Bankers and Robbers

7. John 19:38 and elsewhere

8. Matthew, 5:13

9. ANTI-SEMITISM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR CRITICISM AGAINST ISRAEL

By Christine Mohn, psychologist, secretary of Norwegian Association against anti-Semitism

Anti-Semite: The central place Israel Shamir has in some Norwegian intellectual circles illustrates that central Norwegian press organs are willing to distribute anti-Semitic attitudes under cover of Israel-critics, the author writes. Internationally Shamir was dismissed as a confused “noisy bucket”, but he has for some reason acquired almost a cult status among Norwegian left-radicals.

In the last months, Klassekampen, Friheten, Dagbladet and Morgenbladet newspapers have often used statements and comments from the Israeli scribe Israel Shamir in debates and articles about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Sometimes Shamir even was permitted to write an op-ed.

Israel Shamir is disreputable due to the paradox of being an ethnic Jew and at the same time anti-Semite. He is born and grown up in the Soviet Union, and defines himself as a Christian. He has been linked to the Israeli Communist party Mapam, but also flirts with right-extremist groups.

The most important content in Shamir’s political agenda is that Jews are best characterised as Christ-killers, that Jewish Israelis organise pogroms against their Christian fellow citizens, that wealthy Jews usually have earned their fortunes dishonestly and that Jews by nature are “rootless” individuals that in the deepest meaning do not fit in anywhere. Another anti-Semitic cliché he enjoys to put forward is the wish of the Jews of economic and military world dominance, and how they are “like a virus” infect non-Jewish societies with the aim of breaking them down. These attitudes are expressed in an aggressive, rude, sexist language, and are primarily raised in discussions about the fate of the Palestinians, who are Shamir’s special object of interest.

As a background for his opinions about Jews and the Judaism Shamir refers, among others, to Karl Marx, Isaac Deutscher, Knut Hamsun, T.S. Eliot and the ultra-orthodox Rabbi Kook. In other words, he builds his hate on literature written by people who themselves had a somewhat incongruous view of the Jews. Especially Shamir cares for the description of Jews as God’s Chosen people. For Jews it means implies that Jews must follow Jewish rules of living, i.e. in relation to food and holidays, while other people must follow their traditions. The phenomenon of Chosen-ness, as understood in Jewish tradition, has nothing to do with closeness to God or superiority versus non-Jews, as this term however is usually comprehended by Christians.

Shamir writes for some Russian publications, among others for the weekly paper Zavtra, the most anti-Semitic of the present Russian press. Zavtra upheld the Red-Brown message of the new Stalinist party in Russia, The Communist Party of Russian Confederation, which takes further the notorious hate of the Stalin-period against ethnic minorities. The editor of Zavtra, Alexander Prokhanov, invited in March 2000 the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke to Moscow to ask for his advice how to ethnically cleanse Russia.

Further, during the last French election campaign, Shamir expressed his wish that Front National should win because of the comments of Jean Marie Le Pen that “the Jews dominate France”.

In addition to his writings, Shamir has a hobby; he collects Nazi documents from the WWII that he tries to bring further to the present right-extremists. One of the more famous of these, the British historian David Irving, however, called Shamir “not serious” and refused to have contact with him.

The anti-Semitism of today is most widespread in the Arabic world, where Mein Kampf and The Protocols of Zion are freely distributed. These days e.g. the Egyptian television shows a TV series based on the Protocols of Zion to “unmask” the aims of the Israelis. Arabic newspapers are filled up with statements that could have been published in Der Stürmer. Movies or books portraying Jews in a positive way are usually getting prohibited. Holocaust is often denied, but sometimes assessed as a positive event. Israel Shamir rejects however this as “Zionist propaganda”. When the planned revisionist conference in Beirut last year was expelled due to the fear of Lebanon of international criticism, Shamir complained that these “excellent researchers” did not get their message through. He denies the existence of Islamic terrorist organisations, and claims that the Palestinian suicidal attack against the discotheque “Dolphinarium” in Tel Aviv June 2001, costing 22 young people their lives, was done by Russian mafia.

Due to such activities, a range of Shamir’s former fellows on the extreme left wing and in Muslim circles have taken distance to him, among those Nigel Parry, Tim Hall, Stanley Heller and Hussein Ibish – the last named is the leader of the American Muslim umbrella organisation CAIR – and claim that Shamir’s hate to the Jews makes him unsuitable champion for the cause of Palestine.

Internationally Shamir was dismissed as a confused “noisy bucket”, but he has for some reason acquired almost a cult status among Norwegian left-radicals. It is maybe not surprising that Friheten and Klassekampen embrace him – he claims no other attitudes to Jews and Israelis than what the East European communists did – but it is alarming that he is allowed into the politically moderate organs such as Dagbladet and Morgenbladet. The central place Israel Shamir has in certain intellectual circles illustrates two things – first, that anti-Semitism is not something that only characterises right-extreme groups, and second, that central Norwegian press organs are willing to distribute anti-Semitic attitudes under cover of Israel-critics. It is raised above any doubt that objective, legitimate criticism of Israel’s policy by no means can be defined as anti-Semitism. However, Israel Shamir’s statements are neither objective nor legitimate, and the use of him as a witness of truth in the debate about Middle East is the same as inviting to debate of Holocaust with David Irving in the panel of experts.

It is frightening to see that journalists do not recover the hate of Jews when they achieve it directly in their arms, and such examples are strengthening the impression of the Norwegian Jews that Norwegian media can not behave to Israel and Mid-East in a balanced way.

10. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, p 9

11. Freak Factory, http://www.israelshamir.net