by Raja Bahari (of the leading radical left-wing magazine of Sweden, FiB)
Question. You claim that anti-semitism doesn’t exist today. Can you explain what you mean by saying so?
Shamir: Antisemitism was a short-lived racial theory of late 19th century claiming that - like zebras are what they are, jews are what they are; that they possess some racial qualities making them an inherent enemy of the Nordic race, like a wolf is an enemy of a rabbit. This view was unknown previously, as the Church and the Ulema thought that the problem between Jews and Gentiles is a religious problem; conversion of a Jew into Christianity or Islam removed the problem. The racial view is quite out of fashion today; and I have never met a person who would consider jews being some race apart, dangerous to the rest.
Or, taking a less learned approach, antisemitism is presented as 'hatred of Jews for what they are'. Such a phenomenon vanished completely. There are people who object to policies of Jews, but none - to Jews per se.
That is why we can say that antisemitism disappeared after a very short shelf-life. Jews tend to use this word for perfectly legitimate, nay, commendable objection to their policies; for instance, to the policies of Israel etc, but then it is just an offensive label.
Question: When you say that antisemitism doesn't exist today you define antisemitism as an old racial theory. Is it correct that you define for example vandalism of Jewish graveyards and private belongings for "objecting to policies of Jews". If a young person with Jewish background living in Sweden who is not engaged in politics is beaten up by neo nazis or someone else. What do you call that? Doesn’t there exist violence and hatred towards Jews based on the fact that they are Jews, call it a race or call it an ethnicity or religion. Would you still call this violence and hatred "objecting to policies of Jews"?
Shamir: Illegal and criminal acts are exactly that, and the reasoning of the criminal is of little importance. Nobody is allowed to vandalise cemeteries or beat up people, whether they are Jews or not. Do you think if a goy is beaten up, or a non-Jewish cemetery is vandalised - it is less grievous? Take Jews off your mind. If an act is criminal - then it is criminal, if it is not - then it is not criminal. There is no reason to assume that jews are special; that a beaten up Jew is a worse affront than a beaten up goy.
You've asked: "If a young person with Jewish background living in Sweden who is not engaged in politics is beaten up by neo nazis or someone else. What do you call that? "
I am not sure such events occur - more often than any sort of gang violence. In France, Jewish militants beat up anti-Zionists quite often, but I have not heard of non-fake case of French beating Jews. In New York, Jewish Defence League beats and kills goyim, and somehow nobody discusses 'Jewish hatred of Goy'. Indeed, criminal behaviour of miscreants is not a reason to build up case for 'antisemitism' or 'goy hatred' - police should just attend to criminals.
You've asked: "Doesn’t there exist violence and hatred towards Jews based on the fact that they are Jews, call it a race or call it an ethnicity or religion." The answer is NO. Not yet, but if good wishers would promote this idea ad nauseam they may succeed :-)
As for hatred, it is such a mother-in-lawish word:
"Son, I know you hate me and want me dead!"
"No, mama, but I want us to control our lives ourselves".
Question: Do you believe that such a thing as a Jewish world conspiracy exists. If so, what’s the aim of this conspiracy?
Shamir: If the question is whether I believe in a millennia-old secret plan carried out by some hidden Jewish leaders the answer is no. Not many people do. Nor do I believe in existence of a hidden Jewish world leadership activating a single plan.
However, we may try to deconstruct the question in order to find some other levels to it.
If there were a 'Jewish plan' - would it mean that all the Jews belong to the conspiracy? We use expressions "Sicilian mafia", "Communist plan of world revolution", "American imperialism", fully understanding that not every Sicilian, not every Communist, not every American is a member of some secretive body that tries to achieve this particular goal. Equally, 'Jewish conspiracy' would imply that there are some Jews who have certain plans.
'Conspiracy' is a dirty word for undeclared goal in politics achieved by obscure means. For instance, there was an American Cold-War conspiracy (or 'plan') to get the USSR into Afghanistan in 1980. Please read the following except:
"How the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess"
Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998,
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aidto the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Sovietarmy invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guardeduntil now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 thatPresident Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to theopponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrotea note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinionthis aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea.
It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Thus, conspiracies are a usual way of achieving some political purposes. When we demystify the expression 'Jewish conspiracy' in such a way, your question could be read: 'are there some secret plans and strategies carried out by some Jewish groups in their own interests'? Then. certainly, the answer is Yes; neocons are a group of (predominantly) Jews who plot and conspire for their own reasons; in the Shadow of Zog I've described another hidden plan carried out by some wealthy French Jews who wished to influence French media. In Prince Charming I present the Zionist conspiracy, which started with Weitzman and others offering the support of Jews to Balfour in exchange for the Declaration.
As for an "all-Jewish world conspiracy", in my essay on the Protocols I prove that the concept of 'Jewish conspiracy' is not needed in order to understand Jewish influence. As a rule, Jews seek to make things better for Jews - but it is not a "conspiracy". There are non-conspiratorial actions which influence the world affairs. There are many Jews in world media; they have differing views, but they usually agree on certain things, for instance, they try to spike unfavourable to Jews news items. Majority of Jews are sympathetic to the US, dislike Christianity, prefer multiculturalism, support Israel - this is not a "conspiracy", but just their preference.
Question: You have a Jewish background and you lost family members during the Nazi period. In what way does this affect your view on Judaism and Christianity?
Shamir: A man is influenced by his background. But the cult of holocaust wasn't a part of my background, for I grew in Soviet Russia. Every Russian family lost somebody at the World War Two; so I did not feel my case a special one.
Question: You have converted to Christianity. How does this fact influence your view on Judaism?
Shamir: In my view, Christianity is reformed, corrected Judaism, ideologically and theologically in permanent tension towards Rabbinic Judaism. I reject Judaism completely, and think it is a dangerous and troublesome ideology.
Question: In the present debate you are being accused of having opinions similar to those of the nazis during the 1930’s: i.e. there’s a Jewish conspiracy, the Jews govern the world through controlling economy and moulding of public opinions. What’s your comment to that?
Shamir: My accusers do not mind to have the same opinion as George Bush, Ariel Sharon or Abe Foxman, great warriors against "antisemitism". In a way they are right - it does not matter who else has similar ideas. Foxman is against antisemitism, but it is still legitimate to be against antisemitism. Hitler was a vegetarian, but it is still legitimate to avoid meat. Every idea stands or falls at its own merit.
Question: You have also been accused of having contacts with neo nazis on the Internet. Your texts can be read on their web sites. How do you comment on that?
Shamir: My articles have appeared in the Israeli liberal daily Haaretz which is running Judeo-Nazi materials, for instance
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/489306.html
but somehow nobody objected to it...
Showing posts with label shamir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shamir. Show all posts
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Interview with Israel Shamir
by Kim Petersen (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m22995)
May 1, 2006
Israel Shamir is a prominent and controversial Russian-Israeli thinker, writer, and translator who lives in Jaffa. Shamir brings to his political writing a refreshing candor, sharp insight, and inspiring humanity. His principled stand supporting the Palestinian refugees’ right of return and the rebuilding of their destroyed villages led to his firing from the “progressive” Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Following Israeli attacks on Palestinians in January 2001, Shamir became dedicated to political writings in English.
For the intellectual Karl Marx, the Jewish question was an “unreal subject.” Marx was baptized a Lutheran and married to a gentile.
Shamir has renounced Judaism and embraced Christianity.
He is a strong proponent of the “One Man, One Vote, One State” solution for a united Israel-Palestine.
I interviewed the unflinching maverick writer Israel Shamir.
Kim Petersen: You wrote recently that the historian David Irving, who the corporate media reports as being sentenced for holocaust denial, was sentenced for denial of “Jewish superiority.” Could you elaborate on this and what holocaust denial means for you?
Israel Shamir: I wrote about it, in “For Whom The Bell Tolls,” and in the “Vampire Killers,” at length. No free man can agree with the proposition that Jewish death (and life) is more important than that of a goy. But the ban of Holocaust revisionism is the only legally enforced prohibition in our society. The Armenians were envious of this elevated status of Jews, and actually succeeded to protect their tragedy of 1915 by a similar law in France. The result was tragicomic. They brought an important Jewish historian (and warmonger of first degree) Bernard Lewis to the court of Paris, and he was found guilty of denying their tragedy, just like David Irving. But David Irving has got three years in jail, and now his name is always preceded with the title “discredited” (see an interview with him in the Observer), while Bernard Lewis was fined one franc and he still appears everywhere, and his name graces various petitions. He was not discredited, but the Armenians were. Apparently, Jewish blood is redder than Armenian, not to mention lesser species. I quoted an article by a Jewish American historian denying the genocide of the native Americans. He was not discredited, either. The scourge of Irving, Debora Lipstadt, denied the fiery holocaust of Dresden, and was not discredited, either. Face it, Kim: the very concept of H is a concept of Jewish superiority.
This has an important religious meaning: Christianity is the denial of Jewish superiority. Whoever believes or accepts Jewish superiority, denies Christ for He made us equal. The French Jewish filmmaker Claude Lanzman, the creator of “Shoah,” said: if you believe in holocaust, you can’t believe in Christ. I am ready to take his challenge: I believe in Christ. We can rephrase the words of Lanzman: belief in a special historical meaning of death of Jews is a sign of apostasy. Indeed, the creed of holocaust competes with the Church: we believe that Christ suffered for us and came back to life. The H believers believe that the Jewish people suffered and came back by creating the Jewish state. In this competition, the Jews win: as opposed to H, you can deny Crucifixion and Resurrection and your career won’t suffer a bit.
Thus the question of H denial is the question of apostasy: will our society stand on the rock planted by Christ, or will it worship the Jewish state. This is an important discovery of eternal religiosity of human spirit: the attempt to create a secular society did not work out. After an illusionary short break, the gods came back.
KP: Is it appropriate to use such loaded terms as "goy"?
IS: Well, I am not aware this is a loaded term. I translated some Hebrew books, from Samuel Yosef Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winner, to the Book of Lineage by Rabbi Zacuto, a 15th century Judaeo-Iberian sage, my most recent translation into English. They all used “goy” and so do Israeli newspapers. The word "goy" has a meaning: this is a non-Jew as seen by Jews. If you think it is not a complimentary term, you mean that in your view Jews look with distaste at a goy. Maybe. But we should deal with problems, not with words. Dealing with words is easier, but brings no relief. If we were to use 'gentile', would it change the Jewish attitude to one? This is also a sign of weakness. When (in 19th century) Jews felt weak, they liked to be called Israelites, or Hebrews. Now they do not mind being called "Jews."
KP: You have described the US as a “greater Jewish state.” You laud Jeffrey Blankfort as having taken “an important next step” in rejecting the views of Noam Chomsky and others. Is the influence of the “Jewish lobby” preponderant over US corporate imperialism?
IS: I wrote about it in “A Yiddishe Medina.” The US corporate imperialism is not a bodiless spirit; it is the sum of desires and actions by the US elites. And the US elites are Jewish, to great extent, and they have accepted Jewish values and ideas, to even greater extent. A few years ago, an American Jewish writer Philip Weiss wrote in the New York Observer: “I don’t claim to know how Jewish the membership of the establishment is. Twenty percent, 50 percent? I’m guessing 30.” Jews compose at least 30% of Harvard students, reported The Forward, a Jewish American newspaper. The Hillel Society gives such numbers: Total Undergraduate Population: 6658; Jewish Undergraduate Population: 2000 (approx.); Total Graduate Population: 10351 Jewish Graduate Population: 2500 (approx.). Thus the US elites are Jewish to a great extent, in the ordinary meaning of the word. As for spirit, Karl Marx spoke of “Jewish spirit” of the Yankees. A less known Marxist, Sombart, wrote about it at length. Thus in my view it is a mistake to speak of “Jewish Lobby” -- we may refer to a takeover, a displacement of the old WASP elites. The Jews constitute some three percent of the US population. The Brits took over India with much less percentage; so did the ruling minority in Syria. Normans ruled over Britain for centuries with less than that. All Russian nobility in the Tsar’s days was 2-3% of the population, while upper castes of Hindu societies constitute some 5% at most. Now, the Jews are well integrated in the “US corporate imperialism” on many levels, and they do not have to fight it, they use it. The Jewish Lobby is an additional mechanism, consisting of hard-core Jewish nationalists. The problem is that the rest, the non-Jewish-Lobby part of the US establishment consists, as I have said, of not-so-nationalistic Jews to great extent. They reach compromise, and this compromise is the middle ground of mild-Jewish-nationalism.
KP: On the invasion of Iraq, you stated: “Too many coincidences for a purely American war.” To what extent do you see a Zionist hand behind the attack and occupation?
IS: Yes, I partly agree with the Chicago-Harvard duo, the conquest of Iraq and present threat to Iran are caused by the Zionist affiliates within the Administration. The old canard of Oil Interests was debunked by reality: oil costs more, oil companies leave Iraq, none of their executives supported the war. Probably your readers do not even think of Iraqi WMD or the silly stuff of “bringing democracy” to the Arabs. Thus the Zionist plot is the first and obvious explanation.
But the Iraqi war, as a part of War on Terror, has a second leg: this is an even more scary totalitarianism, the drive to create a caste-based oligarchy of the Iron Heel, in Jack London’s terms. Fear is its important tool; dismantling of civil freedoms and of cohesive natural society is the first goal. Without War on Terror, the US rulers wouldn’t be able to read our emails, listen to our conversations, store in their data banks every bit of information about our lives. This totalitarianism was predicted by George Orwell, an avid reader of the Protocols, and it was lauded by Leo Strauss, a guiding light of Neo-Cons. Strauss endorsed a society with dictatorial powers of elites; a follower of Hobbes, he distrusted the people. Though his views were formed before the WWII, after the war he frequently referred to the Holocaust as a phenomenon that is liable to come back unless the society is firmly kept in check. I called the supporters of this paradigm by the name “Mammonites,” mammon-worshippers. The Iraqi war, and the War on Terror in general, is a joint product of Zionists and Mammonites, while these two groups often coincide, as is the case with the leading Neo-Cons.
That is why our struggle is with Zionists and Mammonites; this is not only a laudable campaign of support of the peoples of the Middle East, but first of all the decisive battle for preservation of democracy and freedom in the US and Europe, for a chance of better life for our children, for creation of a more egalitarian and more spiritual society, against the Dark ages were are being led to.
KP: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken a lot of flak from the western media for citing the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini about wiping Israel off the map. Apparently, judging by the western media’s silence, it was okay to wipe Palestine off the map though. Is the state of Israel a legitimate entity?
IS: No, it is not. We can’t consider legitimate a state that gives no rights to its inhabitants and officially belongs to World Jewry. It is in our interests to achieve full independence from the Jews, and to shift the whole lot of rights and responsibilities to the population of the country. The sovereignty should be ours, of the people of Palestine/Israel, not of the Jewish People, the extra-territorial worldwide body. I call upon my country-fellows to give up their “Jewishness” and to become adoptive Palestinians, brothers and sisters to the native folk. I hope eventually it will happen; we shall integrate and forget the overseas connection. Meanwhile we follow the colonial paradigm and exclude the natives in the name of “Jewishness.” We should follow the example of Mexico, where immigrants from Spain and Italy form one nation with the descendents of Montezuma.
KP: What does the election of Hamas mean for you? Should Hamas recognize the state of Israel?
IS: I wrote about the results. The Palestinians rejected the Fatah rule because they made too many concessions to Israel, and received nothing in return. Hamas should not recognise the state of Israel, at least until the Israeli rulers recognise the Palestinian independence, remove their armed forces and stop to interfere with the free traffic of Palestinians within and without Palestine. This is reciprocity. I can imagine an even better solution: Hamas may call for full integration of all Palestine from the River to the Sea, and for general elections on the basis of One Person-One Vote. But until it happens, Hamas should be guided by reciprocity principle: mutual recognition, inter alia.
KP: You are an ex-Jew, a convert to Christianity -- why is this? You have written of “many ex-Jews.” Is this for the same reason as you? Do you think a growing trend in Jewish apostasy would be effective in bringing about justice for Palestinians?
IS: Christianity and Judaism are strongly connected religions. A Christian, Karl Marx said: Christianity is sublime Judaism, while Judaism is sordid Christianity. A real Christian knows that a goy is not worse than a Jew; so the idea of Jewish exclusivity is not acceptable to a Christian. In our country we have many Russian Orthodox Christians (some of Jewish origin, and some not), and they pray and celebrate holidays together with our Palestinian Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters. I was baptised by the Palestinian priest, Archbishop Theodosius Attalla Hanna, and it helped me to sort out the question of identity. The important point is not to create a separate Jewish “Christian” set-up, for such an arrangement defeats its purpose. Thus I am worried that there are “Jewish Christian” churches that are devoutly Zionist. In short, yes, baptism is a solution, but only in connection with rejection of Jewishness. If it is done as an addition to Jewishness, it is void, and brings no benefit.
Kim Petersen, Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, lives in the traditional Mi'kmaq homeland colonially designated Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at: http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/ym/Compose?To=kim@dissidentvoice.org.
Israel Shamir writings can be read at his website. His essays are collected in three books, The Flowers of Galilee, Our Lady of Sorrow, and the Pardes.
:: Article nr. 22995 sent on 02-may-2006 02:56 ECT
:: The address of this page is : http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22995
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
May 1, 2006
Israel Shamir is a prominent and controversial Russian-Israeli thinker, writer, and translator who lives in Jaffa. Shamir brings to his political writing a refreshing candor, sharp insight, and inspiring humanity. His principled stand supporting the Palestinian refugees’ right of return and the rebuilding of their destroyed villages led to his firing from the “progressive” Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Following Israeli attacks on Palestinians in January 2001, Shamir became dedicated to political writings in English.
For the intellectual Karl Marx, the Jewish question was an “unreal subject.” Marx was baptized a Lutheran and married to a gentile.
Shamir has renounced Judaism and embraced Christianity.
He is a strong proponent of the “One Man, One Vote, One State” solution for a united Israel-Palestine.
I interviewed the unflinching maverick writer Israel Shamir.
Kim Petersen: You wrote recently that the historian David Irving, who the corporate media reports as being sentenced for holocaust denial, was sentenced for denial of “Jewish superiority.” Could you elaborate on this and what holocaust denial means for you?
Israel Shamir: I wrote about it, in “For Whom The Bell Tolls,” and in the “Vampire Killers,” at length. No free man can agree with the proposition that Jewish death (and life) is more important than that of a goy. But the ban of Holocaust revisionism is the only legally enforced prohibition in our society. The Armenians were envious of this elevated status of Jews, and actually succeeded to protect their tragedy of 1915 by a similar law in France. The result was tragicomic. They brought an important Jewish historian (and warmonger of first degree) Bernard Lewis to the court of Paris, and he was found guilty of denying their tragedy, just like David Irving. But David Irving has got three years in jail, and now his name is always preceded with the title “discredited” (see an interview with him in the Observer), while Bernard Lewis was fined one franc and he still appears everywhere, and his name graces various petitions. He was not discredited, but the Armenians were. Apparently, Jewish blood is redder than Armenian, not to mention lesser species. I quoted an article by a Jewish American historian denying the genocide of the native Americans. He was not discredited, either. The scourge of Irving, Debora Lipstadt, denied the fiery holocaust of Dresden, and was not discredited, either. Face it, Kim: the very concept of H is a concept of Jewish superiority.
This has an important religious meaning: Christianity is the denial of Jewish superiority. Whoever believes or accepts Jewish superiority, denies Christ for He made us equal. The French Jewish filmmaker Claude Lanzman, the creator of “Shoah,” said: if you believe in holocaust, you can’t believe in Christ. I am ready to take his challenge: I believe in Christ. We can rephrase the words of Lanzman: belief in a special historical meaning of death of Jews is a sign of apostasy. Indeed, the creed of holocaust competes with the Church: we believe that Christ suffered for us and came back to life. The H believers believe that the Jewish people suffered and came back by creating the Jewish state. In this competition, the Jews win: as opposed to H, you can deny Crucifixion and Resurrection and your career won’t suffer a bit.
Thus the question of H denial is the question of apostasy: will our society stand on the rock planted by Christ, or will it worship the Jewish state. This is an important discovery of eternal religiosity of human spirit: the attempt to create a secular society did not work out. After an illusionary short break, the gods came back.
KP: Is it appropriate to use such loaded terms as "goy"?
IS: Well, I am not aware this is a loaded term. I translated some Hebrew books, from Samuel Yosef Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winner, to the Book of Lineage by Rabbi Zacuto, a 15th century Judaeo-Iberian sage, my most recent translation into English. They all used “goy” and so do Israeli newspapers. The word "goy" has a meaning: this is a non-Jew as seen by Jews. If you think it is not a complimentary term, you mean that in your view Jews look with distaste at a goy. Maybe. But we should deal with problems, not with words. Dealing with words is easier, but brings no relief. If we were to use 'gentile', would it change the Jewish attitude to one? This is also a sign of weakness. When (in 19th century) Jews felt weak, they liked to be called Israelites, or Hebrews. Now they do not mind being called "Jews."
KP: You have described the US as a “greater Jewish state.” You laud Jeffrey Blankfort as having taken “an important next step” in rejecting the views of Noam Chomsky and others. Is the influence of the “Jewish lobby” preponderant over US corporate imperialism?
IS: I wrote about it in “A Yiddishe Medina.” The US corporate imperialism is not a bodiless spirit; it is the sum of desires and actions by the US elites. And the US elites are Jewish, to great extent, and they have accepted Jewish values and ideas, to even greater extent. A few years ago, an American Jewish writer Philip Weiss wrote in the New York Observer: “I don’t claim to know how Jewish the membership of the establishment is. Twenty percent, 50 percent? I’m guessing 30.” Jews compose at least 30% of Harvard students, reported The Forward, a Jewish American newspaper. The Hillel Society gives such numbers: Total Undergraduate Population: 6658; Jewish Undergraduate Population: 2000 (approx.); Total Graduate Population: 10351 Jewish Graduate Population: 2500 (approx.). Thus the US elites are Jewish to a great extent, in the ordinary meaning of the word. As for spirit, Karl Marx spoke of “Jewish spirit” of the Yankees. A less known Marxist, Sombart, wrote about it at length. Thus in my view it is a mistake to speak of “Jewish Lobby” -- we may refer to a takeover, a displacement of the old WASP elites. The Jews constitute some three percent of the US population. The Brits took over India with much less percentage; so did the ruling minority in Syria. Normans ruled over Britain for centuries with less than that. All Russian nobility in the Tsar’s days was 2-3% of the population, while upper castes of Hindu societies constitute some 5% at most. Now, the Jews are well integrated in the “US corporate imperialism” on many levels, and they do not have to fight it, they use it. The Jewish Lobby is an additional mechanism, consisting of hard-core Jewish nationalists. The problem is that the rest, the non-Jewish-Lobby part of the US establishment consists, as I have said, of not-so-nationalistic Jews to great extent. They reach compromise, and this compromise is the middle ground of mild-Jewish-nationalism.
KP: On the invasion of Iraq, you stated: “Too many coincidences for a purely American war.” To what extent do you see a Zionist hand behind the attack and occupation?
IS: Yes, I partly agree with the Chicago-Harvard duo, the conquest of Iraq and present threat to Iran are caused by the Zionist affiliates within the Administration. The old canard of Oil Interests was debunked by reality: oil costs more, oil companies leave Iraq, none of their executives supported the war. Probably your readers do not even think of Iraqi WMD or the silly stuff of “bringing democracy” to the Arabs. Thus the Zionist plot is the first and obvious explanation.
But the Iraqi war, as a part of War on Terror, has a second leg: this is an even more scary totalitarianism, the drive to create a caste-based oligarchy of the Iron Heel, in Jack London’s terms. Fear is its important tool; dismantling of civil freedoms and of cohesive natural society is the first goal. Without War on Terror, the US rulers wouldn’t be able to read our emails, listen to our conversations, store in their data banks every bit of information about our lives. This totalitarianism was predicted by George Orwell, an avid reader of the Protocols, and it was lauded by Leo Strauss, a guiding light of Neo-Cons. Strauss endorsed a society with dictatorial powers of elites; a follower of Hobbes, he distrusted the people. Though his views were formed before the WWII, after the war he frequently referred to the Holocaust as a phenomenon that is liable to come back unless the society is firmly kept in check. I called the supporters of this paradigm by the name “Mammonites,” mammon-worshippers. The Iraqi war, and the War on Terror in general, is a joint product of Zionists and Mammonites, while these two groups often coincide, as is the case with the leading Neo-Cons.
That is why our struggle is with Zionists and Mammonites; this is not only a laudable campaign of support of the peoples of the Middle East, but first of all the decisive battle for preservation of democracy and freedom in the US and Europe, for a chance of better life for our children, for creation of a more egalitarian and more spiritual society, against the Dark ages were are being led to.
KP: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken a lot of flak from the western media for citing the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini about wiping Israel off the map. Apparently, judging by the western media’s silence, it was okay to wipe Palestine off the map though. Is the state of Israel a legitimate entity?
IS: No, it is not. We can’t consider legitimate a state that gives no rights to its inhabitants and officially belongs to World Jewry. It is in our interests to achieve full independence from the Jews, and to shift the whole lot of rights and responsibilities to the population of the country. The sovereignty should be ours, of the people of Palestine/Israel, not of the Jewish People, the extra-territorial worldwide body. I call upon my country-fellows to give up their “Jewishness” and to become adoptive Palestinians, brothers and sisters to the native folk. I hope eventually it will happen; we shall integrate and forget the overseas connection. Meanwhile we follow the colonial paradigm and exclude the natives in the name of “Jewishness.” We should follow the example of Mexico, where immigrants from Spain and Italy form one nation with the descendents of Montezuma.
KP: What does the election of Hamas mean for you? Should Hamas recognize the state of Israel?
IS: I wrote about the results. The Palestinians rejected the Fatah rule because they made too many concessions to Israel, and received nothing in return. Hamas should not recognise the state of Israel, at least until the Israeli rulers recognise the Palestinian independence, remove their armed forces and stop to interfere with the free traffic of Palestinians within and without Palestine. This is reciprocity. I can imagine an even better solution: Hamas may call for full integration of all Palestine from the River to the Sea, and for general elections on the basis of One Person-One Vote. But until it happens, Hamas should be guided by reciprocity principle: mutual recognition, inter alia.
KP: You are an ex-Jew, a convert to Christianity -- why is this? You have written of “many ex-Jews.” Is this for the same reason as you? Do you think a growing trend in Jewish apostasy would be effective in bringing about justice for Palestinians?
IS: Christianity and Judaism are strongly connected religions. A Christian, Karl Marx said: Christianity is sublime Judaism, while Judaism is sordid Christianity. A real Christian knows that a goy is not worse than a Jew; so the idea of Jewish exclusivity is not acceptable to a Christian. In our country we have many Russian Orthodox Christians (some of Jewish origin, and some not), and they pray and celebrate holidays together with our Palestinian Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters. I was baptised by the Palestinian priest, Archbishop Theodosius Attalla Hanna, and it helped me to sort out the question of identity. The important point is not to create a separate Jewish “Christian” set-up, for such an arrangement defeats its purpose. Thus I am worried that there are “Jewish Christian” churches that are devoutly Zionist. In short, yes, baptism is a solution, but only in connection with rejection of Jewishness. If it is done as an addition to Jewishness, it is void, and brings no benefit.
Kim Petersen, Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, lives in the traditional Mi'kmaq homeland colonially designated Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at: http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/ym/Compose?To=kim@dissidentvoice.org.
Israel Shamir writings can be read at his website. His essays are collected in three books, The Flowers of Galilee, Our Lady of Sorrow, and the Pardes.
:: Article nr. 22995 sent on 02-may-2006 02:56 ECT
:: The address of this page is : http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22995
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
A book to be burned: The other face of Israel
by Israel Adam Shamir,
‘What demon is annoying you and leading you to slander?
So a book displeases you; who is forcing you to read it?’
Boileau
Israel Shamir’s Parisian publisher sentenced to pay €23,500 and given a three-month suspended prison sentence.
It was an absolutely staggering piece of news that came down on the wires of the Agence France-Presse at 5.34pm on the 2nd of November. We reproduce it below as is.
On Wednesday, the court in Nanterre sentenced the manager of the publishing house Al Qalam to three months in prison, suspended, and to a fine of €10,000 for having published Israel Shamir’s anti-Semitic work, L’autre visage d’Israël (The Other Face of Israel); furthermore, the sale of he book has been prohibited.
The court found Abdelila Cherifi Alaoui, the manager of the publishing house, Al Qalam, guilty of ‘incitement to discrimination, exhortation to hatred and violence’ towards the membership of a religion.
In addition to the suspended three-month prison sentence and the fine of €10,000, Al Qalam will also have to pay €12,000 in damages and €1,500 in court expenses on behalf of the plaintiff, the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). Lastly, the publisher has 30 days to withdraw the book from all bookshops, under a €100 penalty for every copy remaining on the shelves at the end of that period.
The court justified its judgement by the fact that ‘the expression “juifs”(Jews) is always used in the plural’ in the book, and they are portrayed as ‘dominating the world’, within an overall framework of a ‘third world war’ currently being carried out, according to the author. As well, the court finds that ‘the author reveals himself to be a rather old-fashioned anti-Semite, particularly where he quotes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’
First published in 1905 in Russia, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book announcing how the Jews intended to satisfy their hatred, destroy Christian civilisation and seize world power, went round the world, selling millions of copies.
Recognised as an obvious forgery since 1921 (it had apparently been conjured up by the secret service of the Tsar, who was opposed to any liberalisation of his rule of Russia and thus attempted to use it as proof of an alleged Zionist plot against him); it continues, however, to be widely used and presented as authentic by those wishing to justify their anti-Semitic claims. The Nazis, in particular, claimed it being authentic. In The Other Face of Israel, Israel Shamir says on page 282: “the Protocols ought to be regarded as a political pamphlet”.
Editor’s note from Quibla: This is an extremely worrisome sentence. It goes against judicial precedent with regards to criticism of religions, whatever they are. It is enough to read Shamir’s book to realise that the charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ are clearly unfounded. In the Elders of Zion and the Masters of Discourse, in 2002, Shamir tries to analyse why, one century after their first publication, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion continue to have such a success throughout the world. He concludes that it is because the Zionists behave from day to day as if they were applying the programme of domination described in this book. The publisher has been the victim of this iniquitous condemnation and will appeal. This matter is far from at an end.
‘What demon is annoying you and leading you to slander?
So a book displeases you; who is forcing you to read it?’
Boileau
Israel Shamir’s Parisian publisher sentenced to pay €23,500 and given a three-month suspended prison sentence.
It was an absolutely staggering piece of news that came down on the wires of the Agence France-Presse at 5.34pm on the 2nd of November. We reproduce it below as is.
On Wednesday, the court in Nanterre sentenced the manager of the publishing house Al Qalam to three months in prison, suspended, and to a fine of €10,000 for having published Israel Shamir’s anti-Semitic work, L’autre visage d’Israël (The Other Face of Israel); furthermore, the sale of he book has been prohibited.
The court found Abdelila Cherifi Alaoui, the manager of the publishing house, Al Qalam, guilty of ‘incitement to discrimination, exhortation to hatred and violence’ towards the membership of a religion.
In addition to the suspended three-month prison sentence and the fine of €10,000, Al Qalam will also have to pay €12,000 in damages and €1,500 in court expenses on behalf of the plaintiff, the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). Lastly, the publisher has 30 days to withdraw the book from all bookshops, under a €100 penalty for every copy remaining on the shelves at the end of that period.
The court justified its judgement by the fact that ‘the expression “juifs”(Jews) is always used in the plural’ in the book, and they are portrayed as ‘dominating the world’, within an overall framework of a ‘third world war’ currently being carried out, according to the author. As well, the court finds that ‘the author reveals himself to be a rather old-fashioned anti-Semite, particularly where he quotes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’
First published in 1905 in Russia, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book announcing how the Jews intended to satisfy their hatred, destroy Christian civilisation and seize world power, went round the world, selling millions of copies.
Recognised as an obvious forgery since 1921 (it had apparently been conjured up by the secret service of the Tsar, who was opposed to any liberalisation of his rule of Russia and thus attempted to use it as proof of an alleged Zionist plot against him); it continues, however, to be widely used and presented as authentic by those wishing to justify their anti-Semitic claims. The Nazis, in particular, claimed it being authentic. In The Other Face of Israel, Israel Shamir says on page 282: “the Protocols ought to be regarded as a political pamphlet”.
Editor’s note from Quibla: This is an extremely worrisome sentence. It goes against judicial precedent with regards to criticism of religions, whatever they are. It is enough to read Shamir’s book to realise that the charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ are clearly unfounded. In the Elders of Zion and the Masters of Discourse, in 2002, Shamir tries to analyse why, one century after their first publication, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion continue to have such a success throughout the world. He concludes that it is because the Zionists behave from day to day as if they were applying the programme of domination described in this book. The publisher has been the victim of this iniquitous condemnation and will appeal. This matter is far from at an end.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Sword of St. Michael
By Israel Shamir
In The Dune, a visionary film that predicted the US invasion of the Middle East, the spiritual leader of the Resistance is asked: "Will we ever have peace?"
"We'll have victory", he replied.
Indeed, the invader may relent and seek for peace; an attacked must seek victory until the invader will seek peace. Thus, during the Vietnam War, good Americans demanded 'peace', but people of Vietnam and their supporters elsewhere sought to defeat the invader.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our heart, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence." - Mohandas K. Gandhi
The rule is often forgotten by modern proponents of pacifism and non-violence. They preach non-violence to the oppressed as the panacea for their troubles. Not surprisingly, non-violence gets very good media coverage and is supplied for downtrodden in great abundance.
The Holy Land received recently a grandson of Mahatma Gandhi who went teaching non-violence to the Palestinians in Ramallah. Good idea, wrong place: non-violence is the daily bread of vast majority of Palestinians, while their 'violence of the oppressed' is a rare and precious thing; without it, non-violence has no meaning. The lion's share of violence is done by the Jewish state, though it is often "suspended violence", as an Israeli philosopher and a friend of Palestine, Adi Ophir, has called it
"-- violence suspended as the Damocles sword, as a suspended sentence ready to uncoil any moment. Pacifiers leave the suspended violence in place; that is why instead of seeking peace we may seek victory."
What is more annoying is an attempt to establish non-violence as the only acceptable way, as a religiously orthodox norm of dissent. "Nothing justifies violence", or "Two wrongs do not make a right" - one hears these pseudo-wisdom cracks daily. It is not true from any point of view; even from the highest moral ground, violence is justified and commanded in order to save another person's life and dignity. A saintly man may follow the Sermon of the Mount advice to the dot and turn his right cheek to be slapped; but he may not pass by a rapist or a murderer at his vile deed and leave him unchecked. He must kill him, if there is no other way to stop the murderer. We are free to give up our life and dignity, but we have a duty to defend others. Equally, justice is "doing wrong" by imprisoning, fining or executing a man for he did "wrong" by murder or rape; in such a way "two wrongs make one right", indeed.
This simple rule is sometimes forgotten, often intentionally, by non-violence preachers. In the T-net discussion (reproduced below), a pacific Indian-Canadian, Ardeshir Mehta claimed that: "One can be a Christian, or one can advocate violence, but one can't be both."
He was neither, but words of Christ are often quoted with the same ease Nietzsche quoted Zarathustra. The radical South African, Joh Domingo retorted: "Do I justify Palestinian violence? No, I support it".
Is violent resistance wrong and a non-Christian act?
This question brought to my mind a picture I have seen in Medina del Campo, a small Castilian town that hosted an exhibition in memory of Isabella la Catolica, the Queen of Columbus and Granada. The picture by her contemporary El Maestro de Zafra (Alejo Fernandez) was one of the most striking and impressive of the art of his period, of any period, period. In the midst of an Apocalyptic battle, amongst saints and angels, devils and dragons, on the deep blue background, shone a handsome, calm, serene countenance of St Michael with raised sword in one hand and the embossed shield in the other. A visage of supreme beauty, somewhat androgynous as angels are, the serene St Michael knew no hate; fury clouded not his calm blue eyes. Anger furrowed not his brow crowned with cross, but his sword was not a toy and it was raised to smite.
Tucked away in a deep valley lies the Palestinian village of En Karim, where red and purple bunches of bougainvillea embrace its delightful Visitation Church, which marks the meeting of the two expecting mothers. In its second storey, there is a big painting of the Lepanto maritime battle, with the Virgin as the battle spirit, the Commander of the Celestial Army and the Defender of Faith, akin to the St Michael of Castilians, to Nike of Greeks and to Valkyries of the North; a manifestation of Christ, who said, 'I've brought you not peace but sword', the sword of St Michael.
The Christian faith contains seemingly contradictory ideas; this is one of its unique qualities. It includes the example of St Francis of Assisi who considered it his best pleasure to be humiliated and thrown into snow. But it also includes the risen sword of St Michael. These two opposites are harmonized by our love to God and to our fellow human being. This love can cause us to give everything including our life, and it can cause us to take life, as well.
As our friend and philosopher Michael Neumann eloquently stated, "Christianity is a religion of love, but not of cloying, hippy-dippy love. The repentant sinner is loved. The sinner persisting in sin is abhorred, but receives God's love if or when he receives the grace to repent. Think of Tertullian: what we learn on Judgment Day is who, in the end, is hated. We must always love our enemies, but not the enemies of God."
Too often, non-violence grows not out of humility and self-sacrifice, but out of self-preservation and fear, fear of supporting the right side in the war. It is easier to be "against wars and violence" in general than it is to stand against an aggressor and invader, especially if your country happens to be the aggressor and invader.
Thus, in Italy, Communist leader Fausto Bertinotti has proclaimed that he is "Against the Iraqi War for he is a pacifist and against wars in general'. After such a statement, he had no reason to demand the return home of Italian soldiers. And he did not. What a change for a party that had once taught the ringing words of that great rebel, Chairman Mao, "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun"!
True, the Italians have found themselves in a tight corner. For the second time in the last sixty years their country has chosen a wrong partner - two times too many! Sixty years ago, young Italian soldiers went with Hitler to Stalingrad; today, their sons and grandchildren proceed with Bush to Baghdad. Still, then as now, a painful duty of an Italian man of conscience is to wish the speedy victory to the people who shoot at Italian troops, be it Russian soldiers on Volga River or Iraqi resistance fighters on Euphrates.
Some wars are silly: nobody knows why the WWI was fought - there was not even a Helen to be brought home from the banks of Spree River. In such a war, one should not fight. But in this war we have a right and a wrong side, and we are duty bound to support right against wrong.
Regarding the Third World War waged in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is not enough to be "against the war" and preach non-violence "to both sides". One has to give full moral support to the fighters who resist the invader just as the Russians resisted the German and Italian aggression in WWII. In the same way, good Americans supported the Viet Cong against their own army; and good French - like our friends Ginette Scandrani and Serge Thion - supported the Algerian resistance. Pacifism offers a coward's escape from facing moral choice.
The moral record of pacifism is far from perfect. Many readers have heard of a wartime American book by a Dr. Kaufman who proposed to sterilize the Germans to get rid of the war drive. The German propaganda ministry reprinted this book by the millions to steel the spirit of their fighters and to remind them that they were defending not only their Fatherland but their Fatherhood as well. Not many people know that the same Dr. Kaufman proposed to sterilize Americans, too - he was a convinced pacifist and thought there was nothing like mass sterilization to bring universal peace.
Another great pacifist, Lord Bertrand Russell, advocated nuking Soviet Russia in order to bring peace. Father of non-violence Mahatma Gandhi advised the Jews to commit mass suicide to shame their Nazi oppressors, while his political career ended with one of the biggest massacres in human history. In short, pacifism is a quirky, doubtful and unsuccessful idea.
In the past, the enemies of Christ tried to convince Christians (in my view Muslims are Christians too, for they believe that Jesus is Christ) to accept non-violence and pacifism by various sophisms. The entertaining (if anti-Christian-to-extreme) Judaic best-seller of the fourth century, Toledot Yeshu, tells us of a cunning Jew who came to the first Christians and told them he was sent by Christ. He indoctrinated them (the book says) in the name of Jesus:
"Christ suffered in Jewish hands, but he did not resist. Likewise you should suffer whatever Jews do to you and not cause them any damage just like Jesus. If a Jew demands that you walk a mile, walk even two miles; if a Jew hurts you, do not hurt him back. If a Jew strikes your right cheek, offer him your left cheek out of your love to Jesus and do not cause Jews any trouble, big or small. If a Jew insults you, do not punish him but tell him: "It is your arrogance that speaks;" and let him go freely. If you want to be with Jesus in the Better World, you should suffer all the evil caused to you by Jews and repay them with good deeds and mercy".
We do not know whether such an indoctrination attempt ever took place in the murky years preceding Constantine's conversion, (the 4th Century AD is when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and Christianity became the official faith of the Roman Empire), but if such an attempt was made, it failed profoundly as many an insolent Jew learned to his peril. It is not that Christians forgot the words of Jesus (his pacific message did not relate to Jews in particular), but the Christian faith is not a collection of his sayings; it is manifested in the living body of the church, in her doctrine and praxis, and it includes the flowers of St Francis and the sword of St Michael.
The society, like everything in the universe, is in the best state when there is a balance between the yin (the passive, female principle) and yang (the active, masculine principle). Christendom was powerful when its yang was strong. Then, the church blessed many warriors and was blessed by them. St George the Dragon Slayer and St Joan of Arc wielded sword. The Western Church knew Knights Templar and St John's, and the Eastern Church venerates St Alexander Nevsky who defeated the Germans and St Sergius who prayed for victory over the Tartars. For war may have a spiritual meaning; and we may acknowledge that "war is a possible ascetical and immortalizing path", as Julius Evola summed up the medieval Christian tradition. Our Muslim brothers implied it by their double concept of a Minor Jihad (war for faith against the oppressor) and the Major Jihad (war for faith in the soul of man).
Now yin element won over the spirit of the west, while its natural un-subdued yang parted with harmony. The Peace movement is dominated by women, and it is not a coincidence. In his article Little Old Ladies for Peace, the reviewer of the Pardes, Owen Owens notes the makeup of the Peace Camp crowd as "female, old and short". For sure they are blessed, but their prevalence is a sign of misbalance. Beside the Yin Peace Movement, there is - or there should be - the Yang Victory Movement. They, the fighters with AK machineguns cautiously treading the narrow streets of Nablus or Faluja, the French farmers of Bove crushing McDonalds with their bulldozers, the demonstrators of Seattle and Genoa, partisans of Che Guevara and rebels of Mishima are the latter day Christ warriors, holding out against the ultimate anti-Christian force in the history of Christendom. Hail the warriors; hang not on their shooting arm. Maybe we won't have peace; but we'll have victory.
In The Dune, a visionary film that predicted the US invasion of the Middle East, the spiritual leader of the Resistance is asked: "Will we ever have peace?"
"We'll have victory", he replied.
Indeed, the invader may relent and seek for peace; an attacked must seek victory until the invader will seek peace. Thus, during the Vietnam War, good Americans demanded 'peace', but people of Vietnam and their supporters elsewhere sought to defeat the invader.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our heart, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence." - Mohandas K. Gandhi
The rule is often forgotten by modern proponents of pacifism and non-violence. They preach non-violence to the oppressed as the panacea for their troubles. Not surprisingly, non-violence gets very good media coverage and is supplied for downtrodden in great abundance.
The Holy Land received recently a grandson of Mahatma Gandhi who went teaching non-violence to the Palestinians in Ramallah. Good idea, wrong place: non-violence is the daily bread of vast majority of Palestinians, while their 'violence of the oppressed' is a rare and precious thing; without it, non-violence has no meaning. The lion's share of violence is done by the Jewish state, though it is often "suspended violence", as an Israeli philosopher and a friend of Palestine, Adi Ophir, has called it
"-- violence suspended as the Damocles sword, as a suspended sentence ready to uncoil any moment. Pacifiers leave the suspended violence in place; that is why instead of seeking peace we may seek victory."
What is more annoying is an attempt to establish non-violence as the only acceptable way, as a religiously orthodox norm of dissent. "Nothing justifies violence", or "Two wrongs do not make a right" - one hears these pseudo-wisdom cracks daily. It is not true from any point of view; even from the highest moral ground, violence is justified and commanded in order to save another person's life and dignity. A saintly man may follow the Sermon of the Mount advice to the dot and turn his right cheek to be slapped; but he may not pass by a rapist or a murderer at his vile deed and leave him unchecked. He must kill him, if there is no other way to stop the murderer. We are free to give up our life and dignity, but we have a duty to defend others. Equally, justice is "doing wrong" by imprisoning, fining or executing a man for he did "wrong" by murder or rape; in such a way "two wrongs make one right", indeed.
This simple rule is sometimes forgotten, often intentionally, by non-violence preachers. In the T-net discussion (reproduced below), a pacific Indian-Canadian, Ardeshir Mehta claimed that: "One can be a Christian, or one can advocate violence, but one can't be both."
He was neither, but words of Christ are often quoted with the same ease Nietzsche quoted Zarathustra. The radical South African, Joh Domingo retorted: "Do I justify Palestinian violence? No, I support it".
Is violent resistance wrong and a non-Christian act?
This question brought to my mind a picture I have seen in Medina del Campo, a small Castilian town that hosted an exhibition in memory of Isabella la Catolica, the Queen of Columbus and Granada. The picture by her contemporary El Maestro de Zafra (Alejo Fernandez) was one of the most striking and impressive of the art of his period, of any period, period. In the midst of an Apocalyptic battle, amongst saints and angels, devils and dragons, on the deep blue background, shone a handsome, calm, serene countenance of St Michael with raised sword in one hand and the embossed shield in the other. A visage of supreme beauty, somewhat androgynous as angels are, the serene St Michael knew no hate; fury clouded not his calm blue eyes. Anger furrowed not his brow crowned with cross, but his sword was not a toy and it was raised to smite.
Tucked away in a deep valley lies the Palestinian village of En Karim, where red and purple bunches of bougainvillea embrace its delightful Visitation Church, which marks the meeting of the two expecting mothers. In its second storey, there is a big painting of the Lepanto maritime battle, with the Virgin as the battle spirit, the Commander of the Celestial Army and the Defender of Faith, akin to the St Michael of Castilians, to Nike of Greeks and to Valkyries of the North; a manifestation of Christ, who said, 'I've brought you not peace but sword', the sword of St Michael.
The Christian faith contains seemingly contradictory ideas; this is one of its unique qualities. It includes the example of St Francis of Assisi who considered it his best pleasure to be humiliated and thrown into snow. But it also includes the risen sword of St Michael. These two opposites are harmonized by our love to God and to our fellow human being. This love can cause us to give everything including our life, and it can cause us to take life, as well.
As our friend and philosopher Michael Neumann eloquently stated, "Christianity is a religion of love, but not of cloying, hippy-dippy love. The repentant sinner is loved. The sinner persisting in sin is abhorred, but receives God's love if or when he receives the grace to repent. Think of Tertullian: what we learn on Judgment Day is who, in the end, is hated. We must always love our enemies, but not the enemies of God."
Too often, non-violence grows not out of humility and self-sacrifice, but out of self-preservation and fear, fear of supporting the right side in the war. It is easier to be "against wars and violence" in general than it is to stand against an aggressor and invader, especially if your country happens to be the aggressor and invader.
Thus, in Italy, Communist leader Fausto Bertinotti has proclaimed that he is "Against the Iraqi War for he is a pacifist and against wars in general'. After such a statement, he had no reason to demand the return home of Italian soldiers. And he did not. What a change for a party that had once taught the ringing words of that great rebel, Chairman Mao, "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun"!
True, the Italians have found themselves in a tight corner. For the second time in the last sixty years their country has chosen a wrong partner - two times too many! Sixty years ago, young Italian soldiers went with Hitler to Stalingrad; today, their sons and grandchildren proceed with Bush to Baghdad. Still, then as now, a painful duty of an Italian man of conscience is to wish the speedy victory to the people who shoot at Italian troops, be it Russian soldiers on Volga River or Iraqi resistance fighters on Euphrates.
Some wars are silly: nobody knows why the WWI was fought - there was not even a Helen to be brought home from the banks of Spree River. In such a war, one should not fight. But in this war we have a right and a wrong side, and we are duty bound to support right against wrong.
Regarding the Third World War waged in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is not enough to be "against the war" and preach non-violence "to both sides". One has to give full moral support to the fighters who resist the invader just as the Russians resisted the German and Italian aggression in WWII. In the same way, good Americans supported the Viet Cong against their own army; and good French - like our friends Ginette Scandrani and Serge Thion - supported the Algerian resistance. Pacifism offers a coward's escape from facing moral choice.
The moral record of pacifism is far from perfect. Many readers have heard of a wartime American book by a Dr. Kaufman who proposed to sterilize the Germans to get rid of the war drive. The German propaganda ministry reprinted this book by the millions to steel the spirit of their fighters and to remind them that they were defending not only their Fatherland but their Fatherhood as well. Not many people know that the same Dr. Kaufman proposed to sterilize Americans, too - he was a convinced pacifist and thought there was nothing like mass sterilization to bring universal peace.
Another great pacifist, Lord Bertrand Russell, advocated nuking Soviet Russia in order to bring peace. Father of non-violence Mahatma Gandhi advised the Jews to commit mass suicide to shame their Nazi oppressors, while his political career ended with one of the biggest massacres in human history. In short, pacifism is a quirky, doubtful and unsuccessful idea.
In the past, the enemies of Christ tried to convince Christians (in my view Muslims are Christians too, for they believe that Jesus is Christ) to accept non-violence and pacifism by various sophisms. The entertaining (if anti-Christian-to-extreme) Judaic best-seller of the fourth century, Toledot Yeshu, tells us of a cunning Jew who came to the first Christians and told them he was sent by Christ. He indoctrinated them (the book says) in the name of Jesus:
"Christ suffered in Jewish hands, but he did not resist. Likewise you should suffer whatever Jews do to you and not cause them any damage just like Jesus. If a Jew demands that you walk a mile, walk even two miles; if a Jew hurts you, do not hurt him back. If a Jew strikes your right cheek, offer him your left cheek out of your love to Jesus and do not cause Jews any trouble, big or small. If a Jew insults you, do not punish him but tell him: "It is your arrogance that speaks;" and let him go freely. If you want to be with Jesus in the Better World, you should suffer all the evil caused to you by Jews and repay them with good deeds and mercy".
We do not know whether such an indoctrination attempt ever took place in the murky years preceding Constantine's conversion, (the 4th Century AD is when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and Christianity became the official faith of the Roman Empire), but if such an attempt was made, it failed profoundly as many an insolent Jew learned to his peril. It is not that Christians forgot the words of Jesus (his pacific message did not relate to Jews in particular), but the Christian faith is not a collection of his sayings; it is manifested in the living body of the church, in her doctrine and praxis, and it includes the flowers of St Francis and the sword of St Michael.
The society, like everything in the universe, is in the best state when there is a balance between the yin (the passive, female principle) and yang (the active, masculine principle). Christendom was powerful when its yang was strong. Then, the church blessed many warriors and was blessed by them. St George the Dragon Slayer and St Joan of Arc wielded sword. The Western Church knew Knights Templar and St John's, and the Eastern Church venerates St Alexander Nevsky who defeated the Germans and St Sergius who prayed for victory over the Tartars. For war may have a spiritual meaning; and we may acknowledge that "war is a possible ascetical and immortalizing path", as Julius Evola summed up the medieval Christian tradition. Our Muslim brothers implied it by their double concept of a Minor Jihad (war for faith against the oppressor) and the Major Jihad (war for faith in the soul of man).
Now yin element won over the spirit of the west, while its natural un-subdued yang parted with harmony. The Peace movement is dominated by women, and it is not a coincidence. In his article Little Old Ladies for Peace, the reviewer of the Pardes, Owen Owens notes the makeup of the Peace Camp crowd as "female, old and short". For sure they are blessed, but their prevalence is a sign of misbalance. Beside the Yin Peace Movement, there is - or there should be - the Yang Victory Movement. They, the fighters with AK machineguns cautiously treading the narrow streets of Nablus or Faluja, the French farmers of Bove crushing McDonalds with their bulldozers, the demonstrators of Seattle and Genoa, partisans of Che Guevara and rebels of Mishima are the latter day Christ warriors, holding out against the ultimate anti-Christian force in the history of Christendom. Hail the warriors; hang not on their shooting arm. Maybe we won't have peace; but we'll have victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)