Since last Omnibus of Feb 15, we had a lot of interesting letters and articles. The Omnibus is doing a monthly update for the thoughtful reader who does not necessarily lives in the cyberspace. It is divided into three emails because of sheer size.
Part One deals with the Satanic Pictures and its follow up.
By the way, our geography is improving all the time. We have now good friends in Thailand, where John Cadet email@example.com runs a similar mail list, and people of the SE Asia may contact him to receive it. We have now readers in Czech and Slovak languages, as Mike writes:
I read an article written by you on the Czech website www.zvedavec.org and subsequently opened your website. What a read! What a breath of fresh air! I have always defended the Palestinian in there battle for freedom and I am mostly laughed at. Anyhow, great articles. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
Milos "Mike" Janek
Re Satanic Pictures
(published in a few languages on www.israelshamir.net and on http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_21141.shtml among others)
From Daniel, the US
From Ian Buckley, England
My compliments - EXCELLENT! I was particularly struck by your comments on the increasing lack of freedom in the US and Britain which encapsulated what so many of us feel.
Decent, conventional people - particularly in those two countries - are apt to undergo what the psychologists call visceral clutch when they encounter a phrase like 'the unified and perfected Jewish media machine'. But decent, conventional people should realise that they had better start thinking 'unconventionally' or face a dim non-future of endless war, economic downturn and regimentation.
From Maria Poumier, France
…stop thinking that Blacks are good only with banjos (banjo is a kind of guitar, perhaps you meant drums?), it is blindness, and you can go further in your teaching! remember at least that you will need them: they made the united states free from slavery (it was not white generosity, the slaves made slavery unproductive by their rebellions) and lower as much as they can the mental enslavement by zionist sense of conquest in the USA.
… freedom of speech is a trap, because at war, any cause needs limitation of that freedom; Fidel Castro says : " con la revolucion, todo, contra la revolucion, nada", which means : for the revolution, anything can be said, but against, nothing. Your best argument was in the first version : we have the moral duty to defend the jailed ones; about security belts, you are not very convincing, because we love them, all of us, as other people use hats, and feel naked without them; I suppose you can be more persuasive with the example of safe sex or free sex; safe sex (and all contraceptive methods) is simply castrated sex, very poor sex…
From Mikkel, Denmark
Might this be the real purpose for all the phoney troubles?
Wednesday, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen appeared on the "Profilen" on DR1 on TV. Here, he said, “We should be very careful that religion does not get to fill too much in public space. I would very much like a society where we judge the individual human being on the personal qualities, will, abilities of that particular human being, and not whether he is a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew."
"We have a tradition to divide between politics and religion, and from the starting point, religion is a personal matter between the individual and the god, which he believes in."
Birthe Rønn Hornbech - member of Mr. Fogh Rasmussen's own ruling Liberal Left Party and chairman of Parliament's Church Committee – commented: “I cannot put off my Christianity when I am in Parliament, but I do not preach the Gospel from the platform," and she also said, "We can respect their right to have a faith, but of course, we cannot submit ourselves to their faith, and that is also what I hear the Prime Minister saying."
It is NOT what I'm hearing him say!
Most Danes are members of the Lutheran State Church, but the fewest goes to church. The doors of the our Churches have been open wide for years. Maybe God will now close the doors of His Church?
Regards, Mikkel S. Kragh, Denmark
(As quoted from The Berlingske Tidende, 17th February, 2006)
From Tarik Hussein, Copenhagen
Your article “Satanic Pictures” overwhelms me with frustration. You make it all so black and white. But is it not possible to dislike the drawings and the people behind them, yet still be appalled about world-wide Muslim reactions to them?
As every schoolboy knows, when you are mocked, getting angry only invites more mockery. This is basic psychology. Unless, of course, you can beat the shit out of the mocker, then you will finally get the mocker to shut up. But then you will also look like a brute idiot!!! At best, you will make people fearful enough to mock you behind your back instead.
Both things have happened in this case, inviting more mockery and making Muslims look like brutes at the same time. Muslims have proved themselves unable to shrug off offence from people we do not even need to take seriously at all. This is very unfortunate for us Muslims living in Denmark who - unlike you intellectual folks on the net - have to deal with the consequences.
I have lived for 25 years in Denmark. Its debating style is straightforward, very tough but everyone can get listened to. In Denmark no one is spared over-the-top satire in the public debate, so in that regard, we Muslims should not decry some “equality”. The Danish government funds 85% of the cost of private all-Muslim schools, and we have full freedom to build mosques and cemeteries ourselves (although some in our community seem to think that the Danish Christian tax payers should foot the bill for this too). Anyway, this country has certainly been a lot more respectful of religious freedoms and welcoming to migrant workers and refugees than, say, Saudi Arabia, which bans even possession of the Bible. Denmark started by giving me free language teaching, free supplementary education, free health care, even free psychological aid, plus a generous allowance (by the standards of Iraq where I came from, after escaping conscription to a fratricidal war against Iran). And Denmark has given me every opportunity to work and earn money. Of course, there are some stupid racists and anti-Muslim Christian fundamentalists around, but most Danish people are just generally sceptical of all organised religion and ideology, their own included. We have a Muslim Member of Parliament, a Palestinian born in Syria, Nasser Khader, who is highly popular among the native Danes for his moderate views and constructive contributions to the integration of immigrants. He was, by the way, recently called a “rat in a hole” by Imam Abu Laban, another Palestinian living in Denmark who travelled the world to draw attention to these blasphemous drawings, when the Muslim world initially ignored them. (Only months later, once the storm had been raised, did the other European papers publish the cartoons, just to correct the utterly mistaken chronology in your article. To top it all, it was an Egyptian newspaper, which published them second).
Try some argument instead of gut reaction. Depictions of the Prophet Muhammed, Peace Be With Him, are banned to prevent idolatry, not to stop blasphemy! Even so, the Shiites have long made more flattering portraits, indeed you can buy pictures of Muhammad on the streets of Teheran! Secondly, you assume the Danish newspaper’s intention was to offend, which may well be true. Nevertheless, the possible hidden agenda and neo-con sympathies of the editor do not exempt you from tackling his argument about free speech, the same argument you make, rightly, in favour of David Irving and others. You seem to assume that two wrongs make a right, that attacking free speech is an appropriate answer to the attack on free speech. But interestingly, the US government and the US Christian right have largely sided with the Muslim protesters by only saying how horrible these drawings are, and saying nothing to defend the cornered Danish prime minister, supposedly a staunch ally. Perhaps there is a tacit alliance here between two kinds of right-wing fascism, namely Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, who can agree on the aim of rolling back certain freedoms which they both abhor, who want special protection of religion, so that their religious views do not need to be argued like ideological ones!!!
In Denmark, both the moderate right and the moderate left have agreed that liking or not liking the cartoons is irrelevant to this case. No matter how wrong the cartoons, the newspaper had the right to publish them, and the whole nation cannot be forced into an apology for something the nation as such has not done, though we should of course, in the ideal world, try to communicate and get along and not offend each other needlessly. Those who are perfectly comfortable fighting each other by escalating the rhetoric are, in this case, extreme Islamists and extreme Danish nationalists (some of them Christian fundamentalist), which are really just two different types of right-wing extremism!!!
In fact, the editor Mr. Rose did not commission any particular portrait of the Prophet, he left that up to the cartoonists. I agree the drawings were provocative, stupid and uncalled for, but there is only clues and no logical proof they were deliberately meant to offend. But okay, let us assume they were anyway. How incredibly successful Muslims themselves have then made this offence!!!
The Muslim reaction bore out the newspaper’s and right-wing nationalists’ paranoia that some immigrants want to impose not only Islamic views, but ISLAMIC RULES on Denmark, using the muscle of Islam as a world power. No, we do not want Danish people to follow the laws of our religion, unless they want to, but this now became many Danish people’s impression thanks to the reaction of those loud extremists among us Muslims, those who always claim to speak on behalf of all of us, just as the most extremist Danish nationalists claim to speak on behalf of all Danish people. This deep-felt apology sums up the mood among many of my neighbors:
“We´re sorry we gave you shelter when war drove you from your home country....
We´re sorry we gave you the opportunity to get a good education.....
We´re sorry we gave you food and a home when you had none.....
We´re sorry we let you re-unite with your family when your homeland was no longer safe...
We´re sorry we never forced you to work while WE paid all your bills.....
We´re sorry we gave you almost FREE rent, phone, car and school for your 10 kids...
We´re sorry we build you Mosques so you could worship your religion in our Christian land...
We´re sorry we never forced you to learn our language after staying 30 years....”
END OF QUOTE, because after that, it gets rather rude and racist.
In one thing you are right. This cartoon row does not pitch Muslims against Christians. It is not even a fight between bigoted, small-minded cartoons and common-sense moderation. No, it is indeed between intolerance and freedom of expression!!! I know you brush aside the freedom of expression argument, but this is because you, just like me, disagree with what is expressed. Yes, I do too, but I nevertheless defend the right to express even misguided and outright offensive ideas and images. As I will defend your right, Shamir, to write things that offend me.
Yes, like it or not, freedom of expression is also about the freedom to offend and degrade, to mock and blaspheme (only that people committing such acts blatantly judge themselves and become ineffective in their arguments, making reasoned arguments a much better choice). Because in some cases, one person’s insult may be another’s fair viewpoint, which is why we cannot impose our own limits on anyone else. And this, only this, is why a series of newspapers across Europe subsequently decided to publish these third-grade drawings, not because they are against Muslims or agree with any of the various messages of these drawings, but because they want to show that they will not be cowed by death threats and torched embassies!
Discrimination against people due to race or creed is indeed despicable, but let us not forget that religion is, unlike race, also an ideology, sometimes even a political one. For this reason, so sorry to all those offended, but we cannot uphold religious viewpoints as less subject to mockery than any other viewpoint. My advice to avoid rage: be self-confident enough in your belief.
Peace be with you all.
Hope you will publish this as a contribution to freedom of expression.
All the best from
Tarik Hussein, Copenhagen
Israel Shamir replied:
Dear Tarik, I surely will publish your response, and I had published similar responses (from Beirut, actually). If you will have time to re-read my article you won't find there any opinion, positive or negative, on the cartoons per se, and I am for the right to publish whatever publishable. Even more, I say that the idea behind the publication is to undermine the freedom of expression. So I do agree with you on that.
I see the publication by JP as an enemy action - not only against Muslims, but first of all against freedom of expression.
Tarik Hussein added:
Excellent, I am very pleased I can have my say in this!!!
Let me add that Jyllands-Posten and the Danish right-wing press has indeed defended Mr. Irving's freedom (not his views, of course), despite rebukes from Jewish people who normally back those same papers.
Irving's present wife is Danish, she is campaigning for his freedom, but also calls him "a crackpot" and his theories "laughable", while Irving's teenage daughter's favourite book is Anna Frank's Diary!
Joh Domingo writes:
The Pictures are indeed not 'strong stuff' but I do believe you miss the point. The publication of these pictures is not the big deal; editors that publish them in Jordan and elsewhere in the Muslim world face misdemeanour charges, at most a penalty of three months imprisonment. The Insult intended is more serious, but few Muslim countries would have evoked the maximum penalty allowed under Islamic law. Pictures have appeared before, some penned by Muslims, but none of them were officially sanctioned.
Few Muslims are demanding the censorship of the Press, or insisting that freedom of Speech be suspended; what they are doing is exercising their right to be insulted, and demanding an apology. They could have done this on a multitude of issues before this; Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11; a whole host of transgressions against Muslims by the west. They have settled on what seems to be a minor issue in comparison, for very good reason; every Muslim can identify regardless of political leaning, regardless of whether one was Shi'ite or Sunni; Hanafi or Shafiyah.
It is perfect because it demonstrates clearly the arrogance of the west in their belief that they can prescribe to Muslims how they should react. It is perfect because it is an issue the west cannot divide Muslims on, only the extremely marginalized would agree that the reaction is out of order. Muslims for Homosexuality perhaps, or Muslims against Islam.
I, for one, am satisfied that it is a grievous error on the part of the Zionist; they sought to cement the anti-Islam bigotry of the West, hardly a noteworthy achievement in itself since the West is extremely bigoted against Islam already. But they did serve to demonstrate to Muslims that they can indeed act in unison, and when they do, it cannot be easily contained. That is a lesson that is not missed, believe me, and once exposed, is a genie that is hard to put back into the bottle.
From this will evolve informal action committees: to implement boycotts, to lobby for the ejection of diplomats, sanctions against countries ... a whole host of resistance type activities. Always, people will be reminded of the arrogance with which the Prophet was insulted. This campaign was launched on an international scale utilizing the Mosque pulpit. Previously, when people attempted to introduce politics into the service, there were objections. This time, there was absolutely no objection. The boycotts will stick, and Denmark will not be allowed free movement in Islamic countries again. Such a thing will blow over in west, it will not in Islamic countries because it is grassroots driven, and every action against a Muslim, will be linked to this action against Islam. It is a small thing; with big consequences.
Tarik Hussein responds:
The problem is that those offended did not want an apology to those who did the insult, but from the Prime Minister of a sovereign country, who has no leverage over what the press says. That only makes sense if those offended demand that Denmark changes its Constitution and press regime to something more similar to what goes in Saudi Arabia! The newspaper actually did issue an apology. But at this stage, no one cares, what Muslim activists want is an issue to mobilise on. And to hell with reasoned argument. Bigotry, I am afraid, is not confined to one camp. Bigotry is only an extreme symptom of a wider clash of values. Danish culture is both free speech and free sex, and the loathing of each others' cultural values is often mutual.
Danish Cartoons as a Second Jewish 9/11
By Patrick H. McNally (Tokyo)
Elite Jewry really has to be congratulated on the ingenious way it has been able to suck stupid Whites into fighting its multi-faceted war against the Islamic world. The fingers of elite Jewry are all over New York’s 9/11 debacle, but nobody in the White power elite dare point that out. Even the supposedly intrepid prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago, is mainly on the trail of Lee Harvey Oswald type patsies. Perhaps the reason is that there no longer exists a white power structure because the remaining whites have been reduced to "paradie goyim" [showcase Gentiles] for Judyism.
Can you say "Larry Silverman?" That would be a great place to start to unravel Mr. Jew`s key role in orchestrating the 9/11 event and its cataclysmic consequences. We need a new Michael Collins Piper book like "Final Judgment" to do for 9/11 what that magnificent book did for the JFK, RFK, and JFK2 murders, i.e. lift the curtain on the evil machinations of elite Jewry.
Apparently the effect of 9/11 was ebbing, so Mr. Jew wanted to pour oil on the flames by heating up the Islamic world with a cleverly concocted cartoon scandal. All skilfully orchestrated by a handful of traitorous Jews in high places throughout the White world. Danish Jew and American Jew traitors meet and plan. Danish Jew publishes cartoon and there ensues only civilized diplomatic Islamic protest. Then a dozen or so high profile Euro-joosmedia hate sheets spread the poison in pseudo-Christian Europe. Is all this done in the name of bigotry, hate speech, incitement of the masses to despise Islam? Oh no! Done in the name of free speech, human rights, toleration, European Enlightenment, blah blah blah! Elite Jewry has certainly mastered the art of mouthing the piousities and obligatory rhetoric of the Euro sheeples and knows how to play on cattle-goyim minds like on a violin.
Finally, the hypocritically contrived scandal has the desired effect on the Islamic street and Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonalds, and other American based business interests get trashed. And it is all made to look like a primitive Islamic world rejecting modernity. But, in fact, it is Jewdayism`s reptile racism waging a two-front war against both the ex-Christian White world and Islam. Of course, Jews themselves do not fight and die. Only the cattle-goyim on the two fronts. Just like the stupid White cattle-goyim slaughtered one another by the millions during World War II which was first started in 1933 by elite Jewry`s declaration of war against Germany.
Are there any Gentile capitalists, proletarians, whatever to come forth and counter attack against the Jooish elite`s destruction of their worldwide interests. Of course not! It is auntie-Semitistic, anti-semenistic, whatever to even mention such a thing. It is hate speech to suggest that an elite Jewry even exists. Hate speech is simply any speech that Mr. Jew hates. Just as an "anti-Semite" is anyone whom Mr. Jew hates. Israel Shamir is certainly right on the one point that elite Jewry is s Stealth Bomber that never appears on the cattle-goyim radar screen but, nevertheless, decimates their societies and drags them into a vicious downward vortex of total chaos.
Re: Jewish Secular Fundamentalism; by GILAD ATZMON
I like to add that this struggle is about civility.
I use the definitions of the late Anthropologist Margaret Mead. She defined civilization by the number of relatives that each person has. She said it was not the high rises, the cars and modern conveniences that people have that make them civilized. She said: The more relatives each one of us have or identify with, the more civilized a person or a group is.
A zionist who identify with jews only, can count his relatives no more than perhaps 15 Millions. An Arab might count 300 millions. A Moslem can count over a billion. a Sufi can count his relatives as 6 billion people.
I see you truly as a brother. When any of us see the pain of others and their sufferings as his own, then that is the highest form of civilization. It is a struggle of the civilized and the less civilized. Of course the least civilized can become savages when they justify taking property and shed blood and take the life of those that they do not identify with . That is when man acts
life an animal and a beast. Such men can justify anything. Thou shall not kill , becomes Targeted killing or self defense or pre emptive strike.
The truth about the Koranic Text without misinterpretation ,is that it addresses its words and its concerns and its solutions toward all humanity . It is a call to humanity to live in peace with itself and with its environment. According to Koran , If a life of an innocent person taken, it is as if all humanity has been killed. A mass murderer in that sense is killing one innocent man for any pretext is mass murder. It did not say “a life of an innocent Moslem”. It said “a soul of any innocent person”, in peace or war, regardless of his colour, religion or gender.
Koranic text calls for the highest civilization. It is a call for tolerance and to work with the natural laws of life and nature to establish balance . If man does not establish balance, there are forces that are mightier than all of the forces in the world that will always work in a mysterious ways to bring in the anti thesis and restore balance. In case of Israel, the time is coming. Voices like yours are the voice of the truth in the wilderness Your voice is one of those mightier than all of the lies and the deceptions and all the phantoms and tanks that have been mustard so far by the less civilized. As one of those beautiful voices , I salute you and send you my kindest regards and blessings.
Mike W. H.
From Michael Hoffman:
Lévy and Rushdie's Masterpiece of Hypocrisy
Collaborators with the "old totalitarianism" mount a contemptible charade
by Michael A. Hoffman II
March 7, 2006 | http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com
Orthodox Judaism's tyranny over the mind is not challenged anywhere to the degree that Islam is confronted by western intellectuals. The campaign against Islam allegedly based on a desire for freedom of speech and women’s rights, is a sham, since the religion of Orthodox Judaism, about which those who burn with indignation against "Islamism" are largely quiescent, is fervently opposed to both free speech and women's rights.
The leading Orthodox Judaic rock star, Matisyahu, will not shake hands with women, in keeping with Talmudic law. Women are discouraged from driving automobilies in certain Judaic communities. One can make a list of almost every “male chauvinist vice" practiced by Muslims and discover the same being practiced among Judaics, with the exception that Judaic sexism is not an issue with western elites.
On Feb. 28, the pompous Judaic-French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy issued, together with Salman Rushdie and ten others, a “Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism," as follows: “...Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others....
“...We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia,’ an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers. We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.”
This manifesto would be more aptly titled, Masterpiece of Hypocrisy. In the final paragraph, for "Islamophobia," substitute anti-semitism, and for "Islam," Judaism. Now what happens to the campaign for "universality of freedom of expression"? The silence of the grave!
Lévy does everything he can to snuff out the rights of Robert Faurisson and other writers in France who have been repeatedly prosecuted, fined and beaten for scrutinizing in their books and pamphlets the gas chamber icons. Lévy wishes to excoriate Islam to his heart’s content, while protecting Judaism from any similar harsh treatment. Levy’s double-standard thrives thanks to the milieu of Judaic theocratic supremacy which permeates the media salons and government bureaus of Europe.
Writers such as David Irving, Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf are imprisoned in Europe on what amounts to blasphemy charges and Lévy and the other manifesto signers have nothing to say in protest. The claim that these are intellectuals who desire to criticize “all dogmas,” is the joke of the month.
They can only get away with their flaming phoniness because a media monopoly with roots in a Judaic theocracy protects them, by ensuring that radical criticism of their nonsense is limited to obscure blogs and other cobwebbed corners of the Internet. No “credentialed” European mediacrats so much as holler the words “David Irving” at Lévy and Rushdie, those disgusting poseurs. Instead, they encourage them to primp and preen for the cameras, posing as the daring exponents of human freedom -- as defined by the rabbis.
Germar Rudolf, a research scientist, is in jail in Germany solely for having probed too deeply into the shrines and icons of Holocaustianity. But Monsieur Lévy and his co-signatories to the illustrious "manifesto" have not a single word of solidarity for this imprisoned heretic, precisely because they agree that he should be in jail.
The empty talk, shameless affectation and puffed-up sanctimony of Rushdie, Lévy and the other signers of the “manifesto,” is beyond nausea. We would wish to vomit out of our souls these scoundrels who mock freedom, but they are so vacuous and spectral, one cannot locate them even in a puddle of vomit.
Muslims of the world! Do not believe for a moment that Chafiq, Fourest, Ali, Lévy, Manji, Mozaffari, Namazie, Nasreen, Rushdie, Sfeir, Val and Warraq care anything for freedom of expression for "anti-semites" (critics of murderous, racist, sexist rabbinic doctrines), for "negationists" (revisionist researchers who doubt the theology of Holocaustianity); for Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf and other "apostates." The twelve fakers who signed the "manifesto" desire only the freedom to silence, penalize, assault and and jail, if possible, the opponents of reactionary Judaism, and nothing else.
Re: Omnibus 15 February
From Joh Domingo:
I am at a loss understanding what Ken Freeland is on about. Nowhere do I put forward a thesis that Islam is the only ideology or that 10 child families is part of an Islamic movement. I certainly hope Ken is not projecting an extreme bias. It is interesting that 'Secularist', who insist on imposing a blanket, one-size-fits-all value system, react with anguish at the prospect of any alternative.
Muslims living under secular law? Why that is only natural, and fair. Secularist living under religious law? That is an imposition, and unthinkable, and shoving Sharia down everyone's throat. I grew up in a Christian Country, with Christian laws, and it was the least objectionable aspect of it. In fact while being one of the most repressive regimes on Earth, it was also characterized by a religious freedom that is difficult to match anywhere to this day. The Huguenots, unlike the Puritans, reacted to religious persecution in Europe by enshrining the notion of religious freedom in public life into legislation, not separating it from public life. The result was a tendency to protect all religion from persecution, not removing on grounds it was a source of division. The result was complete freedom of all religions. Secularist had a hard time watching movies on a Sunday and accessing porn, but it was an imposition most could live with.
I fear Ken is infected with a deep prejudice about these things. And where the hell does the bit about 10-child families come from? We are, after all, talking about Islam, not Catholicism. Shamir critiqued my theory about 10-child families? I don't understand.
As a solid socialist, I am sorry to have to say that Marx's attack on Malthus was exactly what Frank himself emulates: purest ad hominem. This trick of the most vulgar of the Communists -- simply smear your opponent on the basis of his class origin -- does not stand up to the rigor of serious discourse. Malthus must be answered in his own terms... not for what he "is," but for what he argues. His essential argument, that if man does not take steps to limit population nature will do it for him, remains as cogent today as it was when he first promulgated it in the 19th century. Capitalism is a pestilence, but we cannot blame it for human greed nor for human concupiscence, and the urge to overpopulate is part of that. Every argument I've ever heard against Malthus' theory is ascientific. I'm as open to science as the next socialist, but Marx was not scientific in debunking Malthus, nor have been those who followed in his train, right up to and including Frank Scott.
Re: Kristoffer Larsen’s In Defence of Prophet
From Kevin Che:
Dear Israel Shamir,
“If we try to resolve terrorism with military might and nothing else,
then we will be no safer than we were before 9/11. If we truly want
a legacy of peace for our children, we need to understand that
this is a war that will ultimately be won with books, not with bombs.”
—Greg Mortenson, Parade Magazine
Greg Mortenson, director of the Central Asia Institute responsible for building 55 schools in impoverished villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan, received more than eighteen thousand letters in response to his statement in Parade Magazine and brought about worldwide awareness of the need for education in war-torn countries. Now Mortenson and celebrated journalist David Oliver Relin, winner of over forty national awards, recount the events that led to the launch of the Central Asia Institute and delve into the politics involved in creating these schools in Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Fight Terrorism and Build Nations … One School at a Time, available March 2, 2006. Please join me in spreading Mortenson’s message—with your help he can continue educating underprivileged individuals in Pakistan and Afghanistan and give them new hope and options they otherwise might not have.
Should you decide to feature/review his book on your website or in your newsletters please send me a link or a tearsheet. Advanced praise from Tom Brokaw and Mary Bono, and book and author descriptions are listed below.
Penguin Group (USA), Inc.
Ian Buckley responds:
I can do a brief review without even reading the book :-)
While building schools in impoverished areas is by definition a decent act, it seems the rationale given for building them in Afghanistan is deeply flawed. The book presupposes that we accept a crazy conspiracy theory involving 'fanatical jihadists' destroying three buildings with two planes, a weird idea which is now discounted by rational men such as American physicists and Russian military commanders. The much-maligned Taliban - who in fact more or less stopped the opium trade - were not particularly unpleasant, just VERY traditional. Their major defect ( or not, depending on your point of view) was that they had little tolerance for homosexuals or career women.
Re: David Irving’s Trial
From Ian Buckley:
Congratulations for speaking up for the 'prisoner of democracy' in For Whom The Bell Tolls.
Sadly, this support was not matched in David Irving's own country, at least not in our press.
The Daily Mail, a paper popular among the sort of conventional English ladies who are frightened (or hopeful :-)) of finding Osama hiding in their wardrobes, reported that he was a self-confessed racist who consorted with 'notorious Nazis', among whose purported number was the inoffensive Lady Michelle.
David Irving may hold a few non-PC views that are common amongst people of his age and class but so what - he also has a great sympathy with the underdog. That too was characteristic of Britain before we were mostly brutalised by bonkers Blair and before him by bonkers Thatcher.
Reading this : http://fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2004/161104.html
..... before it disappears down the memory hole.... you realise that his imprisonment may not be 100% to do with his opinions on the WWII.
He 'offended' on Iraq too, you see.
From Hugh Joseph:
Wow! Now you have really gone and done it! Thank you for your incredibly insightful essay. But, pray tell, how do these folks expect to avoid the inevitable karmic meltdown--the horrific backlash that usually attend all such endeavours, sooner or later? They need to be warned to cease and desist, but that is unlikely to happen at this advanced stage. They may pull it off, but that will be most unfortunate for everyone. The lessons of History seem to have been forgotten.
From Margit, Australia
Dear Israel Shamir,
Thank you for spelling out the truth.
I have suspected for a long time that the Shoah has nothing to do with the memory of the poor innocent souls who lived - and often died - in misery and in the interest of zionism in the concentration camps.
In fact I find it disgusting that their memory should be exploited for political (power) and financial gains. They built a quasi religion and behind it an industry which must not be destroyed. No one likes to destroy an industry that is looking after one's interests so well.
I could go on and on, but only want to say that jewish arrogance has in history met its waterloo on many occasions. I think they are heading for it once more.
Margit, Melbourne, Australia
PS Your article will be preserved for posterity.
From Gary Amirault
Israel, I sent your piece to one of my email lists. Those on the list are Christians who believe in Universal Salvation as I do also. I have never gotten so much bad email back as from this piece. Several asked to be removed from the list. I was called antisemitic and many other names. Some thought surely I was not the person who sent this piece to them. Israel, the degree that Americans have been brainwashed is absolutely astonishing. I do a lot of writing exposing a lot of the garbage in the church. I make my share of enemies doing this. But I’ve never quite been as exposed to outright hate coming back at me from any other issue. I’m amazed and clueless as to how to change any one’s mind on this. If you have any thoughts regarding making a dent into this deep lie, I’m all ears. Today I had a loud screaming match with God begging Him to help me understand how I am to present this material in a way that might help people rather than turn them against me. My main message is the teaching of the Salvation of all mankind through Jesus Christ. This Jewish issue is making me look like a total hypocrite in their eyes. How can I believe God loves everyone when I pass on this anti-Jewish information, they say. Somehow I must package this information in a better way. Help!!!!
Peace, Gary Amirault
Hermann, MO 65041
From Michael Hoffman:
This is your most astute and eloquent writing to date. Kudos!
From Hanne, Germany
Störtebeker placed your piece on his website:
.... And someone commented immediately after your text appeared that you deserve a medal, but that the true adornment of a person is his free and noble spirit! And indeed, those are true words that fit you perfectly!
All the best,
From Tom Farnsworth
Dear Mr. Shamir;
Of course there is little that I can say to contradict your article. It is factually correct. The problem is that what you write could be said of most ethnic groups. The Japanese dislike most people who are not Japanese, the Chinese have rude names for westerners, Muslims have rude names for non-Muslims. But by writing what you have, you have made it very difficult for me and others like me to deal with the anti-Semitic drivel that we face daily on the net. I'm talking about people who want to reopen the death camps... people who want to kill those of us who escaped.
From Come Carpentier
Publication is not incitement to hate:
A great deal of uncertainty and controversy remains about the exact origins of the Protocols of Zion because many of its statements are simply lifted from much older Talmudic texts authored by famous Jewish rabbis. There is no doubt that the document as we know it is a pastiche put together by unknown compilers but the sources are diverse, and several are canonically Jewish. Publishing it may not necessarily be regarded as an incitement to hatred because it merely outlines a plan for global domination. Likewise publishing the Neoconservative "Project for the new American Century" is not inciting hatred against the US or publishing "Mein Kampf", for the purpose of information is not tantamount to inciting hatred against the Germans. If you go by that yardstick of "inciting hatred" you might go on to say that the Rig Veda incites hatred against the Mlecchas and, by reaction, against the Aryas, as some anti-Hindu apologists claim. There is no end then to the endless ping pong of accusations and counter-accusations.
From Joe Sobran:
IRVING LOSES AGAIN
by Joe Sobran
A few years ago I had lunch with David Irving, now sentenced to three years in an Austrian prison for the crime of what in this country is called exercising free speech. Wouldn't you know it, the Holocaust came up. He joked that in America, Holocaust memorials were sprouting up "like McDonald's." He added seriously, "I'm not a Holocaust denier. I'm a Holocaust sceptic."
I've seen Irving several times since then, twice speaking at conferences he'd arranged, and never heard him say anything close to "Holocaust denial," the crime he has pled guilty to. The plea spared him a full ten-year sentence.
It has become routine to refer to him as "Holocaust denier David Irving," but nobody ever seems to quote him actually uttering a thought crime. In court the other day he confessed the "mistake" of saying "there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," but added, "In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis."
And what if he really had denied it? Ten years in prison for an opinion? His lawyer called the proceedings "a message trial." Actually, of course, it was a blasphemy trial.
The rationale, such as it is, for the Holocaust- denial laws of Austria (and several other countries) is that if people are allowed to deny that it happened, it may happen again. By this logic, the Holocaust is most likely to recur in the United States, since we have no such laws here. Freedom of speech could lead to a second Holocaust! Thomas Jefferson has a lot to answer for.
Does that sound just a wee bit hysterical? It reminds me of the incredible uproar over Mel Gibson's film THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, which, we were assured (in advance, by people who hadn't seen it), would cause hatred of Jews and even "violence" against them.
Now that was a pretty clear test case of this peculiar theory of historical causation. And the result? Though the movie was a huge hit, it resulted in not a single incident of violence against anyone. Even one such incident would have made headlines. "See what we told you?"
But when no pogroms occurred, nobody expressed surprise, relief, or the disappointment a prophet of doom experiences when things turn out all right. Mel Gibson made a lot of money, Abe Foxman made a lot of money, nobody got hurt. You'd think everyone would be contented with the outcome.
Even the people who predicted violence didn't really believe it, of course. Nobody in his right mind expected violence. We are so used to prophecies of violence against minorities, especially Jews, that we don't bother keeping track of them, any more than we keep track of astrologers' predictions. In the real world, things don't happen that way. Predicting another Holocaust is like predicting another Reichstag fire.
Deep down, we know this sort of talk is usually absurd. But we also know that it can be risky to say so. So we let the blowhards blow. That's how they exercise their freedom of speech.
Nobody says, or thinks, that what Irving may have said in Austria in 1989 -- the site and date of his alleged "crime" -- caused any violence to occur. Some rabble-rouser. He may have expressed his scepticism with rude bluntness (that would be just like him), but that wouldn't even have tended to inspire harm. It may have inspired more scepticism, but why is that a crime?
Because to some people, on some subjects, scepticism is blasphemy, and the Holocaust is one of those subjects. Austria's law is aimed at "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves, or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast, or [in] other media."
Whew! That gives the prosecutor a lot of discretion, and the whole premise of the law -- that expressing an opinion of a calamity can cause the same calamity to recur under entirely different conditions -- is screwy.
No doubt Irving's lawyer advised him to cut a deal in exchange for a show of contrition. He avoided ten years in the slammer, but from now on he will be, in the media, not just a "Holocaust denier," but a "convicted" Holocaust denier or "confessed" Holocaust denier. Not much hope of "reformed," "repentant," or "recovering" Holocaust denier, I suppose.
Meanwhile, the Holocaust Prevention Confederation can claim another triumph. Over freedom of speech.
Re: Repentance Does Not Work
From Henry Hays:
It is true that the Germans are now cowards, with exceptions such as Roeder, Zuendel, Mahler etc. In this country (USA), ignorance prevails and the political system is out of wack. The citizenry is uninformed primarily by the media which omits anything they wish. One has do think and read for oneself. I do not think the Germans lost Mut because of the bombings, but what the causes are, are a matter of psychological analysis. What is clear is that politicians etc have succumbed to fear for no rational reason. The latest events in France just one example. There, recently some Jews were attacked by "minorities", causing furore in the media etc. But attacks on white native Frenchmen have been going on constantly and the French government seems to do nothing. So, what is new? There is some kind of spiritual failure going on in the western world, and somehow an awakening amongst Europeans (incl. here) is imperative.
From Yousef Salem, California
"He repented, and humiliated himself, and was punished anyway." reminds me of this anonymously penned poem:
No man escapes when freedom fails;
The best men rot in filthy jails.
And those that cried "Appease! Appease"!
Are hanged by those they tried to please.
From Nidal, Palestine
"Do not be faint of heart, friends, for it is not worth it. Once you showed your – not animosity, just lack of love to the Judeocrats, they won’t forgive you ever. "
God bless you... You are a brave heart! You are the man.
From Gilad Atzmon:
My Dearest Israel
It isn't cowardice, it is the other way around, Germans tend to 'feel guilty for not feeling guilty'. Once they love Shamir's writing they stop celebrating their guilt, something that makes them feel very guilty....
Slightly dialectic, at the end of the day, dialectic is a Germanic intellectual property..
From Hans Ohndorf
I just read the first two instalments of a memoir by someone I know, former investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts, on http://www.narconews.com (worth reading by the way) and thought of you.
The reason why I thought of you was the the article by Ludwig Watzal which further develops the "Jöran Jermas, International Man of Mystery" meme and blows it up to yet unheard-of levels of bizarre comedy.
While pitiful, the strategy is clear: by pushing you into the racist/Nazi corner and at the same time raising doubts about your identity, publication of your books is to be rendered impossible and travel to European countries is to be impeded.
However, refuting nonsense like this point for point is as useless as it is tiresome. Catherine Fitts found that out when she was smeared in the US by the US government and Wall Street investment circles via the mainstream press.
When reading the first instalments of her interesting memoir, it occurred to me that she really achieves three things here: (1) she sheds light on a reclusive and powerful milieu that she has first-hand knowledge of and (2) she gives an account of what she lived through and how she evolved into who she is today. By fusing (1) and (2) in a first-person account full of historical context and detail, she effortlessly achieves (3): the complete refutation of the smear.
My suggestion to you is: consider something along these lines. Not merely to refute smears, but also to provide a truly human perspective, one that has been gained through life in the first person as opposed to opinionating in the realm of ideas.
As always, all the best
From Marcel Charbonnier, France
You are famous, now [in near vicinity to Bernard Henri Lévy! for that matter]
As you may know, the "evening referencial paper of the stock exchange" (I mean Le Monde) edits a weekly supplement, which I find supremely boring and "WASP", but I receive it on a regular basis due to my quality of subscriber (not for long, perhaps) of Le Monde.
This week-end, in 4th of March issue, they published an interview with the "historian" Götz Aly (a German, they write...), about "Iran's provocations", under the title "How to fight against Tehran's discourse" (Waouw !) Did not one of the questions by the interviewer (a Monsieur Nicolas Bourcier) grab my attention, quite in the middle of this interview? Here it is [The question is about the organisation of a conference on the Shoah, an initiative of the Iranian Prime minister]:
"The Iranian organizers of the conference quite certainly will have the intent of inviting [famous] negationnists the French Robert Faurisson ; the German Horst Mahler and the Israeli ISRAEL SHAMIR. What do you think about that ?"
All of a sudden, the your name pops out of the blue... It's like the whole article had been written in order to attack you indirectly. Not a single reader of "Le Monde 2" knows anything about you, but perhaps those who read Le Monde slander attentively and on a daily basis, and who perhaps remember the slander by the "journalist" Ariane Chemin...
What do you think ? Wouldn’t it be normal to sue them, or for having them give you a right to answer ?
Re: What’s In a Name?
From Don H:
Dear Israel Adam,
How about Yidistan?
From Maria Poumier, France:
Interesting indeed; we antizionists, in French, use to say " L'Israel", the same as we say "la France", "les Etats-Unis", "la Chine", and so on, while the masters of discourse obviously say "Israel". But, as a matter of fact, it is a sign that distinguishes us from krypto-zionists, because they feel it is offensive for their unconfessonably beloved Yisrael...
From Eric Walberg, Canada
This business of names is indeed important. I will use Yisrael or USrael from now on. Your 'jews-only-state' (jos) monicker is also fine.
“Jack Straw returned to England a politically chastened man and thereafter never failed to reiterate the Zionist line emanating from the Jews-only state.”
As if to complete his conversion, he has just hired a rabid zionist and Yisraeli adviser Daniel Bethlehem as head of the Foreign Office legal department. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1725156,00.html
Re Arendt, I just read something very interesting (Tariq Ali 'Revolution from above' 1988):
Kremlinologists described the SU as a totalitarian state. Max Eastman, an ex-Trotskyite said in 1955 just months before Khrushchev's speech denouncing Stalin that Stalin's police state is more ruthless in its economic policies, more explicitly committed to world conquest and more dangerous to democracy and civilized morals than Hitler's.
Arendt in the 1946 draft of 'The origins of totalitarianism' argued that the essence of Nazism was anti-semitism. But in the 1949 edition added the SU as totalitarian state arguing that US should attack the USSR to get rid of Stalin's concentration camps (ie, H=S) a la Russell.
So your disillusionment with Arendt is well founded for several reasons which apply both to the western critique of the SU and of Islam as the latest western 'totalitarian' bête noire. Your statement that "totalitarianism is fading into the past" is unfortunately not at all the case, as 'Islamologists' are brushing it off and applying it to Muslims as part of their war in pursuit of the New World Order.
Power in any society is embedded in its socio-economic structure. For the SU that meant the legitimacy of communist political power was based on the provision of basic economic and social benefits to workers (I'll leave the parallel arguments concerning Islam to you). For instance, Soviet politicians couldn't increase economic efficiency by creating mass unemployment, raising prices etc, because this would have led to riots and caused the system to collapse. Revisionist US economists in the 1970s even invented a term 'bureaucratic pluralism' to describe the political process (JHough 1977).
Western theorists like Hayek used a sleight-of-hand to disguise this truth about democracy and power, argument that economic management was outside the political sphere, but it is the West that is effectively totalitarian, with the economy and culture controlled by (inhuman) capital, now increasingly in the hands of zionists (come to think of it 'Zion' is another term illegitimately appropriated by secular Jewish chauvinists).
This became clear to me from my travels there/here from the 1970s on. There was always much criticism and freedom of thought - more than in West, at least in post-Stalin times.
It's now clear that to institute radical capitalist transition in the SU, it was necessary to create shortages, undermine faith in system, and eventually ban the CP, which for all its problems was focused on ensuring that workers got their minimum socio-economic desserts. Gorbachev's soft Trotskyite policies of opening to the West and pretending there was a convergence of systems, plus of course the putsch, look in retrospect like they were programmed to introduce western totalitarianism.
Arendt was a willing handmaiden in this, despite her occasional criticisms of Yisrael/ USreal/ jos. Totalitarianism joins Israel as terms which have been reinvented to meet the propaganda needs of our real enemies.
In the United States this is known as "branding". It is very important because with the herd or mass of people (really, also worldwide) who do not make fine or finer distinctions in life; things are only 'famous' BECAUSE they are famous. In other words they are famous for being famous.
Something familiar or 'famous' usually through advertising gains acceptance ... since when a person hears it (they know it already) and so they automatically, without 'thinking' feel safe. That's pretty much the level upon which everything where the masses are concerned happens. That's why if you want good box office or a good following that's what you have to remember.
For example if you say: "ok who is in favour of yet another subsidy for upper and lower Yidlandia?" You would witness no one would raise their hand to be in favour. But if you say: "ok who is opposed to the next automatic subsidy for upper and lower Israel?" You would witness no one would raise their hand to be opposed.
Another example ... the same thing happened with the pill VIAGRA. It was initially developed as a possible palliative for heart condition. When during the tests prior to FDA approval, it was discovered men had a side effect of erections. Even some men who prior had trouble with erections ... they said we'll Sell it for that. So there was massive advertising campaign on TV so the pill would become 'famous for being famous.' Just like with all pills advertised on TV once famous for being famous, the masses swallow them down. Same with everything on t.v.
That's why when Congress assigned the Public airwaves ... they only grant them to a few companies... just a few... So only the elite will have control over who becomes 'famous for being famous.'
P.S. today when smart lawyer tries case ... he creates a whole reality, based on strategy for the case, for TV. Whoever creates best reality or story for case, wins. Because of TV there are very few 'facts' dealt with anymore. Just good & bad Fiction.
From Gilad Atzmon
I always love to read what you have to say, in regards to the H, I believe that it isn't the Jews who impose this idiotic narrative. It is actually the Anglo Americans who need Auschwitz, just because it allows them to kill in the name of freedom...
From Bob Finch:
I'm not a revisionist. As a student I was an enthusiastic supporter of Hannah Arendt who wrote 'The Origins of Totalitarianism' and 'Eichmann in Jerusalem'. My views on totalitarianism are still based on these works and I have not yet come across an author who has a better interpretation of this novel form of government. In the past I looked upon revisionist works with contempt. However, after reading Norman Finkelstein's book on the holocaust industry i become much more open minded and now would love to re-read Arendt's works with some revisionist questions in mind.
What I find paradoxical, however, is that whilst many commentators are now willing to explore revisionist ideas, the one topic they will not explore, the last remaining Jewish taboo, is the thesis of Jewish world domination.
Andrew Winkler's article 'Deadly Chess Game' Feb 16th 2006 firstname.lastname@example.org is a classic of this genre. Winkler believes "Iran is also threatening the moral and ideological base of Israel: the 'Holocaust Myth'." He is encouraging those on the left to re-examine the holocaust myth because he believes this would threaten the survival of Israel. He concludes, "If world-opinion came to believe, as an increasing number of historians claim, that the Holocaust was nothing but a propaganda lie, designed pre-dominantly for the purpose of mounting support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, it would become impossible for the US government to continue pumping billions of Dollars in military and financial aid into its de-facto colony Israel and backup Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people through the ruthless abuse of its veto right in the UN Security Council."
However Winkler also believes the Jews-only state in Palestine is an American colony. He talks of "the US government and its 19th century style Zionist colony, which couldn't exist without billions of US Dollars in development aid and state-of-the-art weaponry ... However, it is virtually impossible to see the Jews-only state as being just a banana republic. Honduras doesn't own the American media. It doesn't own a heavyweight lobby which bribes and corrupts the American congress into implementing Honduras's foreign policies. There are not large numbers of Hondurans serving in the bush administration.
Winkler concludes, "The Jewish State wouldn't even exist, if it weren't for the combined effort of the Zionist lobby, US government and Stalin, of making the world believe in the Holocaust." The so-called Holocaust, an inherently racist concept which focuses solely on the slaughter of Jews and no others, is certainly used politically around the world to help win sympathies for the Jews-only state but it is not a myth which sustains the Jews-only state - it is Jewish global domination.
Whilst it is important to explore
totalitarianism to deter the truth about what happened and
whilst it is also important to prevent lies about these events
from being used politically to promote the interests of one
group of people against others, it is absurd to waste too much
time on this side-issue when the real issue is Jewish world
domination. The Jews-only state in Palestine has used its
nuclear weapons to blackmail America into providing arms for the
Jews-only army in 1973 which led to the Arab oil embargo and
pushed America into a decade long recession. It has manipulated
America into two proxy Zionist wars and a third one against Iran
is pending which could led to the political, economic, and
military, collapse of the United States. If anything America is
a colony of the Jews-only state. Those who concentrate on
dissecting the holocaust ideology are not being radical. They
are being distracted from the real issue which is understanding
Jewish world domination and determining how to confront the
racism of the Jewish master race.
Richard Wilcox responded:
When you start talking about "Jews control the world" it is a broad claim. Shamir has written as well as anyone about how the chameleon affect takes place, its not being Jewish per se, but plenty of goyim can become Jews in ideology when it suites the purposes of gaining power! This is a more subtle explanation than Jews Control the World (which at any rate, at a basic level, is certainly true!).
Henry See added:
I'd like to jump in here with another take on this, psychopathy, and offer what I think may be an even more "subtle explanation". There's a book written by a Polish psychologist by the name of Andrew Lobaczewski called "Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adapted for political purposes". Lobaczewski was part of a group of researches working secretly in the Eastern people's republics studying the system of what he calls pathocracy: pathocrats, that is, pathological types, in power, and how it affects society. His studies began when he noticed a strong correlation between acts that we would call "evil", that is acts where people are killed or hurt, be it physically or psychologically, and people with clinically diagnosable pathologies. Could it be that the idea that "human nature" is something bestial and violent is the result of our accepting as our own the violence of the psychopath? We see the violence committed by pathological types in our world, and we are told over and over again that it is part of us, part of our very being, when, in fact, "human" nature may well be something very different.
This realisation took Lobaczewski and his colleagues to an analysis of ideology and social movements and how pathological types, of which there are many, work together to subvert and take over social movements and then countries when they come to power. These types are attracted to certain social movements because they, too, feel an injustice in the world that they wish to right, the injustice that they do not fit because of their very nature. However, their means can never be the means of normal man because they have no conscience.
One of the points Lobaczewski makes, and he is the first author on psychopathy I have read to go so far, is that psychopaths are aware of their difference from "normal people". They have no conscience, and they consider those of us who do as inferior and crippled by it. Not only are they aware of the difference, they are able to form ponerogenic associations together to work towards common aims, and the fundamental aim is to establish a society where their values, or lack of them, dominate.
Moreover, they have what Lobaczewski calls a "special psychological knowledge" about us. They have been studying us for generations and are quite aware of how to manipulate us through our emotions and our sense of responsibility and guilt.
These pathological types are found in all populations, although in some the percentage is higher than in others. It cuts across race, language, nationality, colour, religion, or any of the other categories we use to classify and differentiate people or groups of people. And it is by and large ignored by everyone in the sense that the subject of psychopathy is not widely discussed, or as widely discussed as it needs to be in order to understand the phenomenon and its implications on the social, political, economic, and religious life of the world. Yes, there have been books written about Bush the narcissist; but there is little or nothing about the pathological nature of the system that puts a Bush forward as public figurehead. Or a Sharon.
To express it in a different way, the pathocrats would be at the top of the pyramid of power, be it in politics, business, finance, the military, or the law as Dr Robert Hare has suggested in his work, and any other face by which the structure is categorised may well be a mask for that final, highest, and nearly invisible level - invisible because the pathocrat comes in all colours, creeds, and languages. Whatever ideologies exist to enslave our minds may be put into place to keep us from identifying the real problem. Whenever a group that is easily identifiable is put forward, it may be a mask for the pathocracy.
Those of you with a strong faith may well see in the pathocracy the work of a dark force that haunts our world, the expression of the entropic force in the material world. That force has the preternatural cunning of the predator, capable of erecting the Zionist wall and implementing the laws we know are in force to prevent us from discussing Jewish influence. But what if this is still a screen? A diversion of sorts to keep us focused on a obvious injustice and glaring hypocrisy, as well as an easily identifiable culprit, while the real guilty parties run free and anti-Semitism laws quiet those who have seen a part of the answer?
There is more about ponerology here, including some excerpts from Lobaczewski's book:
I find that these ideas offer a fruitful path of research. It turns the question confronting us into what is the role of Judaism, as one ideology among many, in the structure of pathocracy. But an understanding of pathocracy must also investigate how Christianity and Islam have been subverted and the role of political ideologies. Any and every ideology or creed is able to be subverted, and Lobaczewski begins to detail the mechanisms by which this occurs. In any case, another idea and possibility to throw into the pot as we try and get to the truth....
Bob Finch replies:
I stick to my conclusion that researching global Jewish power is much more important than exploring revisionism. The so-called Jewish holocaust of the second world war should be of less concern than the Jewish inspired holocaust of the third world war. It is almost certainly true that Jews were nothing like as much victims of the rise of totalitarianism as the racist concept of the holocaust suggests but focussing on this issue means that we are fixated on Jews as victims – the scope of the argument being just how much of a victim the Jews were. Today however it is the global Jewish elite which is creating millions of victims and it is about to create a whole lot more if it manages to force the west into a battle against the Moslem world. The Jewish people suffered terrible losses during the second world war but I fear, over the last few decades, the global Jewish elite has already brought about a huge loss of life and, if given the chance, will bring about even greater losses. Stopping the next world war is more important than dissecting the bowels of the last world war.
I don’t doubt that the global Jewish elite are working alongside non-Jewish members of the global elite – particularly the landowning elites. My argument is that the Jewish elites are now in the ascendancy and becoming increasingly dominant. If the world’s elites were solely concerned about power and wealth they wouldn’t be risking everything by promoting a war with Iran. It is only because the Jewish elite is now in the ascendancy and wanting to protect the sacred, god given land of Palestine, that a war against Iran seems likely. If there is a war against Iran there will almost certainly be a global economic recession. This will be no benefit to the world’s non-Jewish elites. It is of benefit only to the world’s Jewish master race which wishes to consolidate the security of its headquarters in Palestine.
From M Meza:
Jews compose at least 30% of Harvard students
And to think that most people out there still believe the argument that Anglos rule this country.
Summers marveled at the turnout, reminding his audience that not so long ago, such a gathering would have been unthinkable at Harvard. "It was not always so," he said, referring to a time when university officials subjected Jews to admissions quotas and systematic discrimination. "But now it is so, and it will always be so," he said.
Nu, so, how many are we already?
Courtesy of the Hillel Society:
Undergraduate Population: 6658
Graduate Population: 10351
Jewish Undergraduate Population: 2000 (approx.)
Jewish Graduate Population: 2500 (approx.)
Yet, Jews comprise less than 3% of the total US population.
There are some 15 Jewish soldiers among the 45,000 British fighters currently in action in the U.S.-led campaign.
I thought the following blog might be of interest
Sr. Laila El-Hadad, for those who do not know her, is the wife of brother Yassin Dawoud, who was at Harvard medical for some time and has been active with the local Muslim community.
They have been living in Boston for some time. The blog provides an interesting inside view of things in Gaza that you do not get to hear from typical news sources. Specially after renewed interest in the area with the recent Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections.
Just out from Ramallah
Where Jesus himself
Once preached at each door
Now the settlers build walls
Steal your water and poison
the Sabbath itself
As decency fails
Do they think there’s no God?
That their State is redeemed
By the ovens of yore?
That their crimes are expunged
By colonial fiction?
That the truth will lie silent
As the children they’ve killed?
Now history’s own crime
Is erased by their own
and the souls of their parents
in permanent shame
groan at the forfeit
all that was human
destroyed in the conquest
of goodness and name
Now an army in prayer shawls
Rampaging in orchards
Has broken our dreams
Bulldozed and discarded
Like the olives and streams.
The remnant called “chosen”
Now frozen, rejected,
Will be scorned for all time
In betraying their God
They’ve wasted his favorites
The innocent farmers
Whose love is as food
The innocent garden
Of Gentle Aboud
From Olaf Egeberg
If all the peace efforts up to now haven’t moved enough people to stop the hostilities and heal the wounds, then we can not be sure that even more of these efforts will do the job, especially now that Hamas has won the election.
Something new is needed. The conflict will surely escalate in this changed political climate. Time is running out. Circumstances are calling for a new and more effective form of action.
So here comes CHANGES AHEAD. Here comes a radically different approach to our peacemaking. This is a book to help both Israelis and Palestinians (and the rest of us) see our religions, our lives and ourselves in a larger way so our true commonality can be seen and attractive possibilities can be recognized and pursued.
Changes Ahead enables each of us, worldwide, to speed our social development by showing how we are each more of a person than we have considered ourself to be. It helps us move beyond our fears, hurts and angers to see each other more clearly and helpfully. I’m talking about discovering living skills and peace dividends that we haven’t really considered before.
The book, Changes Ahead, is free. It’s an easy download for everyone who clicks on: http://www.changesahead.net/download.html. From behind a writing style that is conversational (rather informal and personal) you’ll see a Crossover Bible come through.
This is a short book, only 160 pages long. After you finish its few pages you’ll understand why it’s our most effective tool. The more it gets out and read by others, the more momentum builds for a lasting peace and happier life in the region.
So go to: http://www.changesahead.net/download.html to see the book. And be sure to read on beyond your first reactions. Use all or parts of it, as you wish.
With best wishes,
(Note: If you click the web address above and nothing happens, then just copy and paste it in the address line at the top of the page.)
From Peter Belmont, NY
I am tired of beating all the dead horses. It feels like Guernica.
The Israelis are talking about unilaterally dividing the occupied territories. The key is "unilaterally", because it means that, in their minds, the whole land belongs to them. Ownership. Sovereignty. Sovereignty over what? What name? (What entity?) It cannot be called a "One State Solution" because no-one says what the problem is to which it is alleged to be a solution, nor does anyone say who is to judge that the proposal in fact "solves" the problem. Well, that's not fair. Some Israelis seem poised to say that a certain division, which they will propose, will solve a problem for them and in that way be a "solution" of their problem.
Whether or not it can be called a "One State Solution", it can be called a "One State Situation". Since 1967 Israel/Palestine have been in a one-state situation. If Israel claims sovereignty to the whole, then it claims sovereignty to something that, among other things, requires a NAME. "One State", "The Land", "Holy Land", something.
And someone with more courage than shown by most politicos these days must state that, according to international law, the Israelis are NOT sovereign in the occupied territories, including occupied East Jerusalem, but only occupiers.
(As to whether they are sovereigns or occupiers in all or part of pre-1967 Israeli territory is a matter that should be explored.)
Another question is this: If Israel unilaterally "gives away" parts of The Land, to whom or to what, and in what manner, in what legal mode, will they give it away? As a return of property to the (pre-existing) Palestinian state? As a return of land to the Palestinian people who will, on receiving it, create a Palestinian state for the purpose of receiving the gift? And if the Palestinians refuse the gift? I am tired of beating all the dead horses. It feels like Guernica.