- An excerpt from a talk by Israel Shamir given in Teramo
University, Italy, at the Conference on Holocaust and the Middle East:
the Gagged History, on April 18, 2007
-
- Before there was the Holocaust, there was blood libel.
When one reads Jewish and Judeophile pre-WWII texts, one notices that the
place currently occupied by the Holocaust dogma in the Judeocentric universe
was not vacant; it was taken by pogroms in Russia, by the Dreyfus trial,
by the Inquisition, by the expulsion from Spain, by the destruction of
the Temple and to a great extent by the "blood libel". They carried
the same message: they proclaimed eternal, unique, reasonless and baseless
suffering of Jews caused by the irrational hate of Gentiles; they united
and mobilized Jews against the Gentiles; they deflated some envy, hostility
and distrust into pity, even engendering guilt feelings among the best
of goyim.
-
- The Russian historian Kozhinov dealt with the Russian
pogroms proving that more non-Jews than Jews were killed in these violent
encounters. The greatest and the bloodiest pogrom, that of Kishinev, was
described by Bialik, the national Jewish poet, as the greatest of massacres
with blood flooding the streets, and in recent issue of Haaretz, an Israeli
journalist wrote that "no one doubts the Russian nation's right to
exist because Christians in Kishinev at the beginning of the 20th century
stuck nails into the eyes of Jewish children." However, as opposed
to the cases of the Italian and English babies tortured to death by Jewish
black magicians, the allegations of "nails into the eyes etc"
were a flight of fantasy disproved almost instantly, while the total loss
of life in Kishinev amounted to 45, a quarter of Deir Yassin, a month's
harvest of the Intifada.
-
- So all these stories of unprovoked suffering can be deconstructed,
but why bother, if the only thing the producers of the narratives wish
to convey is that Jews are unique and special, have suffered more than
anybody else and that is why they are entitled to have their way, are the
best there is, while whoever doubts it is obsessed by mystic antisemitism.
These narratives are brought forth to wake Jewish fury against their alleged
persecutors, c'est tout.
-
- I take great dislike to these victimhood stories, and
not only because they are factually weak. The victimhood stories are not
the result, but a cause of suffering. Whenever these stories of unprovoked
persecution are being delivered, have no doubt: their promoters are preparing
a beastly atrocity of their own. Jews brandished the story of the holocaust
and erased the peaceful Palestinian population in 1948. Armenians recited
the story of their unique unprovoked suffering, and massacred innocent
Azeri civilians in Qarabag? in 1991-94 war, sending hundreds thousands
of refugees to Baku
-
-
- http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/karabakh/karabakh_
refugees/karabakh_refugees_index.html.
-
-
- Poles and Czechs inflamed by stories of their suffering
under the Reich expelled millions of ethnic Germans from their ancestral
lands, while Ukrainians who told the stories of their suffering in Rzecz
Pospolita slaughtered the Poles of Volyn by the thousands.
-
- If Turks killed, the Armenians provoked; and whenever
there were actions against Jews they were caused by actions of Jews. Indeed,
a through-and-through denier, I deny the very existence of antisemitism,
the "irrational hate towards Jews". It does not exist. Jewry
was fought against, as every power, from Roman Catholic Church to Standard
Oil Co was. Jews are not lambs, but quite an active factor of ideological
and economic life. One may be for or against them. But "hate"?
Surely not. Non-Jews have usually been fairer to Jews than the other way
around. Even the "blood libel" turned out to be not a libel but
a regular criminal case.
-
- Were there anti-Jewish actions, in Europe and in the
Middle East? Surely they were. But were they caused by "irrational
hate"? Hate my foot! In 1911, the US government undid the mighty empire
of John D. Rockefeller. Not being a Jew, Rockefeller could not claim it
was due to antisemitism. He did not say that it was because they did not
like his looks, race, breed, manners, or that's divine punishment for his
sins. They broke up the Standard Oil Company because it became too powerful.
For the same good reason, Russian President Vladimir Putin broke up the
oil company of his unruly oligarchs. Not because they were Jews, or because
they supported democracy. Power creates the demand for a countering power,
force calls for counterforce, and Jews were and are a power.
-
- Jewry is stronger than the Catholic Church, as we learn
from the fate of an Italian scientist we can compare Dr Toaff with. Yesterday,
just off the main square, I saw a plaque commemorating Giordano Bruno,
the martyr of science. It said: "He was killed by the Catholic Church,
the enemy of science." Go over hundreds of books, crawl all over Internet,
you will read that the Church is guilty of this crime. You can say it freely,
and nobody will scream at you hysterically: "ALL the Church? All billion
of Catholics from Brazil to Poland are guilty? Shame on you! You are anti-Catholic!"
Actually, the late Pope even apologised for it, as was his wont.
-
- In vain you'll look for a plaque commemorating a Jewish
philosopher, scientist and sceptic Rabbi Samuel Ibn Zarza, the author of
Miklal Yofi, who expressed his doubt about Creation, and was burned at
the stake in Valencia by order of the Jews. Now, I wait to hear the
shout "All the Jews? Antisemite!" What, nobody says it? Good,
we may proceed. In the Book of Lineage
-
- http://www.amazon.com/Book-Lineage-Abraham-Zacuto/dp/1419618938
-
-
- a 15th century Jewish book I had pleasure of translating
(into English), there is a gloss saying "When the Rabbis read 'The
year such and such since creation of the world' this Zarza fellow placed
his hand on his beard and alluded to the world's pre-existence by holding
the hairs of his beard. The Chief Rabbi Isaac Campanton stood up in his
place and said, 'Why is the bush not being burnt? Let the bush burn!' (Zarza
is a sort of bush in the Castilian; so this pun alludes to Exodus 3:3)
The Rabbis led him to the tribunal and had him sentenced to death by burning
for confessing pre-existence of the world."
-
- So, there are two scientists, both burned, but one was
sent to the stake by the Church, while another one by the Jews. If you
go into the details, you can find even more similarities. Samuel Ibn Zarza
was executed by the tribunal at the instigation of the Jews. There are
some hints that the Jews were active behind the scenes in sending Giordano
Bruno to his death as well, for he was strongly anti-Jewish. Giordano Bruno
called the Jews 'such a pestilential, leprous, and publicly dangerous race
that they deserved to be rooted out and destroyed even before their birth.'
(Giordano Bruno, Spacio della Bestis Trionfante (1584). This opinion contributed
to his execution, for even then, the Jews could access the authorities'
ears, and there were always enough officials ready to follow their orders.
But in the case of Bruno, there are no visible traces, thus his case remains
known, while the case of Samuel Ibn Zarza is forgotten or denied.
-
- If you open the Jewish-edited Wikipedia, you'll read:
"though Samuel Shalom (a 16th century Jewish sage) states that Zarza
was burned at the stake by the tribunal of Valencia on the denunciation
of Rabbi Isaac Campanton, who accused him of denying the creation of the
world, historians have proved this assertion a mere legend." Thus,
the Jewish history-making and vetting Ministry of Truth still can decide
and rule what happened and what was and remains a "mere legend".
The Catholic Church can't even dream of such power.
-
- Can one quantify Jewish power? Some months ago, the British
weekly Economist published an unusual map of the world: a country's territory
was represented in proportion to its GNP. This is a revealing map: India
was smaller than Holland, all of Latin America was only as big as Italy;
Israel was bigger than all its Arab neighbours. This map was not exactly
the map of power: in order to draw the true map of the world one should
consider other parameters as well: gun power, nuclear and conventional
capability, discursive influence connected with output of films, books,
newspapers, university cathedras, international positions. On such a power
map, Jewry would look impressive enough. The Jews are an important power
in the world we live in. It is a first-rate power, stronger than the Catholic
Church, surely stronger than Italy or any single European state, stronger
than Shell and Agip or any trans-national corporation.
-
- In space studies, there is a phenomenon called the black
hole: a very dense and heavy star changes the geometry of surrounding space,
and rays of light can't escape the gravitation trap it creates. Such a
black hole star is invisible because it is very powerful. Likewise, Jewry
is a black hole. It is so powerful that it is not seen. One is not allowed
to see it. This is the strongest taboo of our day. The famous "tail
wags the dog" discussion about the Jewish Lobby in the US, is an attempt
to go around the taboo without actually breaking it. For sure, a small
Middle Eastern country called Israel can't possibly "wag the US dog".
The Israel Lobby of AIPAC and sundry can't influence much, despite its
efforts. But the Israel Lobby and the state of Israel are perceived as
manifestations of the Black hole, of the great unmentionable: of Jewry.
-
- In a recent debate between James Petras and Norman Finkelstein
-
-
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/932 ,
-
-
- Dr Petras comes very close to real thing as he describes
the pro-Israel lobby as "a whole string of pro-Zionist think tanks
from the American Enterprise Institute on down, and a whole power configuration,
which not only involves AIPAC, but also the Presidents of the Major American
Jewish Organizations, which number 52 and individuals occupying crucial
positions in the government (Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas
Feith and others), the army of op-ed writers who have access to the major
newspapers the super-rich contributors to the Democratic Party, Media moguls
with the leverage in Congress and in the Executive". It is not a lobby,
it is Jewry.
-
- Why is Jewry so powerful now? In my book, Pardes
-
-
- http://www.amazon.com/Pardes-Israel-Shamir/dp/1419606018 ,
-
-
- I give an explanation: historically an alternative
church, Jewry had a traditional enemy in the Apostolic church. When the
Roman Catholic church's hold was broken, the alternative one spurted forth.
But if this explanation is too complicated, or unacceptable to strict materialists,
one can translate it into dollars and pounds.
-
- Recently, Jewish pundit Zev Chafets rose in defense
-
- http://jewishworldreview.com/0407/chafets041107.php3
-
-
- of American sportsman Richardson who was suspended for
saying that the Jews are powerful and crafty. He said: "The Jews have
got the best security system in the world. Have you ever been to an airport
in Tel Aviv? They're real crafty. Listen, they are hated all over the world,
so they've got to be crafty. They got a lot of power in this world, you
know what I mean? Which I think is great. I don't think there's nothing
wrong with it. If you look in most professional sports, they're run by
Jewish people. If you look at a lot of most successful corporations and
stuff, more businesses, they're run by Jewish [sic]. It's not a knock,
but they are some crafty people."
-
- Chafets retorted: "Excuse me, but Richardson didn't
say anything offensive. In fact, Jews, as a people, are smart, in my experience.
And they're proud of it (especially the dumb ones). What other hurtful
things did Richardson supposedly say? That Israel has the best airport
security in the world? This is both true and something Israel itself brags
about. That Jews are hated and need to protect themselves? That's the founding
premise of the Anti-Defamation League itself. Sure, Richardson exaggerates
when he says that Jews own most sports teams. As far as I can tell, Jews
(about 1% of the population) only own about half the teams in the NBA (and
a pretty fair proportion in baseball and football too). So what? As to
the observation that Jews run a lot of successful businesses, no kidding.
Jews are very likely the most economically successful ethnic group in the
U.S. What's the matter with that?"
-
- This question ("What's the matter with that?")
was answered by
-
- David C. Johnston in the New York Times.
-
-
- http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/040207LA.shtml
-
-
- He wrote: "Income inequality [in the US] grew
significantly
-
- in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those
-
- with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving
their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released
tax data shows. The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans
collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans.
Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person
in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."
-
- A question Johnston does not answer (nor even posits)
is: out of "the top 300,000 Americans who collectively enjoyed almost
as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans" how many belong
to "the most economically successful ethnic group in the U.S"?
Isn't it to be expected that in absence of a national church or other
non-economical limiters - their influence on the US politics would be roughly
proportional to their joint income?
-
- "Democracy" is an ideal political system where
each person has one vote and all votes are equal. This ideal can hardly
be realised even in the absence of economic inequality, for there are more
and less influential people by their very abilities. In the conditions
described by Johnston, when one member of elite has the income of 500 ordinary
people, democracy is severely undermined. But this ideal is betrayed outright
if these elite people own mass media and thus have an ability to shape
the world view of others. If these media lords pool their resources as
happens in the US, democracy loses its meaning. I agree wholeheartedly
with Frau Merkel who
-
-
- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/852026.html
-
-
- said: "A free press is the cornerstone of our society
and the basis for all freedoms." But I can't even guess why she considers
the press as being free if it is owned by Jewish and Judeophile media lords,
like Alfred Neven DuMont, owner of one of Germany's oldest publishing houses
and part-owner of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, (she spoke at his birthday
party) or your own Berlusconi? Why is this press freer than a state-controlled
press, as in Putin's Russia? A State can anyway claim to represent all
its citizens.
-
- Why do I stress "Jewish and Judeophile media lords"?
Surely "media lords" would suffice? Not really. A DuMont-owned
Haaretz may run a piece called
-
-
- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/851722.html
-
-
- Confessions of an anti-German racist, but a DuMont-owned
German newspaper would never run a piece by a man who dislikes Jews. Judeophilia
integrates the media lords and their holdings into one totalitarian machine,
like Communist ideology integrated all Soviet media into one totalitarian
(and boring) device. This comparison may be developed: in the US and in
the West in general, Jewry occupies the controlling heights once kept by
the Communist Party in the USSR: practically unmentioned in the Constitution,
formally not a part of state apparatus, this opaque body controls all processes
and is not controlled by external forces. Joe Public is not represented
at the board of Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations,
just as Ivan Publicoff was not represented in the Politburo.
-
- Once, this position was occupied by the Church. Anticlerical
campaigns consumed much of people's energy and thought in the end of 19th
and beginning of 20th century. The major complaint was that the church
controlled society, but was not controlled by society. The Communist party
in Russia (or the fascist one in your country, with all the difference
recognized and acknowledged) faced the same complaint. Now is the time
to address the latest usurper, for the majority did not appoint Jewry to
guide and control its thinking process. The excessive influence of Jewry
is an indicator of lack of democracy: in a truly democratic country, Jewry
would have an influence proportional to its numbers. But history is not
over yet, and freedom can be ushered in by sending Jewry the way the Church
and the Party went, i.e. into a modest niche of our dynamic society.
-
- Holocaust revisionists believe that the Jewish power
will collapse if the Holocaust narrative is undermined. They believe that
"Jewish power is founded upon the lie". I disagree. The power
of Jewry is quite real, it is based on money, ideology and everything a
power could be established upon. This real power could and should be undone,
and then the Holocaust narrative will be of no interest to anyone but the
next-of-kin.
-
- Led by love of freedom and by compassion, this solution
will be good for individual Jews. What is the position of an individual
Jew versus Jewry? It is the same as of an individual Party member versus
the Party. In the last days of the Soviet Union, there were 16 million
Party members; it was profitable to be a member; but when the Party membership
ceased to bring benefits, the membership shrunk down to a few hundred thousand.
See it not as a tragedy: yesterday's Communists regained freedom. Some
of them (like Yeltsin) became anticommunists, others dropped politics and
went into faith, or trade, or business. Those that remained Communists
do not regret the collapse either: they parted with hypocrites and do not
have to try and please millions of petit bourgeois; they may proclaim their
true belief.
-
- Likewise, undoing of Jewry by bringing its influence
into proportion to its numbers will cause mass ideological exodus. Out
of 16 million Jews, probably a few hundred thousand believers will remain
faithful to the Mosaic Law and to Talmud and Cabbala study (God bless them!),
while the rest will find other interests and allegiances (God bless them,
too). All of them will be grateful to dissidents like Dr Toaff who buried
the myth of antisemitism and helped them to regain freedom.
-
- Can't they be free within this framework of Jewry? In
the 1970s-80s, a similar discussion went on regarding freedom and pluralism
within the Communist Party. Eventually, it did not work out. Jewry is not
less monolithic than the Party, it also allows for some spread of opinions,
but the spread is not wide enough. On the right end, there is Gilad Sharon,
who
-
-
- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/851868.html
-
-
- wants to strip non-Jews of their Israeli citizenship,
on the left end, there is Uri Avnery, who actually proposes the same.
-
- http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1177227796/
-
-
- We may and should help Jews to regain freedom, like the
Party members,
-
- and before them, Church attendees, were helped to recover
their freedom of choice.
-
- _____
-
-
- From a talk given in Teramo University, Italy, at the
Conference on Holocaust and the Middle East: the Gagged History, on April
18, 2007
|