Page 3
II
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 <end>
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".
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