VNN READER MAIL LINKS CONTACT

Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > Media > Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-11-2005   #1
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,125
lawrence dennis will become famous soon enough
Default 'Pardes' by Israel Shamir reviewed by Culture Wars

SHAMIR ON THE JEWISH QUESTION

Quote:
published in the September, 2005 issue -- My coming upon the Internet writings, a couple of years ago, of Israel Adam Shamir of Jaffa, Israel, a Jew and a Christian, yielded the same sort of intellectual shock I got when I discovered the American poet Ezra Pound back in 1950.

Reading Pound—poetry and prose—I suddenly realized that here was someone who knew all the questions nagging away at the back of my mind—and often enough sitting right up front in it—and he was supplying answers that were so good that they seemed like a drink of cool water on a broiling hot day.

Pound answered for me the question: What was wrong with the world economic system that seemed to almost break my father’s spirit in the 1930s? And perhaps did kill his body; he died at 57 in 1941.

Shamir answers for me the question: What is wrong in the world that our nation is collapsing—or at least getting ready to collapse—in a welter of monstrous, unpayable debt, illegal and unwinnable wars, pornographic “entertainment,” grossly corrupt government, ruinous taxation, and totalitarian-style police-state encroachments on the activities of everyday people, all the while no one seems to be able to do anything to stop any of it?

Pound’s political and economic writings, which were a career sideline for a man who was a superb if sometimes difficult poet, are still politically incorrect, because he thought the chief architects of the extreme folly of the two great European World Wars, which wrecked Christendom and murdered millions of human beings, were the money men and munitions men, the giant usurers in their role as warmongers. Pound made plain that he thought—nay, he knew—that a lot of the biggest of them were Jews.

Shamir comes now with even more serious accusations, and reporting, if you will, from the inside, to contend that “the Jews” (defined below) are engaged in a monstrous scheme of world control and world government that is within an ace of carrying the day.

Shamir’s sensibility, if I am any judge, is a deeply poetic one, like Pound’s (whom he cites in Pardes). A man without some appreciation of the poetic, a man who cannot credit, for example, the fact that religion is the supreme poetry of the human race—poetry risen to the level of the living Truth—is unlikely to credit either Pound or Shamir.

Both writers are cordially hated by what Shamir calls the Mammonites, who, insofar as they pay any notice to either man, about equally detest, in each of them, both the poet and the brilliant observer and critic of contemporary madness, an observer who is uncannily right about what is wrong.

Shamir is himself a fairly recent convert to (Orthodox) Christianity. I find everything that he writes (that I have so far read) illuminated by a fine intelligence, a good heart, massive knowledge of world history, a truly Christian humility, tremendous sophistication, considerable humor, and a determination to speak his piece no matter what.

Shamir’s primary focus is on the injustice to Palestine, but he sees the situation there as a microcosm of what is ahead for the whole world:
Israel/Palestine is the model of the world the Americans want to achieve. It has peasants and their flocks dying of thirst, and on the hilltop there are villas and swimming pools for the chosen folk, It has a huge army and it has many labourers without any rights. In order to turn all the world into Palestine they began now Word War 3 against the Third World.
Notice that Shamir says “what the Americans want.” The sad fact is that what Israel wants is what America wants. We have long since hooked our national wagon to the Israeli engine, a coupling insisted upon by the wealthiest and most powerful élite group in the nation, “the Jews,” a term which does not mean all Jews, only certain of them, those who fully identify with and foster what Shamir calls the “Judaic spirit.” By this term Shamir means that same materialistic, this-world-centered spirit of upheaval and revolution that E. Michael Jones has been tracing through the history of the last 2,000 years in Culture Wars Magazine, most recently in the May issue in his article, “John Huss and the Jews.”

Shamir makes a vital distinction early on in Pardes between a Jew or Jews and “the Jews” or Jewry. Plain Jews are like thee and me, people of an ethnicity but not defined by it. Plain Jews, like plain people everywhere, are willing to go about expecting no special favors and quite willing to identify themselves with their host country rather than the one they or they forbears left some years ago, or, in the case of the Jews, Israel.

The oddity of Israel is that it is not really an ancestral homeland for any modern Jew but got started only in 1948. Ever since, Zionist Israel has issued a call to all Jews to come to it, or at the very least to adopt its cause as their cause, and to work mightily to advance the Zionist program. All this under the blanket claim that God gave “Greater Israel” to the Jews (and only the Jews) in what the Christians call the Old Testament, a claim hotly disputed by about a billion Muslims, among others....

Shamir on distinguishing a Jew from “the Jews”:
. . . a Jew rarely knows or understands what the Jews want from themselves and from bewildered mankind. This lack of understanding causes many fine men and women to proclaim their support (or opposition) to the body politic called ‘the Jews.’ Being born and raised a Jew does not help at all, just as belonging to the elite troops does not provide you with an understanding of the General Staff plans. . . .

Our goal is to understand and explain what ‘the Jews’ want. This task is a hard one, for the Jews have no obvious central command. It is hard to swallow that the Jews can have a strategy but no strategist; and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are popular precisely because they posit such a supreme (if obscure) strategist. However, ‘the locusts have no king, yet they attack in formation’ (Proverbs 30:27) and devastate whole countries as if by plan.

It is possible there are no (or almost no) Jews who fully understand what the Jews want. The term ‘The Jews,’ as used in this article, is meant to denote a spiritual persona of higher rank, relating to individual Jews like the Catholic Church is related to an individual Catholic, or a beehive to a bee. Thus, there is no subjective personal guilt associated with individual Jews, unless their specific actions or inaction are criminal per se. Thus, this discourse should help an individual to decide whether he wants to be a Jew or not, in the same way one may choose whether one wants to be a communist or a Quaker. (Page 7)
In a sense this book, although offered to the world at large (and available on Amazon), is a book by a Jew for Jews, having as a chief goal to persuade them to drop their “Jewishness”—their determined separateness—and rejoin the human race. Shamir, like Simone Weil, contends that the idea that Jews are today still the specially “chosen of God” (in exactly the same way Jews and Christians hold them to have been in Moses’ time) is a truly mistaken idea, a truly poisonous idea, especially poisonous for Jews, but poisonous for the whole world, too. A lethal archaism of racial politics.

Shamir’s political position on the Israel-Palestine contest is that the Zionists—in his eyes clearly the aggressors, the invaders—should dismantle their racist state, end their murderous hatred of their Palestinian neighbors (who it must be admitted return the favor), and proceed to melt into the population of Palestine, becoming the friends and neighbors of Palestinians.

The Jews should agree with the Palestinians to devise a single state with all on both sides of the present impasse equal and welcome—one person, one vote—and end all talk of any group’s being the chosen of God with special claims on “The Holy Land.”

The two-state plan the U.S. has favored will please no one in the end; it will move inexorably toward an apartheid state, of which the symbol is the new and hideous wall through Palestine that the Israelis are now building, and I suppose the U.S. is paying for. (Our contributions to Israel since 1948 are over $100 billion. That’s $100,000,000,000, in case you were wondering, a sum which all by itself proves the U.S. subservience to Israel.)

As you can well imagine, Shamir’s contentions are calculated to make American Jewish and Christian Zionists, the chief supporters of Israel, foam at the mouth. Perhaps it is for this reason that Shamir has never come (as far as I know) to the U.S., although he has been all over Eurasia from England to Malaysia and Japan. He seems to move about Israel with freedom and ease. It seems plain that Israel’s intellectuals are less constrained by government and political correctness than Americans and Europeans.

In the May issue of Culture Wars, Paul Eisen, director of Deir Yassin Remembered, in his article “Speaking the Truth to Jews,” sets out the case against Israel’s treatment of Palestine over the entire period of Zionist invasion of the Holy Land as coolly and accurately as I have ever seen it done in any publication. All praise to Culture Wars for carrying this article, first published in a 2004 book, Speaking the Truth About Zionism and Israel. The book is available from Amazon. [The actual title of the book is: Speaking The Truth: Zionism, Israel, And Occupation
edited by Michael Prior. --L.D.]


My purpose in mentioning this here is to highlight one problem Eisen suggests we all have in the West in trying to make sense of things Jewish: we have mostly felt we need to speak in codes, or in circumlocutions, or simply keep silent on matters Jewish, to avoid “being cursed as an antisemite,” as Eisen puts it.

The “antisemitic” thing is like a thrall thrown down by some magician to make us speechless and stupid. I know I have felt its power, and even though I have been trying to work my way out of it for years, I still approach an article like this with a certain nervousness. And you have to ask why, because I am old and (relatively) poor and beyond the reach of any presumed Jewish malevolence. Still, the power of the magician’s tricks is there, and one looks over one’s shoulder. I know I am not “antisemitic”; I have any number of Jewish culture heroes, starting with the Lord Jesus Christ; but . . . but . . .

Eisen writes:
Jews have never been so secure or so empowered [as now], yet many Jews feel and act as if they are a hair’s breadth away from Auschwitz. . . . Jews, individually and collectively, use their political, economic, social, and moral power in support of Israel and Zionism. In their defense of Israel and Zionism Jews brandish their suffering at the world, accusing it of reverting to its old antisemitic ways. They claim that criticism of Israel and Zionism is in fact criticism of Jews. Just as the Jews were, in the past, objects of classic antisemitism, so Israel, the state of the Jews, is the object of a new, modern anti-Semitism. They will concede that Israel like any other state in the world, is not exempt from criticism, but they do claim that Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is so exempt. In effect, we may criticize Israel for what Israel does, but not for what Israel is.
However, Eisen’s whole article destroys the claim of Israel to exist as it now does, because it is a religiously (that is, racially or tribally) exclusive state, a clear instance of apartheid, a cruel, genocidal oppressor of the Palestinians, whom it has killed, shoved out, or shut in, and an illegitimate rogue state if there ever was one. (With ourselves, the U.S., in hot pursuit of the same rogue-nation status, it must be admitted).

Shamir, detested and hounded by Israel fans everywhere, pulls no punches in agreeing with Eisen. Shamir, too, is on the Deir Yassin Remembered board, and he is an opponent of Israel’s current and past ways. And yet he loves the Holy Land, where he immigrated from Russia, and he wants to stay there. This love shines unmistakably in Pardes as it did in Galilee Flowers, an earlier book. (Both books are available on Amazon.) He has written recently (although not in Pardes but in an Internet essay, “The New Bund at Old Tricks,” a remark that will do nothing to lessen the distaste for him among Jews: “. . . [A]cceptance of Christ is the Final Solution of the Jewish question, while assimilation and intermarriage is the way to undo the vestiges of Jewish separatism.”

That, when you reflect on it, is a most astonishing statement to come from anyone, Jew or Christian, after what the world has been through in the last century. It is, however, what a Christian is bound to believe if he is an honest Christian. What other fate can one want, in charity, for a “disaffected one”? But let there be no coercion. God does not coerce; man should not coerce. “There are no righteous wars.” [Tell that to the victorious jews, whose triumph in the U.S. spells doom for our nation. --L.D.]

Speaking of political correctness, I recognize that this article violates the prevailing politically correct canon most grievously. I am writing favorably about a writer who has been generously smeared by his fellow Jews, which is supposed to put the kibosh on him good and well. Also I, a goy, am talking about the Jews. That is not supposed to happen. I am free to talk about Patagonians, Samoans, Germans, Amerindians, and residents of the Falkland Islands, but nobody is supposed to talk about the Jews as if they were a “thing” the way “Italians” are a thing.

The big bugaboo that has to get shattered—maybe has already been shattered or is in the way of being presently shattered—is the cold pox of fear that settles around the possibility that one could be called—“Oh my God, my heart! my heart! I’m fainting!”—an ANTISEMITE.

This is presently a far worse social sin than being called an anti-Christian. In fact, that might get you some plaudits; it certainly would not get you much active criticism. What’s to like about Christ for right-thinking modern people? But to be called an antisemite is to crumble into a nothing, become an unman, prove oneself a worthless troll, commit a bummer, remove oneself from the ranks of civilized people, etc., etc., etc. At least it’s that kind of disappearing act that the people slinging the smears really want to help you achieve more or less permanently.

The term antisemite is flung around by the smear artists despite the fact that it doesn’t really mean anything. (Arabs are semites, for heaven’s sake.) And biological antisemitism, that is, objection to Jews because of real racial prejudice, is virtually non-existent, and everybody knows it. The objection is to the manifestations of that “Judaic tendency” that Shamir (and Jones) are chronicling and which is a real threat to all peaceful life on this globe.

Any non-Jew who makes this point can expect to be vilified, precisely by other non-Jews. Shamir quotes Otto Weininger: “The Aryan of good social standing always feels the need to respect the Jew; he is displeased when Jews [like Shamir] make revelations about the Jews, and he who does so may expect as few thanks from that quarter as from over-sensitive Jews.”

Shamir continues (page15): “His [Weininger’s] words are even more relevant now; with the Rise of the Jews, it is the burden of people with Jewish roots to undo Jewry.”

To repeat: “. . . it is the burden of people with Jewish roots to undo Jewry.” The thing is quite hopeless if the Jews won’t do it themselves. [If so, then we are all doomed. --L.D.] Remember the dominical statement that “salvation is of the Jews.” And keep in mind, too, that “Jewry” for Shamir is synonymous with “the Jews,” not all Jews, but those possessed of the Pharisaic, that is, the “Judaic” spirit, that was evident at the trial of Christ 2,000 years ago. For Shamir it is the spirit of Mammon, the evil spirit that Christ said was “the other choice.” One may serve God or Mammon, not both.

Without Shamir and the great cohort of Jews and non-Jews (in which group I include the editor/publisher of this magazine) battling so steadfastly against the overwhelming spirit of Mammon that rules this age in these ruins of Christendom where we dwell, I should feel discouraged indeed. But I do not feel discouraged. There is clarity emerging at last. I do think the Mammonites (Shamir’s term for all—Jews and gentiles—who advance the “Judaic tendency”) will fail ultimately despite the present seeming....

----- SNIP -----

The first section, PaRDeS proper, the “study in Cabbala,” is described (page 16) thusly:
But what is the Judaic tendency and why should it be undone? Jewish exegesis offers four escalating levels of penetrating into the deep meaning of Biblical verses. The four levels are abbreviated as PaRDeS (Paradise or orchard), for ‘peshat’, or plain reading, and ‘raz,’ ‘derash,’ and ‘sod,’—the deepest mystic content. We shall follow this scheme to expound the designs of the Jews: while peshat deals with money, raz attends to discourse, derash is the political level and sod is the theological plane.
The 101 pages devoted to “the designs of the Jews,” ... the essay, “A Study of Art,” that Shamir wrote with his wife Alice, will tell you more about the world of international High Art than I have ever seen set down on paper before, and ... why, in the words of poet Edwin Arlington Robinson, “art’s a vagrant, now on the town.”

Let me close with an extended quotation from Pardes as an example of Shamir’s scope and penetration. It was hard to make a selection, so many passages offered unique insights. The passage I chose is the close of the essay, “Zeno’s Arrow (Or How to Argue Your Case with Jews)”:
The friends of Palestine have no problem with individual Jews—they could be good or bad, our supporters or our antagonists. But the friends of Palestine have a problem with “Jewry”—the organized structure of Jewish communities. A few weeks ago, Haaretz published a huge page-long ad signed by all prominent Rabbis of the land—three hundred of them—calling for “Vengeance to the Evil Folk” [Palestinians] and enforcing religious obligation “never to surrender a single inch of sacred land to them.” It is a call to holy war. …

Conclusion: In the present war, Jewry is a belligerent party; this polity decided to wage war on too many enemies at once. Individuals of Jewish origin could be good or bad; but the organization is hostile to us. The victory over it is possible, but we have to pierce its Stealth shield manufactured by many skilled hands in many arguments.
Shamir’s Pardes is a whole quiver full of arrows designed to pierce that shield.
__________________
"[T]he Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for in the end. Beyond world domination to the destruction of the world.... While he persuades himself that he improves mankind, he torments it into despair, into insanity, into collapse.... that this will lead, without salvation, to his own destruction, that is it: the tragedy of Lucifer."

"There was only one decent Jew, and he killed himself."--A.H.
lawrence dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005   #2
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,125
lawrence dennis will become famous soon enough
Lightbulb 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' reviewed by Israel Shamir

The Elders of Zion and the Masters Discourse
Quote:
November 21, 2002 --
“The latest controversy to involve the Arab World concerns a TV program A Rider without a Horse that started airing on Wednesday, Nov. 5th, the first day of the holy month of Ramadan on several Arab satellite channels. The source of the controversy is that the program is partly based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the old forgery originating in Tsarist Russia”, writes Qais S. Saleh, a business consultant from Ramallah on the excellent website CounterPunch. Expectedly, Saleh condemns the broadcast and warns the Palestinians and the Arabs to stay away from the bad old wolf of anti-Semitism, or, as he put it, “the trend of importation of anti-Semitic bigotry”.

Saleh’s view coincides with that of Michael Hoffman, on whose site the Protocols can be found. Hoffman thinks Arabs have no need to import anti-Semitic arguments from the old and far-away sources, provided they have a fresh round-the-clock local source: actual behaviour of the Jewish state and its Jewish citizens. It is much more convincing than old tales.
However, the Protocols are still with us and still entertain minds. Recently, the leading Italian novelist and thinker Umberto Eco contributed his opinion on the subject to the Guardian. Eco “explains” the popular feelings towards the Jews: “They … engaged in trade and lent money - hence the resentment towards them as "intellectuals". In my limited knowledge, it is not the intellectuals who lend money, but bankers and loan sharks, while true intellectuals find their behaviour repulsive.” Probably Eco has a different definition of ‘intellectual’ up his sleeve. “The ill-famed Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were a rehash of serialised fictional material, and prove their own unreliability, since it is hardly credible that "the baddies" would reveal their fell purposes so blatantly”, - concludes Eco.

One can forgive a business consultant from Ramallah, but Umberto Eco could notice that his definition would fit some other books, for instance, Gargantua and Pantagruel, an even older forgery, pretending to be a real chronicle of the Giants family, and built on ‘serialised fictional material’. Don Quixote, Pickwick’s Club, 1984 of Orwell – all these books “pretend” to describe real events to the same extent. They are ‘forgeries’, as they are ascribed to somebody else: Don Quixote to Sid Ahmed Benengeli, and Gargantua to Maitre Alcofribas Nasier.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best described as 'pseudo-epigrapha', rather than 'fake'. They belong to the same category as Tomas Friedman's Letter of President Clinton to Mubarak. After all, pseudo-epigraphic genre is an old and venerable one. It is even better to consider the Protocols, 'a political pamphlet'.

In this essay, we shall attempt to find out why the Protocols refuse to lie down and die. We shall stay clear from the usual question, “who wrote it”. Its real author remains unknown, and it is difficult to imagine this person, for the Protocols are a literary palimpsest. In the days of yore, a scribe would write his composition on a piece of old parchment, previously removing an older text. The erasure was rarely total, and a reader was treated to an integrated version of the Golden Ass and Fioretti of St Francis. In the Protocols, there are layers of old and even older stories, and it precludes meaningful quest for ultimate creator. Every text should be treated on its own merits, disregarding the question of authorship. Although, Jorge Luis Borges wrote that the author is an important part of a text. Indeed, if we would know the Protocols contain real blueprint of some Jewish elites, we would have our answer ready in minutes. But Protocols were published in the end of 19th-beginning of 20th century “as found”, as apocrypha. They became a great bestseller and still stay there, though in some countries (notably the Soviet Union), mere possession of the text was punishable by death.

The Anonymous author of the Protocols describes a master-plan for vast restructuring of society, creation of a new oligarchy and subjugation of millions. The final product is not too different from the one described in a contemporary piece of writing, The Iron Heel by Jack London, the great radical from Oakland, California. However, London expected harsh cracking down, while Anonym’s way to subjugation leads through Machiavellian manipulations and mind control a la Orwell’s 1984. (Orwell’s homage to the Protocols is even more striking as it is rarely noticed).

The difficulty of the Protocols is in an uncanny dissonance between its uncouth language and deep social and religious thought. It is a rude parody-like rendering of a satanic, subtle and well-thought out plan, wrote the Nobel Prise winning novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his (written in 1966 and published in 2001) analysis of the Protocols.
“The Protocols … show a blueprint of a social system. Its design is well above abilities of an ordinary mind, including that of its publisher. It is a dynamic process of two stages, of destabilization, increasing freedom and liberalism, which is terminated in social cataclysm, and on the second stage, new hierarchical restructuring of society takes place. It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb. It could be a stolen and distorted plan designed by a mind of genius. Its putrid style of an anti-Semitic grubby brochure [intentionally] obscures the great strength of thought and insight”.
Solzhenitsyn is aware of faults of the Protocols. “Its style is that of a filthy leaflet, the powerful line of thought is broken and fragmented, mixed up with ill-smelling incantations and psychological blunders. The system described is not necessarily connected with the Jews; it could be purely Masonic or whatever; while its strongly anti-Semitic current is not an organic part of the design”.

Solzhenitsyn makes a textual experiment, removes words “Jews”, “Goyim” and “conspiracy” and finds many disturbing ideas. He concludes: “The text demonstrates impressive foresight on the two systems of society, the Western and the Soviet one. While a strong thinker could possibly predict the development of the West in 1901, how could he grasp the Soviet future?”

Solzhenitsyn braved the Soviet regime, dared to write and publish the mammoth Archipelago Gulag, an indictment of the Soviet repression, but even he stalled and did not publish his research of the Protocols. He asked it to be published after his death only, and it was printed against his will in a very small number of copies in 2001. Let us follow Solzhenitsyn’s line of thought and gaze into the crystal ball of the Protocols, while temporarily discounting its “Jewish line” and paying heed to the idea of creating a new system, not necessarily a Jewish-dominated one. The master-plan begins with reshaping of human mind:
“People’s minds should be diverted (away from contemplation) towards industry and trade, and then they will have no time to think. The people will be consumed by the pursuit of gain. It will be vain pursuit, for we shall put industry on a speculative basis: what is withdrawn from the land by industry will slip through the hands of workers and industrialists and pass into the hands of financiers.

The intensified struggle for survival and superiority, accompanied by crises and shocks will create cold and heartless communities with strong aversion towards religion. Their only guide is gain that is Mammon, which they will erect into a veritable cult”.
Foresight of Anonym is amazing: in the days of the Protocols’ publication, Man was still the measure of things, and full eighty years would pass, until Milton Friedman and Chicago School would proclaim Market and Profit as the only guiding light.

The tool for enslavement of minds is the media, writes Anonym. “There is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the media. It is in the media that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence minds while remaining unobserved. We shall erase from the memory of men the historical facts we do not want them to know, and leave only those we wish”.

Years will pass since the publication until a small group of people who control our discourse while remaining unobserved, the media lords, would rise. The free discussion of the media barons, Berlusconi and Black, Maxwell and Sulzberger, Gusinsky and Zuckerman is banned from the media they own, while their cooperative affinity remains impressive. The freedom of discourse survives wherever independent (from media barons) media still exists. Hundred years ago, this force was much weaker than it is now, and it is amazing the Anonym recognised its potential.

Century before the rise of World Bank and IMF, the Protocols noticed the foreign loans are the best tools to rob countries of their wealth. “While the loans were internal, money remained in the land, but with externalisation of loans, all nations pay tribute of their subjects to the oligarchy”. Indeed, the bigger loans poor countries get, the poorer they become.

Concentration of capital in the hands of financiers, concentration of media in few hands, extra-judicial killings of unyielding leaders, stock market with its derivatives sucks out wealth and it accumulates in the hands of the priesthood of Mammon, gain (or “market forces”) as the only measure of successful strategy… Yes, the interest to the Protocols does not disappear because the described plan of creating oligarchic (not necessarily Jewish) rule is being implemented in real time and it is called the New World Order.

Sometimes, the Protocols are described as extreme-right-wing anti-utopian piece of writing. However, it spans both left and right-wing discourse. A right-wing writer would bless strengthening of Law and Order, but the following prediction of Anonym could be written today by a leftist libertarian, say, Noam Chomsky, witnessing the present transition to the New World Order: “The race of armaments and the increase of police force will bring forth society where are only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires, police and soldiers”.

However, the deepest thought of Anonym remains in the spiritual sphere:
Freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the well-being of the people if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the Brotherhood of humanity. This is the reason why it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the people’s mind the very principle of God and the Spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs”.
Anonym connects the Faith and the idea of Brotherhood of humanity. Undermining of Faith ruins the Brotherhood. Freedom, instead of desirable and beautiful state of mind, turns into destructive drive when unhinged from the Faith. Instead of Faith, the Enemy offers pursuit of Mammon.

While reading in today’s (16.11.02) IH Tribune philippics against gay priests and nuns, one notes the following lines in the Protocols: “We have taken care to discredit the Christian priesthood and ruin their mission which might still hinder our plans. Day by day, their influence on the people is falling lower. Collapse of Christianity is nigh”.

We witness implementation of this plan: religion is removed from consideration, neo-liberalism or Mammon worship takes its place, while with disestablishment of socialism, this brave attempt of a non-faith-based brotherhood collapsed, leaving ideological vacuum.

This observation caused some reviewers to exclaim, “The true designer of the Master-plan is our old foe, the Prince of the World, whose ultimate aim is elimination of Divine Presence and ruination of Man”. True, but the Prince of the World can’t act directly. He needs free agents that choose to accept his plan. These chief agents and possible allies, according to the pamphlet, are financial capitalists and Masters of Discourse, ‘the Mind’.

They promote to the highest positions “politicians who, in case of disobedience to our instructions, must face criminal charges or disappear. We shall arrange elections in favour of candidates with some dark, undiscovered stain in their past. They will be our trustworthy agents out of fear of revelations” For us, contemporaries of Watergate and Lewinsky, it sounds familiar.

----- SNIP -----

The Protocols predict rise of New Bourgeoisie, globalist Mammon-worshippers, who are inherently hostile to Old Elites, to spirit, to religion, to the ordinary people....

----- SNIP -----

Thus, the Protocols (purified of references to the Jews and conspiracies) are useful as they describe a blueprint of the New World Order, and help its adversaries to form a defensive strategy against the designs of Enemy. But the references to the Jews constitute large and important part of the text.

The Jews and the Protocols

The Protocols identify the moving force of the New World Order with a powerful group of extremely chauvinist, manipulative and domination-obsessed Jewish leaders. The leaders, according to the Protocols, despise ordinary community members; they utilise and support anti-Semitism as the means to keep their “lesser brethren”, innocent ordinary folk of Jewish origin, in thrall to their rule. The leaders are described as pathological goy haters, bent on destroying culture and traditions of other nations while preserving their own. Their goal is to create world government and rule the homogenised and globalised world.

Their aims and intentions are stated in extremely contrarian and obnoxious way. Solzhenitsyn concluded that no sane person would deliver his favourite ideas in such self-demeaning and self-defeating way. "We extract gold from their blood and tears”, “our power is based on workers’ hunger”, “revolutionaries are our human tools”, “brutish minds of Goyim” are, in his opinion, words ascribed to the Jews by their enemies. A Jew would rather put such ideas in an oblique way, he felt.

It is not a water-tight argument. Some people speak in oblique way, others prefer a direct one.... David Ben Gurion, the first ruler of the Jewish state, coined an equally arrogant maxim: “Who cares what Goyim say? What matters is what the Jews do!” This sentence is an almost direct quote from the Protocols.

The Protocols ascribe to the Elders a saying, “Each Jewish victim is worth in the sight of God a thousand goyim”. This line, a pinnacle of arrogance, is not a vain invention of an anti-Semite. Two ministers of Sharon’s government, Uri Landau and Ivet Lieberman demanded to kill one thousand Palestinian goyim for each Jewish victim. A Jewish extremist at a demo for the Jewish Temple Mount (18.11.02) called each Jew to kill one thousand Palestinian goyim. Apparently, some ideas of the Protocols are not foreign to some Jews.

The late Israeli scholar Israel Shahak and an American Jewish writer Norton Mezvinsky present in their Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel a plethora of sayings by Jewish Rabbis that wouldn’t be out of place in the Protocols. “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” (p. ix). Shahak and Mezvinsky proved the rage of the Jewish chauvinists does not differentiate between Palestinians, Arabs and Goyim in general. In other words, whatever happened to Palestinians could happen to any Gentile community standing on the way of the Jews.

Indeed, if the Protocols would have no relation to reality, they probably wouldn’t be as popular as they are. The Jews are sufficiently powerful to dream of domination, and some do. Apparently some Jewish ideas found their way into the text. Other thoughts are ascribed to the Jews on the basis of “qui bono”.

The least acceptable idea of the Protocols is the presumption of an extremely ancient conspiracy of the Jews aiming to take over the world. The extreme philo-Semitic view denies the Jews their ability to act together and presents them as separate individuals united by prayer only. This view is not accepted by the Jews, and it does not agree with the common sense.

Solzhenitsyn does not believe in existence of the Elders of Zion, though “the togetherness and coordination of Jewish activity for the sake of their advancement caused many writers (beginning from Cicero) to imagine there is a single commanding centre to direct their attacks”. “Without such a world centre, without conspiring, the Jews understand each other and are able to coordinate their actions”.

The Jews are perfectly able to coordinate their actions, but I doubt human beings, Jews or English, Russians or Chinese are able to form long-standing plans spanning centuries and continents. Nobody was able to prove such a plot exists. Usually, ‘anti-Semites’ (the people who doubt or deny inherent benevolence of the Jews to Gentile society) argue for its authenticity as Henry Ford did. The car king said: "the only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on.” Indeed they do, exclaims Victor Marsden, the English translator of the Protocols....

Traditional Jewish community had a structure of “upturned pyramid”, in words of Zionist theoreticians: it contained many persons of wealth, learning and management, and very few workers. It appears an odd thing, until one understands that the Zionists artificially view the Jews in divorce of the society they live in. The Jewish ‘upturned pyramid’ couldn’t exist without a real down-turned pyramid of Gentile low classes. The Jews compete with the native elites of the Gentile society for the right to exploit the Gentile worker and peasant. The modus operandi of the two competitors differs. While native elites shared some values with their lower classes and usually provided for some upward mobility, the Jewish community had its own structure and values....

For instance, the Jewish community of 17th century Ukraine has been a collective tax-farmer and leaseholder, extracting from the natives SIX times more taxes and dues per person than a gentile landlord did, wrote a prominent Jewish Ukrainian historian Saul Borovoy in a recently published in Jerusalem book. The Jewish communities of Maghreb supported the colonial power against their gentile neighbours, etc. Their traditions forbade normal relations with the natives.

Let us presume that such a community acts in its egoistic interests. Forget conspiracy; forget the Elders of Zion, learned or otherwise. The community’s only aim is to promote its own well-being. For a marginal group it means to make the social gap between its members and the native population as broad as possible, while minimising the backlash potential.

The group would naturally, for its self-interest, support every movement against native elites, whether initiated by the King (as the Jews did before the French Revolution) or by the rebelling low classes. It would not be done for the Jewish love of democracy or rebellious nature, but for improvement of their own positions. Ideal situation would be created by massacre or expulsion of the native elites, as the group members would be able to appropriate their positions. Indeed, it happened in Soviet Russia and Soviet Hungary in the aftermath of World War One. Massacre and exile of the native elites made the positions of power and influence available to the competing Jews. [PDF file]

Self-interest explains the Jewish involvement with the dreaded Cheka, the Soviet security services. Until 1937, the Jews occupied the top echelon of the KGB predecessor body, while millions of Russians lost their life or liberty. Objectively, these executioners made jobs and houses available for their fellow Jews. After the massacre and exile of Russian elites, the Jews were ready for equality, as a son of a Rabbi could easily compete with a son of Russian worker or peasant, though he wouldn’t be able to compete with a son of Russian noble....

Solzhenitsyn writes:
“Executed <during the revolution> army officers were Russians, the noblemen, priests, monks, deputies were Russians… In 1920s, the pre-revolutionary engineers and scientists were exiled or killed. They were Russians, while their place was taken by Jews. The best Russian Psychiatric institute in Moscow, its Russian members were arrested or exiled, while their place was taken by the Jews. Important Jewish doctors blocked the advancement of Russian medical scientists… The best intellectual and artistic elites of Russian people were killed, while the Jews grew and flourished in these (deadly for Russians) years”.
The new Jewish elite did not fully identify with Russia but carried out separate policy. It had a fateful effect in 1991, when over 50 p.c. of Jews (as opposed to 13 p.c. of Russians) supported pro-Western coup of President Yeltsin. In 1995, 81% of Jews voted for pro-Western parties, and only 3% for the Communists (as opposed to 46% of Russians), according to the publication by the Jewish sociologist Dr Ryvkina in her book Jews in Post-Soviet Russia (1996).

In ever-expanding America, the Jews did not have to kill or remove the native elites; they became its important part, controlling discourse and wielding considerable financial clout. They still do not identify with the goyish America: every year, they force the Congress and the Administration to send five billion dollars to their Israeli offshoot and now try to let America fight their war in Iraq. They do discriminate other Americans, otherwise 60% of the leading positions in the media would not become Jewish.

Jews of France do not identify with France, either. “Their identification with Israel is so strong; it overshadows their ties to the country they live in”. – writes Daniel Ben Simon in Haaretz. - “This dual loyalty was made very clear to me by a Jewish doctor in Nice.”If the choice is between Israel and France, there's no question I feel closer to Israel," he said, without a moment's hesitation. He was born and bred in France; he went to medical school in France; his patients are French; he speaks French with his wife and children. But in the depths of his heart, he feels a greater affinity with the Jewish state”....

For their own well-being the Jews have to obscure their unique position, wealth and power by the following means:

  • Holocaust discourse helps to fight envy.
  • In a mono-ethnic society, the Jews as the only foreign body do stick out and attract attention, while in multicultural society they are hardly seen. For this purpose, the Jews support immigration from non-European countries, as their presence would remove the stamp of Jewish exclusiveness.
  • The Political Correctness is another device forbidding the discussion of Jewish influence.
  • Fight against Christianity and the Church makes sense for a non-Christian community: if the Church would be strong, the Christians would prefer their own, Christian elite.
  • Globalisation is a natural development for the people spread all over the globe, if they attach but little importance to the local ways.
  • Impoverishment of the natives is but another side of growing wealth of the Jewish community.
Summing it up, a big share (though not all) of the ideas ascribed to the Jews by the Protocols are indeed the ideas useful or necessary for the Jewish communal well-being, without any need for great hatred towards Gentiles and/or the guidance of mythic Elders of Zion. That is the reason of the Protocols’ long life. Paradoxically, without Israeli apartheid these facts would remain invisible for the host communities.
__________________
"[T]he Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for in the end. Beyond world domination to the destruction of the world.... While he persuades himself that he improves mankind, he torments it into despair, into insanity, into collapse.... that this will lead, without salvation, to his own destruction, that is it: the tragedy of Lucifer."

"There was only one decent Jew, and he killed himself."--A.H.
lawrence dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2005   #3
FranzJoseph
Shields Up!
 
FranzJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern Ohio
Posts: 1,462
FranzJoseph will become famous soon enough
Default Is the average VNNer literate enuf for Pardes?

I vividly remember when Shamir's essay on the Protocols came out. He's been on his tribe's permanent shit list ever since.

My guess is Shamir is the only Israeli citizen who has been praised by real nazis (on the old FAEM), dumped on by his own people worldwide, and totally unknown to the very people who should be reading him.
FranzJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2005   #4
Keystone
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ether
Posts: 455
Keystone is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzJoseph
I vividly remember when Shamir's essay on the Protocols came out. He's been on his tribe's permanent shit list ever since.

My guess is Shamir is the only Israeli citizen who has been praised by real nazis (on the old FAEM), dumped on by his own people worldwide, and totally unknown to the very people who should be reading him.

Shamir admittedly took over from where Israel Shahak left off. He holds his former tribe's toes to the fire for sure, and he is on their shit list. World Jewry is constantly trying to discredit him. Very much so.

He writes with such passion and eloquence about his conversion to and practice of Orthodox Christianity that it's hard to imagine he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. His essays about the relationship of the native Palestinians with their land are remarkable.

He's not a racist in any sense, however.
Keystone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2005   #5
Keystone
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ether
Posts: 455
Keystone is on a distinguished road
Default

Here is a very interesting Shamir piece on Greek Orthodoxy

Island of Faith

Quote:
As opposed to the West, the Greeks knew neither hatred nor fear of Jews. They saved many of their Jews during the German occupation, and treated them fairly. As they had their own national church, they did not transfer their spiritual values to Jews for safekeeping; and thus had no reason to bewail the loss of them. Where is no guilt, there is no fear, either.
Keystone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2005   #6
Amalekite
Retrosexual
 
Amalekite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The New Jerusalem
Posts: 365
Amalekite is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzJoseph
I vividly remember when Shamir's essay on the Protocols came out. He's been on his tribe's permanent shit list ever since.

My guess is Shamir is the only Israeli citizen who has been praised by real nazis (on the old FAEM), dumped on by his own people worldwide, and totally unknown to the very people who should be reading him.


Shamir is the only renegade Jew who's ever struck me as being totally sincere and trustworthy. His writings don't contain any of the self-serving, hypocritical doubletalk that I've noticed in the works of Shahak and similar Jewish authors. Shamir has the ability to detach himself from his Jewishness and see things from a non-Jewish perspective, which is remarkably rare for a Jew. His views are very liberal, but I can live with that.
__________________
"A safe rule where Jewish propaganda is concerned is to multiply or divide their figures by ten, at least, before accepting them as the basis for discussion."
- Arnold Leese, from the December, 1937 edition of The Fascist.
Amalekite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2005   #7
Keystone
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ether
Posts: 455
Keystone is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalekite
Shamir is the only renegade Jew who's ever struck me as being totally sincere and trustworthy. His writings don't contain any of the self-serving, hypocritical doubletalk that I've noticed in the works of Shahak and similar Jewish authors.

I've only read The Weight of Three Thousand Years by Shahak, and he rips Judah-ism a new one. No double talk that I saw.
Quote:
Shamir has the ability to detach himself from his Jewishness and see things from a non-Jewish perspective, which is remarkably rare for a Jew. His views are very liberal, but I can live with that.

Shamir claims to have given up being a "Jew" in the religious and cultural sense. Many white racists say that's impossible because being a Jew is also racial. I believe he's left the tribe.
Keystone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2005   #8
Amalekite
Retrosexual
 
Amalekite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The New Jerusalem
Posts: 365
Amalekite is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
I've only read The Weight of Three Thousand Years by Shahak, and he rips Judah-ism a new one. No double talk that I saw.


I'll give you an example of what I mean. Shahak gets into a discussion of what he calls "classical anti-Semitism." Classical anti-Semites are malevolent nutcases, according to him. They believe in crazy conspiracy theories. They hate the poor Jews for no reason, or for irrational reasons. Shahak won't even entertain the possibility that some of those conspiracy theories might actually be true, or that "classical anti-Semitism" might in large part be a predictable reaction to Jewish behavior. Shahak's books are a nice olive branch, but they don't go far enough. Shamir's books do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
Shamir claims to have given up being a "Jew" in the religious and cultural sense. Many white racists say that's impossible because being a Jew is also racial. I believe he's left the tribe.


There's certainly a genetic aspect to being Jewish, but I agree, it's blown out of proportion by the neo-Nazis on this board. Israel Shamir is welcome to stop by my place for a beer and a bagel anytime he wants.
__________________
"A safe rule where Jewish propaganda is concerned is to multiply or divide their figures by ten, at least, before accepting them as the basis for discussion."
- Arnold Leese, from the December, 1937 edition of The Fascist.
Amalekite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2005   #9
FranzJoseph
Shields Up!
 
FranzJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern Ohio
Posts: 1,462
FranzJoseph will become famous soon enough
Default Another, about the Chimp

This remains one of my favorite Shamir columns. Comparing Bush to one of Obadiah the Jew's flunky's just floors me whenever I'm feeling low. Especially the terrific ending.

Quote:

Nincompoop

By Israel Shamir

"President Bush should be declared a Distinguished Zionist", - quipped Tsahi HaNegbi, an Israeli thug-turned-Minister, when the words of the American president ceased to reverberate in the end-of-June heat of Middle East. "No, Bush should be co-opted into Likud caucus", - parried the opposition leader, Yossi Sarid. Israeli Labour leader, Shimon Peres, looked sillier than ever, as Bush took away his favourite prop, 'a threat of American intervention'. Peres and Sarid have never advocated Palestinian human rights out of sympathy or common humanity, but would rather hoodwink their supporters in the notoriously nationalistic Israeli electorate: "We would deal with Palestinians and their lands as ruthlessly as [right-wing] Likud, but we treasure our special relations with the US. Americans would not allow it; that is why we are forced to behave like human beings". Now their forced interpretation collapsed. Americans do not mind. They do not mind anything at all, and now Israel may continue its uninterrupted slide into fascist nightmare.

With a wry smile, I look through emails and articles of yesteryear, when Bush, Jr. was elected a President. Many right-wing pundits expressed an opinion that the Jews lost their stranglehold over American policy. "Jews in Bush's Cabinet? Don't Hold Your Breath" lamented Phillip Weiss of the Observer. Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com was gleefully pleased with what appeared as a Jewish setback. Just a few months later, they learned: the regained Anglo-Saxon supremacy in the United States was but a mirage. By astutely providing funds for both Republicans and Democrats, for practically all candidates of left and right, the Jewish leadership is able to influence the choice of the candidates they prefer. Maybe they can't order a specific person for this or other position, but they are able to influence the shortlist, when the final choice wouldn't matter at all. They know what they want: they prefer nincompoops, people of limited intelligence, competence, willpower and doubtful morality, whether they are called Bush or Gore.

"Choosing a weak ruler" is a name of the game for an ethnic or religious minority takeover, applied whenever the populace is not yet ready to accept its true rulers. In Babylon-5 and other SF movies, the aliens prefer a weak-kneed Terran man as their stooge. They learned it from history. In the second half of first millennium, a large Eurasian state of Khazaria was a subject of a similar takeover.

Indigenous Khazars were governed and protected by Turkic warrior nobility, headed by their elected Khan, the king. In 6th - 8th centuries they received a few waves of Jewish refugees, at first from Sasanid Persia, later from Abbasid Iraq and Byzantium. Benevolent and tolerant Turkic khans believed they acquire useful, clever and diligent subjects, but in no time at all, the new arrivals took over Khazaria.

For a while they preserved the facade of traditional aristocracy rule, and enthroned an increasingly weak Khan. In 803, Obadiah the Jew became the real ruler of Khazaria, while Khan the Goy was still shown to people once a year as a proof of legitimacy of Obadiah's power. Eventually, the last Gentile Khan was discarded, and the fiction of Khazar rule came to an end, while a Jewish Beg openly assumed the power in Khazaria.

It is often claimed that the Jewish rulers caused mass conversion of Khazars into Jewish faith. Arthur Koestler, a Jewish novelist, thought modern Jews are descendents of these Khazar converts[1], but two leading Russian scientists, an archaeologist Artamonov and a historian Leon Gumilev[2] came to conclusion that ordinary Khazars haven't been converted into Judaism. The Jews were the ruling class in Khazaria; they didn't share the Covenant or important positions with outsiders, according to Gumilev. Khazars became subjects of an ethnically and religiously alien rule. They had to pay for the army and police, and for adventurous foreign policy. In the end, they had lost their country.

The ruling Jews had it very good but very brief: within a hundred years after full takeover, the Khazar Empire disintegrated totally. Such setups do not last, as they destroy their own power base. Khazars did not mind: they had no share in the Empire's fabulous wealth. They became Tatars, Kazaks and other nations of steppe. The neighbours did not miss the Empire, as it was prone to genocide and slave trade. The Jews wandered out of devastated Caspian basin into deep-frieze of Poland and Lithuania, and dropped out of history for a thousand year slumber.

The Jews of Khazaria needed a nincompoop for a Khan, because their power was far from complete, and only a nincompoop would surrender to their demands. The Middle Eastern speech of Bush proved that this scion of wealthy and powerful family behaves like a rabbit caught in the lights of a car. The countdown for the American Empire demise had started.

---------------------------------

[1] Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe

[2] Leon Gumilev, Russia and the Great Steppe (in Russian)

Israel Shamir is an Israeli journalist based in Jaffa. His articles can be found on the site www.israelshamir.net In order to subscribe to this list or to be removed from it, please write to info@israelshamir.net No copyright for electronic transmission, but ask for permission in order to publish as hard copy.

FranzJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #10
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,115
Abzug Hoffman is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalekite
I'll give you an example of what I mean. Shahak gets into a discussion of what he calls "classical anti-Semitism." Classical anti-Semites are malevolent nutcases, according to him. They believe in crazy conspiracy theories. They hate the poor Jews for no reason, or for irrational reasons. Shahak won't even entertain the possibility that some of those conspiracy theories might actually be true, or that "classical anti-Semitism" might in large part be a predictable reaction to Jewish behavior. Shahak's books are a nice olive branch, but they don't go far enough. Shamir's books do.

There's certainly a genetic aspect to being Jewish, but I agree, it's blown out of proportion by the neo-Nazis on this board. Israel Shamir is welcome to stop by my place for a beer and a bagel anytime he wants.


There's certainly an aspect to this board that it doesn't really matter if you are jewish, half jewish, 1/4 jewish or nonjewish!

Tidbit of Shamir on the Protocols, something I have never heard before. -

" In a bout of anti-Communist rage, de Haas claims that the Protocols were published and used in the Communist Soviet Union. It was the other way around! The Soviet authorities punished the possession of this book by heavy terms of imprisonment, and even by death. It was, contrary to de Haas' claims,
*banned in Tsarist Russia as well*. So, the man really does not know what he writes about. "

Last edited by Abzug Hoffman : 4 Weeks Ago at 07:01 PM.
Abzug Hoffman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #11
Stronza
Junior Member
 
Stronza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 245
Stronza is on a distinguished road
Default

This is wonderful reading, but it makes me feel a bit hopeless.
Stronza is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.