Noam Chomsky and the 9/11 Crusaders

By Israel Shamir

Walking around town, we are sometimes accosted by well-meaning people who are greatly devoted to a cause. It can be a Kurdish refugee replete with blood-curdling photos of Turkish atrocities, or an Iranian émigré with a petition to sign, or, if we are lucky, it could be Mia Farrow asking us to condemn the Chinese. These good people do not take no for an answer. They grasp your buttonhole and keep it in their sweaty hands until you sign their petition or ask them rather impolitely to buzz off. Then they explode in a fury not unlike that of a woman scorned.

Such a thing happened to the great luminary Noam Chomsky. He was accosted by one Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 enthusiast, whom he tried to reason with politely, but was eventually forced to tell to get off. An infuriated Barrett published an acrimonious attack: “Chomsky, an anemic speaker with all the charisma of a garden slug, endlessly bashes the USA in a whiney voice, phrasing his criticism in terms that only the sectarian left will agree with. Chomsky's boring, unpleasant style, and his obsessively anti-American argument, identifies anti-Empire with anti-American.”

What did Chomsky do to deserve this abuse? If one delves into Barrett’s tedious torrent of vituperation, one finds that his main objection to Chomsky is that the Boston Professor does not want to fight Barrett’s war for crediting Bush and Mossad with 9/11. And so he does not. Does he have to? Barrett tried to push Chomsky into immersing himself in the technicalities of 9/11 “Truth Movement” discourse, and refused to take no for an answer. You know these guys: anyone who does not agree with them is an agent of the Enemy. Chomsky did well to retort: “That's a curious feature of the Truth Movement … the curious ‘with us or against us’ mentality that pervades much of the movement: either you accept our claims, or you're a ‘left gatekeeper.’”

There is always a place for critique and argument -- even against Chomsky, and I have had my go at that, too. However, there are some red lines we should try to observe in friendly critique, and this one was a crude ad hominem and paranoid attack. Barrett is similar to the holocaust-obsessed Jews (and their ‘denying’ counterparts) who need your confirmation of their narrative and do not let go of your buttonhole until you respond. Let Barrett fight this war himself, without Chomsky at his disposal. This is a free country, more or less. For instance, I do not deny or confirm holocausts and massacres. Peak Oil does not pique me overmuch. And as for 9/11 whodunit, I feel that the 911 Truth Movement of Barrett et al. trivializes the event, turning it into a successful insurance swindle. I wrote about the event, at the time it took place:

“The kamikaze could be practically anybody: American Nationalists, American Communists, American Fundamentalist Christians, American Anarchists, anybody who rejects the twin gods of the dollar and the M-16, who hates the stock market and interventions overseas, who dreams of America for Americans, who does not want to support the drive for world domination. They could be Native Americans returning to Manhattan, or Afro-Americans who still have not received compensation for slavery.
They could be foreigners of practically any extraction, as Wall Street and the Pentagon ruined many lives of people all over the globe. Germans can remember the fiery holocaust of Dresden with its hundreds of thousands of peaceful refugees incinerated by the US Air Force. The Japanese will not forget the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima. The Arab world still feels the creeping holocaust of Iraq and Palestine. Russians and East Europeans feel the shame of Belgrade. Latin Americans think of American invasions of Panama and Granada, of destroyed Nicaragua and defoliated Colombia. Asians count their dead of Vietnam War, Cambodia bombings, Laos CIA operations in millions. Even a pro-American, Russian TV broadcaster could not refrain from saying, ‘now Americans begin to understand the feelings of Baghdad and Belgrade’.

The Riders could be anybody who lost his house to the bank, who was squeezed from his work and made permanently unemployed, who was declared an Untermench by the new Herrenvolk. They could be Russians, Malaysians, Mexicans, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Congolese, Brazilians, Vietnamese, as their economy was destroyed by Wall Street and the Pentagon. They could be anybody, and they are everybody. Their identity is quite irrelevant as their message is more important than their personalities, and their message is read loud and clear in the choice of targets.”

This was also the view of the late French thinker Jean Baudrillard: “In the end it was they who did it but we who wished it. If we do not take this into account, the event loses its symbolic dimension; it becomes a purely arbitrary act. . . (A)nd in their strategic symbolism the terrorists knew they could count on this unconfessable complicity.” He saw 9/11 as “arguably the most potent symbolic event since the crucifixion of Christ”, says Bradley Butterfield.
In other words, the act of 9/11 was by far too powerful of a symbol to give it away to the Enemy. Not in vain did people all over the world rejoice when this Mammon symbol collapsed. The knowledge that the Americans may be beaten on their home ground has comforted the innumerable victims of the Empire. I do not know who did it, but it was planned and executed by people of great spirit.

I can’t accept the Mossad and/or the Jews as the perpetrators of the 9/11, not because it is an antisemitic claim. My readers know that this consideration has never stopped me before. It’s the other way around: I consider it a deeply pro-Jewish claim implying that only Jews are capable of enterprises of great pith and moment, while others prefer to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and never take arms against a sea of troubles. In a way, the Jewish perpetration theory shows how far this belief in Jewish superiority has entered the hearts of Americans and of many Muslims: “if it was done and it did not flop, it’s got to be Jews”. We Israelis are more critical; we say “if it did not flop, it can’t be the Mossad”.

This does not mean that one has to subscribe to the 19 Osama warriors’ conspiracy as presented by US officialdom. Of many kamikaze attacks, that of 9/11 towers above the rest. It cannot be compared with any other, certainly not with any Islamic suicide attack. The assault on the very symbol of Mammon and at the heart of its military might was a great, paradigmatic event. It is easier to believe that this feat was done by avenging angels, by St Michael in person, rather than by five merry Mossad agents or by Bush and Cheney’s accomplices. It is easier to agree with Baudrillard that the Twin towers had committed suicide in order not to be outdone by the pilots, than it is with Barrett et al that it was done by crafty Jew Larry Silverstein in order to collect insurance.

Baudrillard spoke of people who “try everything to discredit their actions. Thus we call them "suicidal" and "martyrs," and add immediately that such martyrdom does not prove anything. But such a moral argument can be reversed. If the voluntary martyrdom of kamikazes proves nothing, then the involuntary martyrdom of the victims cannot prove anything either, and there is something obscene in making it a moral argument.”

Unwillingly, Barrett and the Truth Movement are engaged in undermining and discrediting the supreme sacrifice of those who died to knock off the Towers. I understand Noam Chomsky, who did not want to support this effort. Nor did he want to uphold the arrogant American view of 9/11 as the worst lie and the most dreadful atrocity ever. Chomsky suggested that Barrett compare this lie with “the massacre of 4 million people in Indochina or the Reaganite terror, leaving some 200,000 tortured and mutilated bodies in Central America.”

“But qui bono?!” – I hear them calling. – “The Jews (call them Zionists, or Neocons, if you wish) profited from 9/11. Even Netanyahu said recently that 9/11 was good for Israel.”

There is no doubt that the Jews used 9/11 to its fullest extent; but they can make use of any event due to their media control. Be it a Mars landing, a victory over Germany, a defeat in Iraq, oil price rise or the dollar’s collapse – they can use it to their advantage. They do not have to fly to Mars, knock down the dollar – or the Twin Towers, themselves.

“In order to succeed, a terrorist needs dynamite and newspaper”, quipped a Jewish terrorist in 1901. In 2001, a hundred years later, a newspaper alone would suffice. With newspapers, or rather, with TV under one’s control, one can utilize others’ dynamite for one’s own benefit. One can expropriate others’ actions freely, even others’ supreme sacrifices. In such situations, qui bono? does not apply. Everything, even the most damning event will be turned for their benefit – as long as they will do the explaining.

Noam Chomsky does not fight the Truth Movement. Let these good people continue with their research of steel and concrete boiling points; let them accuse the administration, the CIA, the Jews and Mossad as much as they wish. Their struggle has some positive value: it undermines public trust in mainstream media and in good intentions of the authorities. They may try to understand that their position is not the only one possible: others may actually approve of the attack, or consider it of little importance, or just have other fish to fry.

People attach the “left gatekeeper” label to anybody who does not agree with them with great ease; but this pertinent expression should be used against pundits who fight us, not against allies and neutrals.

Our friend Jim Petras had unleashed such philippics against Chomsky: “Noam Chomsky has long been one of the great obfuscators of AIPAC and the existence of Zionist power over US Middle East policy... To continue to masquerade as ‘war critics’ while ignoring the central role of the Zionist Power Configuration makes pundits like Chomsky, Moyers and Powers and their acolytes irrelevant to the anti-war struggle. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.”
Petras also wants Chomsky to fight his war, that is the war against Jewish establishment (he calls it ‘Zionist Power Configuration’). Yes, it would be nice, but then, Petras won’t be needed. Instead of seeing Noam Chomsky as an enemy (“part of the problem”), it is better to view him as an important ally covering an important part of the battle line. He does not cover all, he does not go to places Petras or I go, but he does not stop us from going. That is why it is ridiculous to call him “left gatekeeper”, as he keeps no gate locked.

We have many points of disagreement with Noam Chomsky. To mention a few:

(1) He supports the obsolete idea of Two States in Israel/Palestine and thus of preserving the Jewish state, while we call to undo it and replace it with One state where Jews are equal rather than superior.

(2) He considers the American support of Israel being derived from “the imperial interests”, (‘Chomsky thesis’: “Israel is good for true imperial interests of the US elites, and the Jewish Lobby is powerful exactly because its line coincides with these interests of elites”) while we think that this support is caused by the commanding heights the Jews occupy in the US discourse.

We argued for our views and against his, sine ira et studio, in many articles, both our own and those of other writers published on our site or circulated. My essay Fiesta of St. FerminRNR (included in the book The Galilee Flowers) dealt and debunked the Chomsky thesis in 2001. It caused very interesting polemics. I discussed it with Chomsky. In Spider Web, we brought up the polemics of Noah Cohen who called Chomsky’s position on Palestine "Apologetics for Injustice". We published Jeffrey Blankfort’s ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ and ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic. W e published a very censorious article by Bob Finch, who described Noam Chomsky as “the chief Rabbi of the left who absolves the Jewish state of guilt and responsibility for its apartheid regime and its military belligerence against neighbouring countries.” We published harsh critique of Chomsky’s views qua the Lobby by Pappe, Blankfort and Petras in Contra Chomsky and by Mazin Qumsiyeh., see also Chomsky under Fire.


Despite many, many attacks on him, Chomsky never responded in kind. He always remained polite, even courteous. He had never ever blocked a publication. He is going his way and let us respect it. Light infantry and heavy artillery have different modes of operation. Chomsky is our heavy cannon, while Petras or Gilad Atzmon or Israel Shamir, we are light scouts, the reconnaissance unit. We should go further than he does, but he is our fallback. Let us cherish this man and his activity.

The bottom line was editorialized by Ian Buckley in his In Defence of Shamir .. and Chomsky

“I would content that Noam is basically an honest and very knowledgeable man, despite his occasional personal blind spots. It should be freely admitted that Chomsky doesn't go far enough on the Middle East. Whatever the slight defects and blind spots in this particular area, he still deserves kudos for his excellent, indeed pioneering, investigations into the distortions of the mass media and the profoundly undemocratic nature of 'democratic' societies. After a reading of Chomsky, you are inoculated for good against the foetid netherworld of the mainstream media. There is nothing wrong at all with a little criticism, but we shouldn't lose sight of who the 'good guys' really are. After all, there are so few of them around. And in my book, both Shamir and Chomsky are good guys.”

Heemeyer Rides Again

By Israel Shamir

This is a human interest story. It could have happened anywhere, but it happened in Jerusalem. Yes, we have Jews and Arabs here, but this is a story about men and women. It would make a good subject for a film, or for a novel, as it includes romantic love, beautiful young lovers separated by prejudice, severe and unjust punishment meted out in the name of law and order - and untimely death.

A few days ago, a young Jerusalemite got aboard his Caterpillar tractor, ran amok on the main street, hitting buses and cars and was finally shot dead by a vigilante. Why did it happen? For the same reason an American, Marvin Heemeyer, did his deed. When a man is pushed too far, too hard, he snaps. One weeps, another one commits suicide, and yet another one takes a gun and shoots everybody in sight – or rolls his bulldozer over cars and people.

Marvin Heemeyer was a Colorado welder who, on June 4, 2004, drove his bulldozer through the town hall, the office of the hostile local newspaper that editorialized against him, the home of a judge and others. He was pushed too hard: the municipality had blocked his access road, his livelihood had been ruined, his simple requests were being refused. The young Jerusalemite, Hosam Dwayyat was pushed much harder.

Hosam was born in Jerusalem after the Jewish takeover, and grew up in a village on the outskirts of the city. Sur Bahr, his village on the edge of the desert with its shepherds and sheep, is not a bad place: it is walking distance from both the Old City of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Houses are nice, spacey and covered with white limestone, surrounded by small gardens.

Hosam, like all the youth of Sur Bahr lived in the twilight zone between Jews and Palestinians. He spoke Hebrew and Arabic, had Israeli and Palestinian friends, went to discos and concerts, could go to Tel Aviv or West Jerusalem like an ordinary human being, like you and me. However, on his way he would frequently be stopped, searched, ordered to present his documents, detained, beaten and released: Israeli security police, Border Guards, do this regularly in order to remind an Arab that he is an Arab. For this reason, the dwellers of East Jerusalem hesitate to venture westward, much like you’d hesitate to visit a violent South Bronx.

But Hosam was young, and youth does not surrender easily. Some eight years ago, and he was 24, he had met a young Russian girl Marina who was 19, and they fell in love. He was her first love, and she did not hide her happiness.

The Russians are a breed apart in the social mosaic of Israel. Though nominally “Jewish”, they have kept their Russian identity, and their own ways. They were not infected with Jewish chauvinism in the cradle. For Russians, Jewishness is a private thing, not a public identity. In the internationalist Soviet Union and in its successor states, boys and girls fall in love with or befriend a person without regard to his or her ethnic and religious origin, and it does not cause a ripple, let alone a storm. Upon arrival to Israel, these good-natured young people are classified by rather arrogant Israelis as “Johnnys-come-lately”. They are snubbed and socially rejected. They have little contact with youth of good social standing, while the children of poor Oriental Jewish suburbs are too foreign for them. The Russians do not share the ideals of other Israeli Jewish communities, i.e. military valour and the amassing of wealth.

The Palestinians, especially those brought up in the bigger cities of Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa-Tel Aviv and Ramallah, are closer to the Russians than are members of other communities: they are smarter, behave like gentlemen, and do not look down on Russians. They intermarry, or have romantic connections with them, quite often. Among my immediate friends, a young Russian girl married a boy from Batir, and now she lives in that village near Jerusalem with her new family. Another one had a Palestinian boyfriend for two years, before breaking up for personal reasons.
Hosam and Marina went steady; they lived together for a while in Tel Aviv. “Hosam liked Israelis”, Marina told the newspaper this week. But their love was crushed upon the rocks of apartheid.

Liaisons between nominal “Jews” and goys cause much alarm or outright hatred in official Israel. A few days ago, the largest Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, informed its readers that “the Kiryat Gat municipality has decided to act against … female teenagers falling in love with young Bedouins and they … presented a 10-minute film titled Sleeping with the Enemy”. In June, the Israeli army removed an Israeli girl named Melissa, 23, who married a local man named Muhammad Hamameh, 25, from the village of Husan. There is a vigilante organisation called Yad Leakhim that fights intermarriages and conversions to Christianity or Islam, and they are busy interfering with interracial happiness.

Marina’s parents received hints and odd looks from neighbours. It was explained to them that “it is not done”, that it is “sleeping with enemy”. They conveyed this pressure to their daughter, but strong-willed Marina moved to live with her boyfriend and his family. He wanted to marry her, but Russian girls rarely marry so young, and – like other Western girls – they do not necessarily want to marry their first boyfriend. They still want to flirt with others, while seriously minded sincere young men may well disapprove of it. You do not have to be a Russian and/or Arab to know about this. Moreover, you do not have to be a Moor to be aware that jealousy may cause you to slap the flighty partner, and slap he did. In a moment of anger, Marina complained to the police, and they took away her lover. Marina tried to take her complaint back; at that time she was pregnant and lived with Hosam’s parents. “He slapped me when he had reason to feel jealous”, she said last week. But even her intervention in favour of Hosam in the court did not help – he was sentenced to 20 months of jail.

Jerusalem judges are notoriously anti-Arab; they'd have to be, as they approve of so many unjust acts towards Arabs. Here they saw a chance to break a forbidden liaison of a nominally Jewish girl with a goy, of teaching the Russians and the Palestinians a lesson. But there was another reason, and it was equally relevant. In post-feminist Israel, as in many other Western countries, a woman may not withdraw her complaint against a man. The state provides for the ham-fisted over-protection to women. It is ready to do violence to real women for the sake of “Women’s Rights.” In an unrelated case, Israeli minister Hayim Ramon kissed a soldier girl. She complained, but later withdrew her complaint. Police pursued her all the way to Latin America and forced her to complain, threatening her with charges of making a false accusation. The feminists witch-hunted Ramon all the way to court, and they still refer to him as a “rapist”. So Hosam and Marina could suffer their same fate in any feminist-ridden European country.

Last week Marina, 27, still pretty, slim and blond, bewept Hosam and told a reporter that she was and still is in love with him, her first love and the father of her child she was now bringing up alone. She was angry at the vigilante, a far-right activist who kept shooting at unarmed Hosam. She shed tears for the man Israeli authorities and media had already judged to be an “evil terrorist”. For years, Marina hoped he’d forgive her momentary lapse and come back to her after his release. But he did not return. His family arranged for his marriage, and he tried to reshape his life in the Palestinian milieu after his failure in the Israeli one.

This second try was even worse. Once his family had had much land, but it was confiscated to build nearby Jewish neighbourhood. The remainder of their land was confiscated to build the Wall, a fourteen-feet-tall monster that cut them off from Bethlehem and the desert. On what was left, he built a house for his new family, for his wife and two children.

But a Palestinian may not build a house in Jerusalem, even on his own land, and he can’t ever get a permit. Hosam had been met by Israeli “justice” a second time, with equally disastrous consequences. They ordered him to demolish the house and fined him $50,000. After that, he snapped, took his front-loader tractor and ran amok in the centre of Jerusalem, ramming cars and buses. He was quickly shot dead.

There are some local specifics, and bulldozers as well as killing of an attacker are permanent fixture of the Arab-Israeli conflict: a Jewish bulldozer driver drove his armoured machine over the American peace activist Rachel Corrie who defended a Palestinian home from demolition and was never prosecuted. Another Jewish bulldozer driver shared with the world his experience of razing Jenin: “I had no mercy for anybody. I would erase anyone with the D-9, and I have demolished plenty. For three days, I just destroyed and destroyed. The whole area. I didn't see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. But if there were any, I wouldn't care at all. If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people. I had lots of satisfaction in Jenin”. While the Jewish vigilante who killed Hosam was called “hero”, Arabs who killed Jewish murderers in Hebron or in Shafa Amr were prosecuted for murder.

However, putting aside le couleur locale, such a story could happen almost anywhere, in the US or in Europe. Some prejudices are common: A young girl could get cold feet right before marriage. A jealous youngster could slap his flirty girlfriend. Feminist judges could separate a young couple. She could remain alone loving him and bearing his child. City hall could demolish anybody’s house for being built without a permit or in order to build a bypass. A man could become incensed and mete his vengeance on whoever came his way Death Wish style. And here in Israel, as in your country, we are first of all human -- men and women. This is an optimistic tragedy: normalcy creeps in through the holes in apartheid.

It is not necessary to view every event through the binary, Jew-Goy, or Jew-Arab perception. This perspective is dearest with people for whom their Jewishness is more important than their humanity. For them, denial of the “tractor terrorist murder of Jews” is “another blood libel against Jewish people”. They force their binary view onto others. Thus, Prime Minister Olmert and the Labour leader Barak immediately sent their police forces to disturb the mourning family, and, equally devoted to the Jewish paradigm, President Bush, UN chief Ban Ki-moon and sundry others condemned the “bloody terrorist”. Even good guy Seth Freedman wrote that “Israelis should be under no illusions as to why we're being targeted by terrorist killers such as Hosan Dwayyat”. Their counterparts in Hamas, Hezbollah and the mythic Galilee Liberation also claimed responsibility, or “understood” Hosam’s actions as those of resistance. The yellow press of Israel and of Jewish communities abroad invented his criminal past (“the convicted rapist, burglar and drug dealer”), his terrorist call to God and his hatred of Jews.

But this miasma of obsessive hate can’t transform the human tragedy: that of an unhappy man pushed too far, whose broken body was washed by the tears of a Russian Israeli girl named Marina.

PS. Only Gilad Atzmon, Israeli saxophonist and writer of note, wondered “why the Israelis are entirely sure that it was an act of terror. It may as well be that the man was slightly mad, he might have had a phone row with his wife or alternatively a soaring dispute with his Israeli boss that made him flip. I would assume that in order to declare an incident to be an act of terror, a terrorist motivation or a scenario must be established first. Without establishing such a motivation we are doomed to admit that we are dealing here with a criminal case that must be investigated. We should as well refrain from jumping to conclusions.”

He was right here, though, in a moment of despair, he came to the wrong conclusion continuing “However, the Israelis seem to be pretty convinced here. The Israelis are indeed united, and it is good that they are so united because it allows us to see what the Jewish state is all about. Sadly, there is no partner for peace in the Israeli society… Unfortunately, and this is indeed a tragedy, the Palestinians are at the forefront of the most crucial battle for a better world. The Palestinians have been captured in a grave encounter with a psychotic, phantasmic, bloodthirsty self-centric Jewish national identity that knows no mercy.”

Not only native Palestinians, but Israelis too, including nominal Jews, are at odds with this Jewish paradigm, or identity. Just as normal women suffer from their feminist defenders, ordinary Israelis officially classified as “Jews” do not need defence from the binary perception priests. While abroad, every man can choose whether to accept Jewish identity -- in Israel we have it forced upon us. Israeli unity is a phantasm as seem from afar; up close, you see men and women with their own preoccupations, and “professional Jews” are even rarer in Israel than elsewhere.

Like Gilad, I doubt that ‘Jews’, i.e. the people who uphold this identity, will agree by their own good will to any fair arrangement with native Palestinians. But unlike Gilad, I consider Israelis, including nominal Jews, to be capable of such an arrangement. For we do not fight Jews, we fight the Jewish identity, and we can win. If the Russians succeeded in making Jewishness a private thing, not an identity, so can we.

As long as there are Israeli girls like Marina and Israeli men like Gilad, there is a chance for peace. Better than a chance -- a certainty!

Demons and Angels

By Israel Shamir

Demonisation of one’s enemy is a relatively new invention. In the good old times, men fought and then made friends – and then fought again, like the valiant heroes of the Iliad and like the gallant knights of King Arthur. The warriors who fought and killed each other will forever drink mead and fight at the same table in the Valhalla. True, the Old Testament tells of Joshua who initiated the first Nuremberg trial by killing five captive kings in the name of the Lord for they “hated Jews and fought against them.” [Joshua, 10]. But from the time of Joshua and until the 20th century, defeated kings were rarely killed and a good fight had little to do with hate. The ideological wars of faith – the Crusades – weren’t exceptional from this point of view as the Muslim and Christian warriors did not forget they – and their enemies - were human. Don Rodrigo El Sid served in turns the King of Castile and the Emir of Saragossa; Pagan Clorinda was a heroine of Torquato Tasso’s Gerusalemme Liberata. At the famous wedding in besieged castle of Kerak, the Crusaders had sent besieging Saladin a slice of wedding cake, and he enquired which tower the newly-weds would sleep in, so his army would turn their mangonels elsewhere. Prince Igor of Kievan Rus attacked the Kipchaks, the people of steppe, was defeated and captured, but married the Kipchak Khan’s daughter while in captivity. In 19th century, Goethe of Germany and Lermontov of Russia admired Napoleon the enemy of their countries, while Kamal and the Colonel’s son exchanged gifts after exchanging shots at Fort Bukloh of Kipling’s ballad.

Things began to change a hundred years ago, with advent of democracy and mass media as there was the need to convince a lot of people that a war is necessary and justified. The “good guys/bad guys” simplification of Hollywood supplanted the old division of “friend/foe”, and the foe became intrinsically and irredeemably “bad”. This was bad news, because a foe can become a friend, but a bad ‘un can’t become good. He had to be killed, and indeed he usually was killed at the high noon. Admiration for the enemy became impossible; every war became a war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. In such a war, there is no place for compassion; cruelty towards civilians is de rigueur.

A first serious bout of enemy demonisation was launched by the US media in order to pull unwilling America into the World War One against Germany, as the reward promised by Weitzman to Balfour for Palestine. In the words of Benjamin Freedman, “after the Zionists saw the possibility of getting Palestine, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands.”

The Germans were accused of making soap out of British POWs (yes, the soap story of Nuremberg fame is just a replay of the old sham), of bayoneting Belgian babies (this was replayed in 1991 when the Iraqis were accused of throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators), of sinking a passenger liner (loaded with munitions, but this was considered quite an atrocity thirty years before Dresden). There is a wartime poster showing the German as a dreadful gorilla snatching a fair maiden, a precursor to King Kong.

This demonisation of Germans only increased in 1930s, allowing for boycott of German goods with Zionist Palestine as an opening, and after the war it was crystallised into a new hierarchy of evil with Hitler incarnating a new Satan of flesh and blood. Since then, evil Nazis appeared more often than cowboys in so many Hollywood movies, and we live today in a world, where reference to Hitler equates to ultimate evil.

Now, in order to demonise, one has only to draw a similarity with Hitler, and that will do. Arabs and Muslims fight against Jews, thus they are Nazis and may be considered evil. In 1956, the British PM Macmillan described Jamal Abd el Nasser as a “new Hitler”, for he nationalised the Suez Canal. In 1982, Begin called Yasser Arafat “a new Hitler” as he had to justify his aggression and bombardment of Beirut. Stalin was “worse than Hitler” in a speech by President Bush. Now it is the turn of Iran, whose president is habitually described as “new Hitler” and his people – as “islamofascists”. Ironically, supporters of Iran compare Bush with Hitler, and Bushites with Nazis. This brings to mind Huey Long of Louisiana; when asked whether fascism could ever come to America, he replied, "Sure. Only it will be called anti-fascism".

Hollywood has produced a few movies featuring demon-exorcising priests; they can make one about a demonising rabbi based on Shmuley Boteach, an author of a book on the necessity of hating evil who wrote: “Ahmadinejad is an international abomination who can lay strong claim to being the single most hate-filled man alive.” The politicians weren’t far behind, thus Netanyahu: “Hitler went out on a world campaign first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get nuclear arms first.” And Gingrich: “This is 1935 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we’ve seen”.

The Israelis wax livid with fury when they are compared with Nazis. They immediately open endless “point out the difference” contest: the Nazis shod boots, we boot shoes, they snarl in German, we sing in our melodious Hebrew, the Nazis were against wonderful Jews, we are against beastly Arabs. Surely Israelis are different from Nazis; and it’s preferable to be a Frenchman in German-occupied France, than a Palestinian in Jews-occupied Palestine. There is no Palestinian Celine, no Palestinian Sartre or Gide to side with the occupying power for the Jewish occupation is harsher.

The Americans like to consider themselves the ‘good guys’ vs. Hitler’s ‘bad guys’. But objectively speaking, there was not much to choose between the two sides. The Americans were beastly enough: they burned Dresden, nuked Hiroshima, starved to death millions of German POWs. Even their racism was quite comparable: in the US, a sexual union of an Aryan and a Black was considered a criminal offence many years before the Nuremberg Laws, and remained so many years after the Nuremberg Laws were voided (Alabama dropped it from their book of laws in 2000).

I do not bother even to speak about the Soviet side in the war, for it became a commonplace to view Stalin as morally equal to Hitler, and the Communists as being morally equal to Nazis, though this claim is based of some fantasy of Cold War statistics, and actually Stalin’s Gulag never had as many inmates as George Bush’s prisons.

Now, demonisation is a heathen thing. Only an arrogant and godless man can, in his hubris, claim inherent moral superiority over another mortal. This is why demonisation was not known until the Church was marginalised. It is no better to demonise flesh and blood than to idolise it. We have learned “Do not make for yourself a god”; now it is the time to learn “do not make for yourself a demon”. We are blessed with our friends, and we are blessed with our enemies. We are not angels, and our enemies are not demons.

In understanding this, we may learn from Jews who stubbornly and wisely refuse to demonise their own. Ariel Sharon was a brutal killer of women and children who reputedly wanted to be “a Hitler to Palestinians”; but The New York Times of Sulzberger disregarded our futile attempts to demonise him, he was well received by the high and mighty, and he went down in history as a kind old soldier. The Jews did not allow the demonisation of the Jewish executioners of Stalin’s Secret Police nor even of ruthless Jewish mob killers and recorded them all as “men who loved their Jewish mothers”.

The Jews do not fall into the trap of demonisation for they know: everyone can be demonised. This lesson is given in Talmud on the example of Job, who “was perfect and upright and feared God and eschewed evil”. Still the Sages proved him a bad ‘un, just for fun of it. The Writ said that Job did not sin with his lips. Sages said: but he did sin within his heart. If this were not enough, Job had said “he that goes down to Hell shall come up no more” – and thus denied the resurrection of the dead, etc. Thus anyone can be demonised, and therefore none should be demonised.

Moreover, the wise Jews did not demonise Satan himself. Why did Satan incite God against Job?, asked a Talmudic Sage, and he answered: God became overenthusiastic over Job, and He almost forgot the love of Abraham. Satan interfered for the best of reasons, in order to preserve the rightful place of Abraham. “When Satan had heard this homily he came and kissed the Sage’s feet”, says the Talmud (Baba Bathra 15). This was wise, for Satan is not equal to God, and he has a place in His plans.

This theological fallacy of demonisation was well understood by the German Catholic political scientist Carl Schmitt. He is often presented as a man of no moral scruples; but this is a result of misunderstanding him. For him, “the distinction between friend and foe cannot be grounded in morality. It is a matter of us against them, not of good against evil. Both sides are human, so a politician who characterizes “them” as morally inferior or “bad” risks not only the hubris of arrogance but also the blasphemy of denying God to be the creator of all. The power of the Lord is over all, even over one’s enemies. It would be blasphemy to treat one’s foes as less than human. We are all moral equals, on Schmitt’s view, even though politics sometimes makes it “necessary” to kill one’s enemies”, in the short but precise presentation of modern American philosopher Newton Garver.

Scott Horton misunderstood the idea of Schmitt so completely that one wonders whether it is even possible. He wrote: “For Schmitt, the key to successful prosecution of warfare against such a foe is demonisation… According to Schmitt, the norms of international law respecting armed conflict reflect the romantic illusions of an age of chivalry.” It's the ther way around: Schmitt was for the War of Uniforms, carried out between two armies, where civilians are kept out of trouble. He was against demonisation, for it is unacceptable for a religious man. Horton is aware that his reading of Schmitt is flawed, for he writes, correctly: “Schmitt expresses from the outset the severest moral reservations about his concept of demonisation. It is, he fears, subject to “high political manipulation” which “must at all costs be avoided.” He uses Schmitt to attack John Yoo, a Bush appointee who followed Alan Dershowitz into permitting torture, but instead of referring to Dershowitz the Zionist, he appeals to Schmitt who can be presented as a “Nazi legal thinker”. The goal (attacking Yoo) is worthy, but the means (connecting to Schmitt) are foul.

Horton’s article can be understood as a follow-up to the extreme demonisation of 30’s Germany. He refers to Leo Strauss, “a lifelong admirer of Carl Schmitt, a scholar and teacher of his works” but fails to see the great difference. Schmitt was aware of God, Strauss was so godless that he shocked Zionists in Jerusalem of 1930s by his total atheism. Of these two men, of Strauss the Neocon precursor and Schmitt the Nazi legal mind, it’s Schmitt who was calling for a human attitude to an enemy, while Strauss dehumanised all.

Horton writes: “Carl Schmitt was a rational man, but he was marked by a hatred of America that bordered on the irrational. He viewed American articulations of international law as fraught with hypocrisy, and saw in American practice in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries a menacing new form of imperialism.” I wonder what is irrational about it? Even a man on our side of the barricades (and Horton is here) can’t admit that the state that vetoes every resolution condemning Israel and calls to war on Iran is so hypocritical that Molière would rewrite his Tartuffe if knew about it? Horton’s typically Jewish attitude – “if we are criticised, this is irrational hatred” – became the hallmark of American thinking which grew out of demonisation of the enemy.

You can’t demonise just one person and stop: the demonisation of one causes more demonisations to follow. The attacks on Muslims, Arabs, Iranians are a follow up of the preceding attacks on Germans. Thus the Canadian Jewish columnist Mordecai Richler wrote: “Germans are an abomination to me. I'm glad Dresden was bombed for no useful military purpose. The Russians couldn't withhold and mistreat German prisoners of war long enough for me.” And Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel improved on him: “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate—healthy virile hate—for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.” From here, it was a short jump to Dan Gillerman, Israeli representative at UN, calling the Hezbollah “ruthless, indiscriminate animals”, to 1982 Israel's chief of staff Rafael Eitan pushing Palestinians as “drugged cockroaches into a bottle”. But now, even Germans happily follow this line of accusations against their late Fuehrer, and join in the universal condemnation of Iran and Arabs. “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a rising Adolf Hitler with his stand on Iran's nuclear programme, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said”.

Indeed, people who suffered from attacks of hostility are keen to join the group and to be hostile to somebody else, it is only a human, or even simian quality. Enchanting Mexican painter Miguel Covarrubias mentions such a case in his immensely entertaining book on Bali. In a Balinese household, an angry tame ape climbed up on a tree and tossed coconuts all over. In vain the owners tried to get the ape down by offering him sweetmeats. Then they cornered a pitiful dwarf, a servant, and made a convincing scene of thrashing and punching him, and lo! The ape climbed down and joined the persecutors in the free-for-all. In no time the silly beast was back in a cage. In order to stay out of the cage, the ape should steer clear of the temptation to join in a permitted attack on somebody else. Apparently, this is a hard task even for humans.

Thus, if we want to restore peace in the world, we have to eschew demonisation altogether, including the Pole of Evil, Adolf Hitler. I really could not care less about Hitler, one way or other. I neither admire nor demonise, neither love nor hate him, nor Napoleon nor Genghis Khan. These scourges are dead. I have a warm spot for the present Hitler, Ahmadinejad; I feel no qualms about yesterday's hitlers, be they Saddam Hussein, Nasser or Yasser Arafat. My father fought for Stalin, and you were told by President Bush that Stalin is worse than Hitler. For me “Hitler” is a generic name of an enemy of Jews, like “Amalek”.

Indeed, a man who feels so strongly about Hitler is a heathen; he denies God and chooses flesh and blood as his personal god and his personal demon. That is why the observant Jews of Neturei Karta could go to the Teheran Conference, while godless ones were scared off by the name of the dead Austrian. The demonisation of Hitler caused the deification of Jews, and thus the new theology of thoroughly heathen neo-Judaism was created.

Creation of a man-made Pole of Evil caused a number of anomalies in public discourse. The demonisation of racism is a result. One may disapprove of a silly man who considers himself being of a better breed than others. Still this is a very common sort of vanity, shared by many people of “higher castes”, i.e. of noble, priestly and Jewish descent in our society. Belief in superiority of the white race, or of Anglo-Saxon stock is just a democratic version of the higher-caste vanity, suitable for people who can’t claim noble or Jewish descent. If and when these supposedly higher-caste persons will give up their vanity, when they renounce their titles and make a bonfire of the Threat of Assimilation book by Lipstadt, then they may attend to the mote in their commoner neighbour’s eye.

Small-time racism is hardly a problem in our society. I, a dark-skinned and moustachioed Mediterranean man, have never been on the receiving end of it for 60 years of my well-travelled life. Admittedly I never tried to annoy the native inhabitants by playing loud foreign music, practising strange customs in public or behaving in conspicuous way. There is some tribal like and dislike in Israel, mainly between various Jewish tribes, and it is surely unpleasant enough, but I am not sure it is up to bad old racism.

Racism is so little of a problem, that the search for sacrificial racist went completely astray. French MP Georges Freche was thrown out of his party because he said that the national football team of France should not be all black. He publicly said, “nine of 11 players in our national football team are black. Three or four black players would have been a normal proportion.” Blacks indeed are well endowed in sports and music, like the Greeks of Homer, but maybe the native French are also interested and are entitled to play football in their own team. Yes, this sentence appears slightly off the strict reading of political correctness; but it is certainly common sense.

These equality ideas should be given a say, not a free run. It is all right for Swedes to have a female pastor from time to time, but there are no male pastors anymore, and very few worshippers. Likewise, if all football players were black, maybe the native French will not be interested enough even to watch football anymore. Indeed, the French national football team should not be all (or predominantly) black; and the leading journalists and talking heads of French TV should not be all (or predominantly) Jewish. The Africans and the Jews came to France, are happy with French hospitality, and do not intend to displace the natives. If the French socialists continue to be that strict with their members, they will frogmarch into oblivion with the dinosaurs; and Segolene Royal will be just the name of a politician who stopped le Pen to advance Sarkozy.

In England, a ballet dancer Simone Clarke expressed her view that the country has enough immigrants, and the endless process of importing workers should slow down or even cease. Well, it is a view, certainly a reasonable one, and within the Bill of Rights, or Magna Carta or whatever nowadays authorizes freedom of speech. Some crazy anti-racists went to demonstrate against the dancer’s being engaged in the Ballet. The dancer is a good person, not a racist in any meaningful meaning of the word; not that it matters, but she is even married to a Chinese dancer; but for godless, obsessive Hitler-demonisers even such a moderate view may not be expressed, and if expressed, the person should be kicked to the street, unemployed and homeless. As a Communist, I do stand for Simone Clarke’s right to belong to BNP and to dance Giselle on the scene of English National Opera, and the active protesters should go first to protest Barbara Amiel writing in the Daily Telegraph.

In Germany, these anti-racists and anti-Nazis walk around with the Israeli flag and demand kaffiyehs to be taken off like Schneider of Leipzig:

“What we all share is support for Israel and coming out against any form of anti-Semitism, fascism and sexism,” says the center's director, Christian Schneider, 26.
A good example of the pro-Israel activity in Leipzig is the public campaign against wearing kaffiyehs, once an essential accessory in the European left-wing activist's wardrobe. "Do you have a problem with Jews or is it only that your neck is cold?" was the slogan for the campaign organized by the center in recent years. The campaign aimed to prevent young people from wearing what the center perceived as a symbol of identification with the Palestinians and with anti-Semitism, reported Haaretz.

These crazy things are a result of the extreme demonisation of Hitler. Again, we may learn from Jews, who expel immigrants by planeloads, fight miscegenation and assimilation while always adding “this is not racism”. Why is it not racism? In a Jewish joke, a Rabbi was delayed on a trip, he noticed Sabbath is approaching, so he prayed and a miracle occurred: it was Sabbath everywhere, but still Friday in the Rabbi’s Cadillac. Likewise, opposing (or even mouthing the word) miscegenation is racist; but miraculously, not for a Jew.

“Racism”, i.e. preference given by a native to a native at the expense of a stranger is a perfectly normal and normative behaviour. This attitude is ordered by the Bible, this attitude safeguards the intimate relationship between a man and his soil. In the Jewish prayer, God is asked to give rain and to disregard the prayers of a stranger who asks for a dry weather. Some moderate “racism” is the best guard of the land; and you have no reason to worry: cosi fan tutti, they all do it.

Mind you, “racism” is not a virtue in the Christian book. But nor are greed, gluttony, lust, envy and pride. Still we do not see a politician being expelled from, say, a Socialist party for running a gourmet column, for giving an advice on the stock market, for marching on a gay pride parade, for buying a car as good as that of his neighbour. There are “anti-hate” laws, but no “anti-pride” laws.

Whatever one may think of racists of old, today this title of contempt is given to anyone who does not deny roots and attachment of a man to its soil and community. The archetypal racist of our days, say, a racist saint, would be Simone Weil, who considered roots a virtue, and uprooting a sin. (She vehemently objected to the demonisation of Germany in France 1939). Thus, whoever supports immigration, sins, for he supports uprooting. So one can argue whether it is better to be good to one’s neighbour the potential immigrant by allowing him to come and stay; or by forbidding him to leave his home country. There is no sure-fire answer to this question, and I say that as a perpetual immigrant. And if you are told ‘you are racist’ for you object to mass immigration, respond with ‘You are uprooting poison’, as Simone Weil did.

Being unable to “demonise back” the Jews and the Americans; the Nationalists and the Far Right tend to demonise the Russians, the Soviets, the Communists. They are not too successful, so we do not have to fight it much. Suffice to say, the mad numbers of “millions killed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot” are just a figment of imagination. None of them killed as many as the American Empire did and does. None of them exiled so many as Israelis did.

There are no Evil Empires, only unchecked ones. Soviet Russia was not an Evil Empire, nor was Communism embodied in Stalin and the Gulag. Sholokhov, Block, Pasternak, Esenin, Mayakovsky and Deineka embraced the Revolution and expressed its ideas in art. It was a land of the great and partly successful experiment in equality and brotherhood of Man, of a brave attempt to defeat the spirit of Greed. Communists and their supporters tried to liberate labour, to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth, to remove poverty and free the human spirit. Communism brought forth the social democracy of Europe.

Germany was not an Evil Empire, nor was the spirit of organic traditionalism embodied in Hitler and Auschwitz. The Traditionalists tried to establish an alternative paradigm based on Wagner, Nietzsche and Hegel, to go to the roots and traditions of the folk. Not in vain, the best writers and thinkers of Europe from Knut Hamsun to Louis Ferdinand Celine to Ezra Pound to William Butler Yeats to Heidegger saw a positive element in the Traditionalist organic approach. If Russia and Germany had not been demonised, it is quite possible we would not have seen them coming to such extremes.

We have to restore the balance of mind and discourse lost in the aftermath of the World War Two, due to the too-complete victory of the bourgeois ‘Judeo-American’ thought. While condemning excesses and war crimes, we should regain the kingdom of the spirit from Mayakovsky to Pound. There are no evil men, we are created in the image of God, and all ideas are needed to produce new thought.

Bloody Passovers of Dr Toaff – follow up

The storm caused by publication of Dr Toaff’s book Passovers of Blood is not abating. The tortured and almost crucified professor Toaff is forced to a new act of repentance on daily basis. Haaretz reported that now “He now wants to make it clear that the Jews of Trent did not murder Simon or any other Christian children for ritual purposes. Toaff will also make it clear that the blood of dead Christians could not possibly have been used, whether in food, beverages or for medicinal or magical purposes, because the blood traded by Jews and Christians at the time came from living donors, not corpses. His conclusion is that Jews could not possibly have murdered Christian children for their blood.” If they would turn the screw a bit more, Toaff would confess he murdered St Simon personally in order to place the blame on blameless Jews.
Israeli parliament (Knesset) plans to send Dr Toaff to jail. Holocaust denial is already criminal offence; but denial of Trent horror is a duty. Negationist, or denier, is now a term for a Jew who denies the blood sacrifices. This and other interesting items are available in Italian in http://www.mastermatteimedioriente.it/pdf/toaff.pdf on the site of our daring Italian friend Claudio Moffa.

“A research study like this, published supposedly in the name of academic freedom, erodes the moral validity of banning Holocaust denial,” said Dr. Ron Breiman, a member of the right-wing Professors for a Strong Israel. “Even if factually, Toaff's study is correct, it is not good for Jews” and thus should not take place.

Why Toaff’s research is important? Black magic blood rituals were practiced by Jews and non-Jews alike in the Middle Ages and later on. Michael Pellivert correctly if cynically said “And supposing they did drink blood?” The Jews want to feel superior: everybody may be reminded of a fault or a crime committed by his ancestors, but the Jews have to feel themselves some holy Ubermensch. However, the Jews lose in comparison.

The difference between Jew and non-Jew is that non-Jew would not have the protection of his community. For a non-Jewish murderous sorcerer, nobody will go to bribe bishops and curia, kings and judges. A Jewish murderer – whether a sorcerer or a plain mass killer like Sharon – will always be protected by the Jewish community. His crime will be denied or minimised, while crimes towards Jews are capitalised.

The study of Dr Toaff may help our friends over-involved with the Holocaust narrative to see the light. This narrative is a means de-jour of proclaiming eternal suffering of Jews and of causing guilt feelings among the goyim. When one reads Jewish and Judeophile pre-war texts, one notices that the place presently occupied by the Holocaust was not vacant; it was taken by other narratives: by pogroms in Russia, by Dreifus trials, by inquisition, by expulsion from Spain, by destruction of the Temple and to a great extent by “blood libel”. These narratives caused creation of counter-narratives: the narrative of pogroms was successfully debunked by Kozhinov, etc. and now the “blood libel” was countered by Dr Toaff and Dr Yuval.

In a funny spoof blog http://dannysteinberg.blogspot.com/ there is a proposal how should one deal with any reference to such misdeed: If a goy ever brings it up again, charge him with anti-semitism. Give him that withering sanctimonious glare and say "You are bringing up that old anti-semitic canard, again? Next you will be quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! How long must we suffer at your hands?" HAHAHA. Always mention the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". That really shames 'em.

Jews are not free to enquire, unless their enquiries lead to the Good for Jews. And what is it is not good for Jews, asked Lily Galili in Haaretz:

It would have been far easier to dismiss the book if the author had been Christian. Then the dilemma could have quickly been solved by branding the scholar an anti-Semite. It's also easy to dispense with radical Diaspora Jews who not only attack Israel's policies but also sometimes challenge its very right to exist. They can simply be dubbed self-hating Jews. The matter becomes much more complicated when a Jewish scholar from a religious Jewish university touches on an issue that arouses primordial Jewish fears.

"I am less worried about the ramifications in Europe, which is currently undergoing a process of secularization," said Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Israel Jacob Yuval, who teaches Jewish history. "However, I am very concerned about reactions in the Islamic world, where a story like this could ignite passions and be utilized for other purposes."

Yuval, who totally rejects the possibility of any truth behind the blood libels, given the precarious nature of the Jewish minority's existence in medieval Europe, himself became a target for academic attacks in connection with this emotionally charged topic. In 1993, he published an article in which he argued that 12th-century European blood libels were related to Jewish behavior during the First Crusade, when, in acts of martyrdom, Jews committed suicide and killed their own children. Yuval investigated the way reports of these acts were distorted in Christendom, where it was claimed that, if Jews could kill their own children, they most certainly were killing Christian children. Although he argued that the blood libels were groundless and were merely a Christian fantasy, he came under severe attack from his academic colleagues. Scholarly articles maintained that he had made the Jewish victims responsible for the blood libels, and that he was desecrating their martyrdom. He later learned that people had even called for his dismissal from the faculty. Despite his own experiences, he does not believe that scholars should refrain from publishing what they consider to be valid findings.

Although Bar-Ilan claims it has no intention of hurting Toaff's academic standing, the whole affair raises the issue of academic freedom of expression in Israel. The issue became a matter of public debate in the controversy over a University of Haifa master's thesis. Theodore Katz, a graduate student, argued that the Israel Defense Forces' Alexandroni Brigade conducted a massacre in the Arab village of Tantura during the Israeli War of Independence. In a letter the commander of the operation circulated among the brigade's former members, he claimed that the "feelings of frustration and humiliation are only comparable to the emotions generated by a blood libel."
Some Israeli scholars maintain that researchers should censor themselves and should always consider whether or not their work is "good for the Jews."

Historian Moshe Zimmerman, a Hebrew University professor, has personally experienced such censorship. Zimmerman, who loves being provocative, once stated that the Jewish settlers in Hebron were raising their children along the lines of the Hitler Youth. To this day, he argues that the analogy was the product of academic research. The result was dismal. "My colleagues demanded that I be sacked," he recalled. "Although I was not dismissed, my possibilities of promotion at the university narrowed. In my case, as in Toaff's, there was talk that the 'university's donors are starting to get upset.' And that is certainly a threat."

Another interesting response is a lengthy article of Dr Ronnie Po-chia Hsia, a Yale scholar of Hong Kong origin, who penned a book on Trent Murder.

He begins with: “On Easter Sunday 1475, the dead body of a 2-year-old Christian boy named Simon was found in the cellar of a Jewish family's house in Trent, Italy.”

The Jewish encyclopedia says the child was found in the vicinity of a Jewish house. But the expert says “The child was found in the cellar of certain Jews”, and he did not get there by himself. However, the Yale man does not care about the killed child, and does not try to explain how come the body was found there, and who and what for mutilated it. He says callously: “Passover was indeed bloody, but it was the blood of the Jews that bore witness to a violent fantasy born out of intolerance. “ What about blood of murdered children, Po-chia Hsia? They were not Jews, they are not likely to be your employers, but they were human! How do you dare to deny their blood?

“In a series of interrogations that involved liberal use of judicial torture, the magistrates obtained the confessions of the Jewish men. “Po-chia Hsia builds his case on the word Torture. If the accused were tortured, their confessions are invalid, he claims. Tho’ accused “believed firmly that it is right that Jews kill Christian children and drink their blood. He want[ed] to have Christian blood at Easter”. It is all due to Torture, says the Yale scholar.

Po-chia Hsia misses the point, for the Italian state and church authorities of 15th c acted humanely by applying torture to Jews, for this was application of Jewish law to Jews, as the Jewish law approves of torture. So we were told not only by Alain Dershowitz, but by a Jewish expert on ethics, Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir, Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem, in an article with alluring title The Jewish Ethicist - The Ethics of Torture . He was asked: “What does Judaism say about torturing suspects in order to obtain life-saving information?” and he replies:

“Any person with life-saving information is obligated to reveal it (duty of rescue), and that the right of self-defense would justify aggressive actions to compel the knower to disclose his information. .. By failing to act the potential informant makes it possible for a calamity to occur. . . It is thus clear that the law of pursuit sanctions any form of bodily force, including mayhem, when necessary to preserve the life of the victim… In Jewish law, the hinge of the argument is the obligation of the informant himself to help others. In this surprising fashion, the sanction for torture becomes an expression of his humanity, rather than of his inhumanity. We are allowed to cause him pain precisely because we insist, despite his enmity, on viewing him as someone who has his own ethical obligations to his fellow human beings. “

Thus, the church investigators were “allowed to cause [the Jews] pain precisely because we insist, despite their enmity, on viewing them as someone who has his own ethical obligations to help his fellow human beings”. In short, “the sanction for torture becomes an expression of his humanity”; and Jews applied this norm in many Israeli jails, in jail of al-Khiayam in the occupied South Lebanon, and as advisers to Abu Ghraib. So what’s wrong with applying this Jewish norm to Jews?

The Yale scholar continues: “The pope intervened and suspended the trial. Appeals from the Venetian and Jewish communities moved Sixtus IV to appoint the Dominican Baptista Dei Giudici, Bishop of Ventigmiglia, as the apostolic commissioner to investigate the affair. The trial in Trent was highly irregular. The 1247 Decretum of Pope Innocent IV had prohibited ritual murder trials on account of the judicial abuses involved and the violence against the Jews. Dei Giudici's task, therefore, was precisely to see whether abuses and excessive violence were involved in the judicial procedure in Trent.”

Can you imagine that a Decretum of Pope or a Decree of President would prohibit trials of clergy on charges of pedophilia? Or trials of bankers on charges of embezzlement? The Holy See was indebted to Jews, and acted as their protector. The Bishop of Ventigmiglia was supposed to stop the trial, but the people did not allow it. Indeed, the elites were always good to Jews, it’s ordinary simple folk that suffered and therefore was hostile to them.
This story is not over for Dr Toaff who is being persecuted for his devotion to truth. This story is not over, because every inch of Jewish sanctimonious self-righteousness is used to pressure Iran and attack Gaza. These guys are not content with ruling American and European minds: they want to remain invisible rulers and holy martyrs. This should be denied.

Satanic Pictures

by Israel Shamir

The West was not amused by burning embassies in Beirut and elsewhere. “Them there Muslims do not understand our sense of humour; they do not understand our idea of liberty”. - droned the newspapers. Others condemned the tactless escapade of the Danes but thought the reaction was quite out of proportion. However the flare up was anything but incidental.

A resourceful American journalist Christopher Bollyn investigated the Danish Satanic Pictures and their procurer, one Flemming Rose, and found out that Rose was not an innocent lover of freedom of speech, neither was he some quaint Scandinavian collector of smut pictures with religious connotations who kept his presentations of the Muslim prophet next to that of a Nun-with-the-Great Dane. Rose was a devotee of the Zionist Neo-Con cult, and made a pilgrimage to the pope of this persuasion -- Daniel Pipes, wrote Bollyn.

So far, so good. But the execrable Rose peddled his stuff four months ago, and that's a long time, as the media counts. The Muslims did not even notice his effort, as possibly not many of them read the Jylland Pest. Like a naughty child who multiplies his effort when his well-prepared jibe fails to annoy, eleven newspapers in seven countries republished the pictures simultaneously. It was a show of hands: behind various newspapers in various countries, beyond companies and corporations, we were allowed to see the Enemy, the Not-So-Hidden Hand, the player on the international scene across all borders. It was a convincing show, and now we know: one will, one design rules the world media empire.

Who organised it?

Who is the Enemy? Who can control media on such a scale? Sandhya Jain, an important Indian journalist of nationalist persuasion wrote: “The cartoons were an intentional act of religious disrespect by political Christianity, comprising the socio-economic-political elites of Europe and America.” Christendom was called the culprit by many other observers. But to be sure, the same people who offended Muslims do not think twice before offending believing Christians – it is enough to recall the Cross changing into a Swastika on the posters of Amen, the movie, or the crucifix in a glass of piss (an illustration to the Talmud?) in a Brooklyn [a heavily Jewish suburb of New York] Museum. There is no religious enmity between the Muslims and the Christians. Ahmad Amr was right:

“The defamatory portrayals of Islam and Mohammed by European ‘free speech advocates’ puts Muslims at a distinct disadvantage. They can’t very well retaliate by defaming Jesus Christ because they revere him as much as they revere Mohammed and consider him a prophet of God. Insulting Jesus or the Virgin Mary is considered as blasphemous as insulting Mohammed. No true Muslim would ever consider lampooning the Mother of Christ because they also believe in the Immaculate Conception. In Islamic tradition, Mary will be the first woman to enter heaven. And like the Koran, Muslims consider both the Bible and the Torah holy texts.”

Thus we have to exonerate Christians and look elsewhere.

The Western media is the exclusive domain of Judeophiles: you may have noticed it by their extensive and morbid coverage of Sharon’s demise, of Jewish fatalities while disregarding Palestinian deaths, of the Holocaust issue, of real or imagined attacks on Jews[1]. The Jews have a vested interest in promoting anti-Muslim sentiment, for it fits into their plans of subduing Palestinians and dealing with Iran. (The Iranians immediately recognised it, and turned to anti-Jewish holocaust jokes. Equally tasteless, it was a reasonable tit-for-tat.) Indeed, just now the non-Zionist World Jewish Congress officially kicked off his campaign against Iran , Haaretz informed its readers. AIPAC plans a Washington conference titled “Now is the time to stop Iran”. Kurt Nimmo correctly called the pictures “a deliberate provocation designed to outrage and incite Muslims and thus engender support in Europe and America for the manufactured “clash of civilizations” engineered by the Straussian neocons”. The Clash of Civilisations, as well as the Satanic Pictures affair fit well into the Middle Eastern strategy of organised Jewry.

A clear sign of Jewish involvement in the Satanic Pictures affair was given by many headlines: though all the Muslim nations were upset, the Jewish-controlled newspapers stressed “Palestinian attacks on Europeans”, as in 2001 they stressed “Palestinians rejoice at the collapse of the Towers”, though many people all over the world were happy at the strike that smote this symbol of arrogance and money power. The Israeli daily Haaretz wrote: the Muslim press shows Sharon and rabbis in a disrespectful light, let them try their own medicine. This amounts to an admission that the Judeophiles were behind the publication.

But our colleagues did not notice a grand plan behind this action. Much as the Pictures fit into the plan of fighting Muslims, they fit even better into the great offensive on freedom carried out now world-wide. From the US to Russia, from England to Italy, our masters promulgate the web of laws to strengthen their control and to eliminate the vestiges of freedom. In 1968, we proclaimed “Interdit d'interdire”, “It is forbidden to forbid”; but now we are entangled by many new prohibitions. We mayn’t choose to smoke or not, to fasten seat belt or ride carefree. These small annoying prohibitions are a sign of our submission to Big Brother. And do not tell me it is done for my benefit. I can list a hundred things more urgent for my well-being. Let them ban indebtedness first. If I am free to take a dangerous loan, I should be free to choose or miss the seat belt.

Our freedoms are severely curtailed. They exist on paper, but we may not use them. We may not say what we wish less our livelihood will be jeopardised. So many teachers and professors found themselves out of job for saying a word out of turn: in “democratic” Germany, a Communist could not work as a teacher. We may not elect whom we want: when the Austrians chose Heider, they were beaten until they agreed to give up. Now the Palestinians chose Hamas, and they are told they will not get their own tax money until they repent. (In a similar vein, the Bible provides for debt cancellation every seven years, but the Talmud allows the creditor to tie up and beat the debtor until he insists to pay the voided debt). Every time, be it guns for the folks in remote Montana, a cigarette in a Dublin pub, a seat belt for you, or a free vote for all of us, the great opinion-making machine of mass media enforced the prohibition. Sometimes, as in the case of the Satanic Pictures, it does not balk at deliberate provocation to make its point clear: we are not allowed to say what we want.

The media machine’s devotion to the Jewish cause allows us to guess that it is not run by oil sheiks. But let us presume (and deal with this presumption later) that the Jews and their Judaeophile supporters built up their media empire for another purpose. If you feel (as so many good people do) an urgent need to exonerate the Jews, you may believe that the Jews organised their media holding just in order to fight antisemitism, while the evil Mammonites utilised this machine for their own need of establishing the world dictatorship. You may consider the Jews as the Dwarves who wrought the Ring of Power, and it was taken by the Mammonites. They promoted the narrative of antisemitism and holocaust in order to keep the Jews fighting on their side against the people. They indoctrinate the Jews in belief that the normal humans want to devour them and only the ruling Mammonites prevent it. Indeed, as I wrote in The Third Dove, there is no antisemitism, as there are no witches, and, alas, no Santa Claus.

The media machine is good at enlisting allies, by the same means the ordinary Jews are enlisted, i.e. by propagating fear. They invented “homophobia”, so a homosexual will fear normal folks and apply for the protection of Big Brother. They invented “male chauvinism” and “battered wives”, so women will be afraid of their menfolk and seek the rulers’ shelter. They invented “racism”, so every ethnic minority would hide under the guardianship of Big Brother. They created the myth of “abused children”, so the wives will distrust their husbands. These are myths. There is no “homophobia” – we really do not give a damn what you do at your bedrooms, as long as you do not frighten horses. Men are naturally protective of children and chivalrous towards women. White folks like blacks being jolly and playing their banjo, as long as it is not all night long. I tell you: we all are minorities, and together, we are the people. We can do very well together without guardianship of Big Brother.

There is nothing to fear abroad, either. In the days of my youth, Americans were frightened by the Domino theory. After the Communist takeover of Vietnam and Cambodia, they would proceed to California, run the writ. It came to naught. The fear of Communism destroyed trillions of dollars of national product across the globe and eventually ruined the great social experiment. The victorious mice judge the slain lion: at the initiative of Poland and the Baltic states, The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) condemned “horrors and crimes of Communism.” Now the machine plays up the fear of Islam. Islam was provoked and its response was presented as the proof of its depravity.

The great fear-producing machine won’t stop at the Middle East, or at the narrow Jewish causes, and for a good reason. A tank can be used as a nut-cracker, but it has more functions than that. The unified and perfected Jewish media machine can be utilised for much more important tasks than fighting off holocaust jokes. Its main goal is to bring us to the Brave New World, to the new spiritless totalitarianism, while smaller tasks are incidental to the great one.

Last month there were a few important but apparently unconnected developments. The British PM, Tony Blair, made a step towards total control over his population. England introduced a new computer system that collects and stores data of car traffic. Connected to ubiquitous video cameras, it allows the Big Brother to trace your movements from your work to your girlfriend and to your home. It passed without a hitch. Then it tried to pass the Internet Terror Bill, that would have given police the power to shut down websites which “promote terrorism”. The House of Lords blocked it. Last month the Lords threw out plans for a new offence of “glorifying” acts of terrorism. The Government was also defeated when peers voted to redraft ministers' version of the offence of “intentionally” or “recklessly” disseminating a “terrorist publication”. And the best of all, the indomitable Lords blocked the bill against “religious hatred” which was supposed to close the only loophole for criticising Jews.

After that, the Adversary splashed the Satanic Pictures. The predictable and predicted reaction of the offended Muslims will force the parliaments to accept the new set of ‘anti-hate’ laws. Surely these laws will not protect the feelings of Muslims and Christians, who, after all, encompass only a few billion humans. The Jews, the preferred mascot of the Mammonites, will feel better protected (and more vulnerable), but more important, freedom of speech will receive another blow.

This great freedom was the advantage of the West over the Soviet East, for one of the less savoury features of the Soviet regime was its infamous Article 58 of the Criminal Code “Anti-Soviet propaganda”. In the early Stalin’s days, one has to express sympathy with the enemies of the Republic to be sentenced; in his heyday, a joke would suffice; in Brezhnev’s era it was used to ensure conformity in the society. Even in the very end of the Soviet days, the Damocles’ sword of Article 58 influenced all discussion and eventually allowed Gorbachev to carry out his transformation of Russia without a debate. He eliminated the social achievements of the Soviet era, surrendered Russian industry and oil to a few Jewish crooks, gave the keys of the Russian might to the CIA and broke up the country into feuding successor states. The only positive feature of Gorbachev-Yeltsin transformation was the removal of Article 58. Now it is creeping back.

Some time ago booby-trapped anti-Jewish billboards appeared in Moscow. When a passer-by tried to remove it, the explosive device went off. The government rushed an ‘anti-hate’ bill through the parliament, and lo! No more anti-Jewish billboards came to be. A month ago, there was an extremely fishy incident in a Moscow synagogue, and a new reinforced ‘anti-extremism’ bill was introduced into the Russian parliament.

Thus, under the cover of fighting extremism, terrorism and hatred, the remainder of freedom on our planet shrinks from day to day. Eugene Rostow, “a Kennedy’s Huntington”, predicted in 1960s that the two systems, Communism and Capitalism would eventually converge, and bring forth the best features of both systems. Now the Convergence has actually taken place. Once, the Red East was socially secure, but at the expense of personal freedom, while the West was free at the expense of equality and social guarantees. Now they have converged: the Russians have lost their free schools and health and have received the freedom to sleep under the bridge, while the West now has its own Gulag and its own political dissidents. East and West reinstalled Article 58 under the guise of anti-hate, anti-terrorism, anti-extremism laws.

The grand plan of world domination is unveiling. On its first stage, the power of old elites and of the church was broken. The Mammonite enemy used democracy and liberty as his weapons against the old order, and we, the Left and the Liberals, enjoyed his support. The adverse vote in the House of Lords (albeit reshuffled and remoulded) proves that the old system with all its faults had some positive qualities. But that stage is over. Now the enemy is fighting against democracy and liberty, employing fear and (anti-)racism.

The enemy has the advantage of infiltrating both left and right, of mainstream and alternative media, of interaction on the global scale. Following a defeat in England they can attack in France and provoke in Gaza. They can cause grief and feign horror at your response. As long as this machine is intact, war and fear are unavoidable for they are its products. Moreover, this is the reason why the powerful Mammonites – not Jews at all – use and support this machine. The machine produces fear, and allows them to usher in their dictatorship. But we have to win unless we want our children to live in the world of slaves and masters. You do not have to care about Muslim sensibilities or Jewish prejudices – it is your freedom at stake. We have to think globally because our enemy acts globally. We must defeat fear and discord, the main tools of the enemy.

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

[1] In my essay Midas Ears I wrote: “Indeed, much of media is owned or controlled by Jews . . . Surely a coincidence? Do not bet on it. In 2004, a Jewish historian Simcha Epstein of Israel Antisemitism Institute said at the Sasson Conference in the Hebrew University:

«The pre-war anti-Semites said that the Jews of France organized a syndicate secretly bankrolling and subverting the press. And what did the Jews say at that time? They said: «Of course not! No, it’s a lie, of course not! We are not engaged in conspiracies!» And what did the historians and the Jewish historiography coming afterwards say? «Of course not! It is anti-Semitic drivel!» But we know now from Jewish sources that before the WWII the Jews of France secretly financed the press. Since the end of the 19th century, there was a secret Jewish organization, well financed, which bought and bankrolled newspapers. Sometimes it took over existing newspapers, which suddenly became pro-Dreyfus because they received Jewish subsidies. New papers were created especially by the Jews. Two very important papers of the period, one was called Les Droits de l'Homme, the Rights of Man, was financed by the Jews, and L’Humanité, which was the Socialist and then the Communist newspaper of France, was also financed by Jews. I say this on the authority of Jewish sources of course. And this brings us to a dramatic dilemma of historiography. Saying this, saying what I said, is something horrible and unacceptable, because it means that the Jews organized a conspiracy and secretly bought the media, or part of the media. That was precisely what the anti-Semites said at that time, and what they still say today. And we know now from Jewish sources that the allegations were true, that there was a Jewish clandestine activity of bankrolling the press. [Listen to this sentence ]

Some people perceive every suggestion that Jews are able to act together as a mad conspiracy theory. Let them read and re-read this report by a Jewish historian made at a Jewish conference. Do we need another fifty years to wait for another Jewish scholar to reveal to our children what we know ourselves, to wit, there is a Jewish empire of media, so vast that the sun never sets there?