Semitic Controversies

Was Josef Stalin Jewish?

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:56:00 +0000

A common assertion among anti-Semites is that Josef Stalin, the infamous Soviet dictator, was in fact a jew. This argument is so tenuous it can be dealt with relatively quickly. However it is important to state that is argument occurs with alarming rapidity despite the obviously problematic nature of the assertion: hence it is important to deal with the few �??proofs�?? offered for this argument here at Semitic Controversies.

The argument that Stalin was a jew would seem to have been popularised by the reference to it in Maurice Pinay�??s famous anti-Semitic book, �??The Plot against the Church�??[1], which was translated into at least three languages[2] and has been reprinted four times in English since its original publication[3]. Pinay argues as follows:

�??[�?�] at the head of the names stands Stalin himself, who for a long time was regarded as a Georgian of pure descent. But it has been revealed, that he belongs to the Jewish race; for Djougachvili, which is his surname, means �??Son of Djou,�?? and Djou is a small island in Persia, whither many banished Portuguese �??Gypsies�?? migrated, who late settled in Georgia.

Today it is almost completely proved, that Stalin has Jewish blood, although he neither confirmed or denied the rumours, about which mutterings began in his direction.�??[4]

Then if we compare this to the most commonly cited source on the internet for this allegation, to which many anti-Semites challenged on this subject reference back to. We are told as follows:

�??Stalin's childhood origins were supposedly Georgian, but the truth is his mother was Ossete, from the Khazarian region.In the Georgian language "shvili" means son of, or son, as in Johnson. "Djuga" means Jew. Therefore Djugashvili means Jewison.

So Joe Stalin's real name, before he changed it, was Joe Jewison. It gets better, his name was Joseph David Djugashvili, a typical Jewish name. During his revolutionary days he changed his name to "Kochba", the leader of the Jews during one of the anti-Roman uprisings of the Jews. Russians don't change their names. Georgians don't change their names. Jews change their names.

Stalin's mother Ekaterina did laundry and housekeeping for David Papisnedov, a local Jew, who was Stalin's real father. Their nickname for Stalin was "Soso". Stalin received Papisnedov at the Kremlin often. Comrade Papisnedov often was visited by Nikolai Przhevalsky, a Jewish trader, and he is also considered a possibility as Stalin's father.�??[5]

We can immediately see that Stalin's surname, Djougaschvili, meaning the �??son of Djou�?? has been transliterated by the author of the second, more modern, argument from the first argument (i.e. Pinay's) into being �??son of a jew�?? (the phonetics in English pronunciation apparently being similar). This has allowed the author of the second argument to claim that Stalin was in fact jewish, by taking the second part of Pinay�??s assertion and combining it with the first via what I can only speculate to be the phonetic sound of the two words in English: �??Djou�?? and �??jew�??. We can see this referenced more in Pinay�??s argument when he refers to Portuguese gypsies in that Sephardi jews (and some Ashkenazi) were known in Europe as �??Portuguese�?? (for example when you asked the question: �??How many Portuguese lived in London in 1600?�?? you would simply be asking how many jews and Marranos [secret jews who outwardly kept to Roman Catholicism but practiced jewish rites, fasts, and feasts privately] were in London in 1600). This might infer that Stalin�??s parents were the descendents of settled Mizrahi and/or Sephardi jews, but this has been taken by the author of the second argument and folded into the claim that Stalin�??s father was a jewish merchant and that Stalin�??s surname means �??son of a jew�?? or �??Jewison/Jewson�?? in English.

Therefore we first of all establish the ostensible evolution of this argument in noting how close the arguments are, but how the second oft-cited argument likely takes Pinay�??s[6] argument and then twists it into a new form.

If we look both arguments: we can see they particular stress on the meaning of the surname �??Djougachvili�?? or �??Djugashvili�?? and that in Pinay�??s opinion it means �??son of Djou�??[7] and in the second argument it means �??son of a jew�??/�??Jewison�??. Neither of these are, in fact, correct since the word �??Djuga�?? (or �??Dzhuga�??) in old Georgian does not mean �??jew�?? or �??Djou�??, but rather it roughly equates �??steel�??. The old Georgian words for jew were actually �??Ebraeli�?? or �??Uriya�??, which bear absolutely no resemblance to �??Djuga�?? or �??Dzhuga�??.

So Stalin�??s surname would actually mean something equivalent to �??son of steel�??, which then makes sense of Stalin�??s adoption of �??Stalin�?? as his surname, which in Russian roughly means �??man of steel�?? (�??Stal�?? means steel in Russian). Since in Stalin�??s eyes he was the �??son of steel�?? in Georgia and hence has become the �??man of steel�?? in Russia. Hence Stalin didn�??t change his name particularly much, but rather simply added in �??man�?? rather than �??son�??, which can easily be suggested to be a sign of his coming of age as an atheist marxist revolutionary and a devout follower of Lenin (rather than the seminary student on a scholarship from a poor broken family in a little town in Georgia).

Pinay�??s argument is by the far the more sophisticated and educated out the two. Since his reference to Djou is at first a quite historically plausible one. Although I can find no reference to an island of/called �??Djou�?? outside of Pinay: it is quite possible that Pinay�??s reference to an island where �??Portuguese�?? were sent is accurate. Since this was a policy in the Ottoman Empire who did send jews to economically backward areas in order to boost the economy in that area and make the territory more profitable for the Ottoman Sultan through his (largely jewish) tax-farmers, administrative and customs service. However since �??Djougachvili�?? does not actually mean �??son of Djou�?? Pinay�??s argument must be regarded as incorrect, but it is at the very least an educated conjecture (since it is unlikely Pinay could have found a suitable source as to the meaning of old Georgian words). The second argument seems on the other hand to be completely inventing its interpretation out of whole cloth by alleging that �??Djuga�?? means �??jew�?? in old Georgian (again perhaps �??Djuga�?? if pronounced a certain way might sound like a similar word to �??jew�??: hence one could reasonably speculate that the origin of the argument made is from the author, whose first language is English, pronouncing the words and then because they to some ears might sound alike claiming that one means the other).

Hence Pinay�??s argument can be reasonably said to be disposed of, but there still remain a series of assertions in the second argument that deserve consideration. Firstly is the note that Stalin�??s mother, Ekaterina Gheladze Djugashvili, was from the �??Khazarian region�?? is a indirect inference that Stalin was jewish since it is commonly claimed by anti-Semites that Ashkenazi jews are in fact the descents of the jewish convert kingdom of Khazaria. There is no evidence for this on both counts: i.e. we have no evidence that Stalin is descended from Khazars and secondly the evidence is heavily against the Khazars being the origin of the Ashkenazim[8].

Therefore we can only suggest this is an attempt to infer a stronger argument that Stalin was of jewish descent than has been offered. It is in fact contradicted by the author in the reference page[9] he has added regarding Stalin�??s mother when he asserts that she was that she was from tribe of the Alans[10] and not a Georgian. However this is essentially irrelevant since the Alan territory was in the borderlands of northern Georgia and they are closely related to the Georgians. Hence the argument being made not only contradicts the early inference, but then secondly derives into pure Semantics to claim that Stalin�??s mother was not Georgian.

Further on this reference page it asserts that there are doubts as to the identity of Stalin�??s biological father. There has been little doubt expressed in the biographies of Stalin for the simple reason that there is no evidence suggesting that Stalin�??s father was anyone but Vissarion Ivanovich Djugashvili. This claim is asserted in more detail in the second argument when it is claimed that there are two candidates who are reported to be jews: David Papismedov and Nikolai Przhevalsky.

The claims are then referred back to the reference page and the detail of why the author thinks these two were Stalin�??s father is given. The claim surrounding Nikolai Przhevalsky is given as follows under the title of �??Stalin�??s Real Father�??:

�??The most notable such speculation was that Stalin's father was the Belorussian Nikolai Przhevalsky. The face of Joseph Stalin is almost identical to that of Nikolai Przhevalsky. Apparently Przhevalsky did stop off in the town of Gori in Georgia on his way to Tibet. According to the story, in Georgia he was hosted at the home of wealthy Georgian where Ekaterina Gheladze worked as a maid. According to the speculation Przhevalsky seduced Ekaterina and left her pregnant as he journeyed off to Tibet. According to the story the Georgian family (or Przhevalsky) to avoid scandal paid Vissarion Djugashvili a substantial amount of money for him to marry Ekaterina Gheladze and this was the source of the capital for him to have run a shoe-making business employing about thirty cobblers. He subsequently lost the business and later died in a drunken knife fight.

There appears to be no hard evidence for Przhevalsky being the father of Stalin. There was a city in Siberia that was named after Przhevalsky. The Bolsheviks changed the name after they came to power but Stalin later changed it back to Przhevalsky. However it would not be out of line for Stalin to deviously promote the notion that he was really Russian rather than Georgian. he was of Jewish blood from the Dinaric race.�??[11]

It is worth noting firstly that the use of the prefixes �??apparently�??, �??according to the story�??, �??according to speculation�?? denotes that these are essentially bits of gossip heard and enlarged upon as time has gone on (if indeed they are genuine: since no originating source is cited) in the manner consistent with folklore in general. If I was to suggest that Elizabeth I of England was jewish and then say �??according to speculation�??, �??according to the story�?? etc ad infinitum: then I could not suggest that this is the case without corroborating sources of a primary nature or examining the secondary literature explaining why they are wrong. The author does neither so one must take his words with more than a pinch of salt.

The author himself admits that there is �??no hard evidence�??, but then speculates in his title that Przhevalsky is �??Stalin�??s Real Father�?? and then assertion in contradiction to earlier in his own paragraph that Stalin �??was of Jewish blood from the Dinaric race�??. In fact Przhevalsky during his travels to the East was in a different part of central Asia during 1878-1879 (the years between which Stalin was presumably conceived) and there is no evidence that he even visited Georgia in his lifetime. There also no evidence I am aware of that Przhevalsky was jewish, but rather a scion of an aristocratic Polish family (not a �??jewish trader�?? as asserted in the second argument, but rather a famous Russian geographer). If we have no evidence to suggest that Stalin was the product of a lover's tryst between Przhevalsky and Stalin's mother then we cannot assert that it is simply a fact as the author does: contradicting himself in the process.

We must secondly note that this story about Stalin�??s father being paid off to marry Stalin�??s mother and that Stalin�??s father is without any apparent factual foundation. Stalin�??s father would seem to have created his own success by hard work (employing several apprentices [the number of 30 seems excessive]), which then deteriorated as he began to drink heavily and came into conflict with Stalin�??s mother over Stalin�??s future occupation. Stalin�??s father also did not die in a drunken knife fight (this is again a folkloric rumour), but rather from tuberculosis and pneumonia according to current academic opinion.

Thirdly the assertion that the changing of the name of the city of Karakol, the city�??s original name, back to Przhevalsk in 1939 by Stalin after it had been changed back to Karakol in 1921 by the Bolsheviks (in reaction to popular demand) is not an indication or evidence of Przhevalsky�??s asserted status as Stalin�??s biological father, but rather that Stalin was changing place names back to those of great Russian heroes (of which Przhevalsky was but one: as a famous Russian geographer) in order in inspire nationalism in his population (which was a key element in much of Stalin�??s internal policy).

Fourthly in the second argument the author claims that Przhevalsky often visited David Papismedov who was a local jew in Gori and whom was one of Stalin�??s mother�??s laundry clients. Papismedov certainly showed kindness to the young Stalin giving him books to read and giving donations of money to his mother. However there is no evidence Przhevalsky even knew Papismedov (or visited Georgia or Gori for that matter) let alone was a frequent guest in Papismedov�??s house: as I have said Przhevalsky was at the time (1878-1879) far away in the East and a long way away from Georgia.

This leads us to discuss the second alternative candidate for Stalin�??s biological father: David Papismedov. Who unlike Nikolai Przhevalsky was, in fact, jewish. The evidence cited for this is even thinner than that given for Przhevalsky�??s fatherhood and it consists entirely of Stalin�??s relationship with Papismedov, which is given on the reference page as:

�??Stalin's mother Ekaterina did laundry and housekeeping for David Papisnedov, a local Jew, who was Stalin's real father. Their nickname for Stalin was "Soso". Stalin received Papisnedov at the Kremlin often.'[12]

The fact that Stalin�??s mother did the laundry and housekeeping for a local jew whom treated her and Stalin himself comparatively well, certainly in comparison to Vissarion, does not make him the father of Stalin nor does it offer evidence of such. Since Stalin�??s mother had other clients, for whom she did laundry and housekeeping as well, if Stalin was not Vissarion�??s son then one would have to look at the other clients who would have equal opportunity of having a lovers tryst with Stalin�??s mother as Papismedov. In terms of giving Stalin�??s mother money and Stalin books to read: these can be seen simply as acts of charity rather than an acknowledgement of paternity. It is well to remember that acts of charity by monastic orders, for example, towards single mothers or married women do not equate that the monk or monks have sired that single mother�??s or married woman�??s children. So therefore we can�??t simply assert that because Papismedov was kind to Stalin and his mother that he is Stalin�??s real biological father and that as a result Stalin is jewish.

Papismedov did indeed call Stalin by his family nickname, �??Soso�??, but then so did his mother and Vissarion. For it was a family tradition with Vissarion�??s family nickname being: �??Beso�??. Again it is not proof of paternity or an acknowledgement of such for a family friend to call Stalin by his family nickname and speculations of such can hold no evidential merit. When Papismedov went to the Kremlin he went there to look for a boy of whom he was presumably fond and to see if he was still alive (and if so what had happened to him). Stalin greeted him much as he did any old friend whom he thought warmly of and was quite congenial and friendly towards him as an early kind influence in his life (who he probably saw as giving him the means and the skills to begin his career as a marxist revolutionary i.e. books). It is again not an argument in favour of Papismedov�??s paternity that Stalin treated him well when he came to the Kremlin, of his own volition, looking for Stalin. In fact had Papismedov been Stalin�??s father and Stalin had known this there would have been no reason for Stalin not to openly proclaim this when he was the Soviet dictator, but yet he did not.

Hence we must conclude that the claim that either Nikolai Przhevalsky or David Papismediv was Stalin�??s biological father is without foundation and until sufficient primary evidence is brought forward for this interpretation of the argument that Stalin must be regarded as nothing but un-evidenced speculation.

The only other piece of evidence brought forward to support the contention that Stalin was jewish by this second argument is that Stalin used the name, �??Kochba�??, in his early revolutionary days. Kochba, or more properly bar Kochba, is a reference to the jewish leader of the Bar Kochba revolt against Rome in 132-135 A.D. In fact Stalin didn�??t use �??Kochba�?? but rather �??Koba�??. Koba is a mythological figure in old Georgian literature roughly approximate to the figure of Robin Hood: i.e. a noble outlaw who robbed from rich and gave to the poor. The parallel between the figure of Koba and Stalin�??s political beliefs is obvious as it coincides with Marxist ideas concerning the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor to make a more equal society. Bar Kochba was a fanatical jewish zealot who fought on religious grounds to install a jewish theocratic dictatorship free from Roman control on Judea (as well as potentially much of North Africa, Syria and Cyprus). The parallel, in Stalin's marxist thought, between Stalin the Marxist revolutionary and bar Kochba the fanatical jewish zealot is non-existent, but between Stalin and Koba the Georgian Robin Hood: it is obvious.

Therefore we can only conclude in summation that there is no evidence that Josef Stalin was in fact jewish and that the evidence that has been advanced for this being the case is inaccurate, highly speculative and possibly deliberately distorted.

[1] Maurice Pinay, Trans: Anon, 2000, [1967], �??The Plot against the Church�??, 4th Edition, Christian Book Club of America: Palmdale
[2] The original was written and published in Italian, but it was translated within a few years into Spanish, German (in which there are two separate editions: one for Germany and one for Austria) and English (as well as quite probably French, but I cannot find reference to a French edition).
[3] This is notable, because post-1945 anti-Semitic books don�??t often run into multiple editions as well as printings and are rarely translated into different languages. Only anti-Semitic classics such as Arnold Leese�??s �??Jewish Ritual Murder�??, Henry Ford�??s �??The International Jew�??, Adolf Hitler�??s �??Mein Kampf�?? and the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' can boast such sales and/or perceived/actual importance: hence Pinay�??s �??The Plot against the Church�?? must be regarded as an anti-Semitic classic irrespective of its intellectual merit.
[4] Pinay, Op. Cit., p. 65
[5] http://judicial-inc.biz/Bush_Mossad11.htm [Accessed: 05/02/2009] (Warning: this site plays an awful rendition of classical music at you, which may frighten you, your children and/or your pets).
[6] Pinay cites Bernard Hutton in the French language magazine, �??Constellation�?? (of March 1962), as his source and having dealt with the author of the second argument before I am aware that he is not fluent in French (he also happens to be half-jewish as he admitted on LibertyForums some years ago). Therefore this lack of fluency in French and that the author is unlikely to have looked up the reference suggests that either the author of the second argument is taking Pinay�??s argument and/or a citation of it (or possibly another earlier source) and twisting it into a slightly different argument from the one that Pinay offers.
[7] Simon Sebag Montefiore in his 2007, �??Young Stalin�??, claims that it means �??son of juga�?? (similar to Pinay�??s suggestion), suggesting it derives from �??djogi�?? meaning herd, but doesn�??t make a compelling case for this interpretation.
[8] On this point please see Kevin Alan Brook, 2002, �??The Jews of Khazaria�??, 2nd Edition, Rowman & Littlefield: New York.
[9] http://judicial-inc.biz/st__alin_supplement.htm#stalins_mother [Accessed: 05/02/2009].
[10] Who were famously used as a light cavalry mercenaries by the Byzantine Empire.
[11] http://judicial-inc.biz/st__alin_supplement.htm#Nikolai_Przhevalsky [Accessed: 05/02/2009].
[12] http://judicial-inc.biz/st__alin_supplement.htm#david_2nd_father [Accessed: 05/02/2009].

In Brief: The �??Truth�?? and �??Bias�?? Assertions

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:37:00 +0000

It is often said by jews and gentiles as well as by philo-Semites and anti-Semites that the other side whom they are arguing against is �??biased�?? and therefore cannot be said to be making a �??truthful�??, �??balanced�?? or �??objective�?? case. These terms are all well and good, but it is very important to realise that these are not accurate terms and that the very function of such terminology in most writing is as propaganda for the thesis, argument and/or interpretation the author is putting forward. Since by applying these forms of rhetoric the author in question seeks to give the reader the impression that they, as well as often other authors they favour, are giving the best argument that the reader should then believe. It needs to be remembered that the function of writing is as propaganda for the author: regardless of whether that writing is meant for an academic, learned or popular audience. If you have a thought or thoughts regarding a subject then the primary function of writing down those thoughts is so they can be communicated to others through an intelligible medium and in such a way as to convince others of your own views.

People do not write thoughts down merely for their own amusement, but rather with some other motive. When an author appeals to the reader that their argument is �??the truth�??, �??objective�?? or �??balanced�?? it is not so much that their argument is these things, but rather that this is what they wish the reader to believe and/or it is what they believe to be the case themselves.

We must note when we view the use of these words from a racial perspective that the particular jewish preoccupation with the use of these terms is a reflection of the jewish belief that they are the �??Chosen people�?? and hence are special. Hence because they are special and the �??Chosen�?? of Hashem it is presumed by jews, as well as by philo-Semites, that their arguments must be objective, balanced and/or truthful: either literally or with the purest intention in the vein of their racial ambition of tikkun olam (or �??repairing/perfecting the world�??). This belief can also be linked to the jewish inferiority complex regarding their own work in that it must be objective, balanced and truthful (hence praiseworthy and should be believe by others: jew or gentile), because if it is not then the jew in question will suffer an egoistic set back due to their perceived loss of pride, status and the questioning of their integrity.

Objectivity is not a simple thing to allege your argument is since your argument can only subjective since one is only applying ones interpretation using ones knowledge to a set of data and information. This data and information is not complete and nor can we reasonably suggest it can ever likely be. Even if we give full consideration to other opinions and report all the evidence then we are still being subjective, because we are applying our interpretations to that evidence based on the existing state of our knowledge. This is very important, because once we recognise this is it naturally follows that everything written must be held to be biased and prejudiced in some way.

But this, we can contend, is natural, because the human being is an organic creation and individuals, as well as races, have different perspectives on how something should be interpreted precisely, because they are viewing the subject or object from a different biological and experience base than their fellows. This applies to individuals as well as groups. Hence �??truth�?? and �??bias�?? must be seen as racially and individually subjective qualities. We must thus state that there is no �??truth�?? other than what that author believes to be the �??truth�??, but rather this is the author�??s own biased interpretation of what the �??truth�?? is.

In dealing with the jewish question: we must remember that we are looking at it from a completely different biological and experience basis to the jews themselves (and vice versa). Hence our theories, arguments and interpretations with are only our perceptions of jews not necessarily how jews, in fact, are. This is important to recognise, because once we recognise this: it becomes imperative that in the study of jews we must get as much primary data as possible in order to form the best biased interpretation of jews that we can (i.e. that secondary literature based on analysis of literature written by gentiles has little value, because it is not a jewish mind being studied).

Hence we cannot, as has hitherto been the case since the end of the Second World War, sit on our laurels regarding the jews and we must research them thoroughly and in the spirit whereby we know that what we will find will be biased presentation and may or may not be accurate. But what we can do, as Aryans, is to develop the best evidentially and logically sound interpretation of jews that fits and explains what we know about the jews without having to resort to make facts fit theories. Instead we must, in order to guide ourselves to a better biased understanding of jews, make theories fit facts.

I make no bones about the fact that I am biased against jews: I don�??t like the jews either individually or as a race. My knowledge base is such that I cannot see any good in jews individually or as a people, but at the same time, because I recognise this: I have to take into account the fact that anti-Semites, like myself, maybe be wrong about parts of the jewish question and that in order to be an anti-Semite in the proper sense of the term. I must let the data and information guide my thought not let my thought guide the data and information. Even if I or you are biased it doesn�??t make us wrong (nor is it a negative attribute outside of propagandistic perception), but it is something that has to be born in mind when reading other author�??s work as well as reading your own. When an author, especially when that author is a jew, claims to be objective, balanced or truthful then it is best to pay attention most carefully to what they write, because it often serves as a mask for their argument and that when you dig deeper into the footnotes and citations it becomes clear that alternative and perhaps more plausible interpretation suggest themselves. The more you dig into an argument, interpretation and/or thesis: the more ammunition you will find against that argument, interpretation and/or thesis. This is why close study of jews and jewish works is so important in anti-Semitism.

In short: deal with the reality of the jew and the world will applaud anti-Semitism. Treat the jew as an imaginary, inhuman fantasy and the world will have justified contempt for anti-Semitism.

Zionism: Friend or Foe? (Part I)

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:49:00 +0000

Since the end of the Second World War increasing focus in anti-Semitic thought has been given to the role of Zionism in the jewish question. Works devoted to combating and exposing it as both a detrimental and powerful force in world politics and international relations have not only come from the anti-Semitic �??right�?? but also from the anti-Imperialist �??left�??. �??Zionism�?? is a favourite hobby horse for 'anti-Semites' criticising and critiquing the jews with it increasingly becoming a main focus of the vast majority of anti-Semitic writing. This focus on Zionism has, I would argue, caused many anti-Semites, genuine or otherwise, to turn exclusively to writing on the evils of Zionism related to the conduct of Israel and what has been aptly termed by former United States congressman Paul Findley as �??the Israel Lobby�??.

The enemy of the Aryan race is no longer seen as jews a part of who adhere to a position in the political position of Zionism by these writers. But rather the enemy of the Aryan, or the more commonly the so-called �??White�??, race is seen as a political position, �??Zionism�??, and in particular its advocates: �??Zionists�??. Zionist, of course, means different things to different people, because it is, by its very nature, a highly subjective description. To the Israeli �??right�??, for example, a Zionist cannot be anyone, but an individual, jew or gentile, who unconditionally supports Israel�??s hawkish actions and who opposes �??liberal�?? criticism of Israel. But to the Israeli �??left�??, for example, a Zionist is somebody who supports the right of Israel to exist, but who does not necessarily have to support or approve of the actions undertaken, particularly in Israel�??s defence, by the Israeli government in the past or the present.

However anti-Semites define what a Zionist is slightly differently and assert that a Zionist is someone who expresses support or aids the state of Israel knowingly in any way, shape or form. There is also a tendency in anti-Semitic discourse and writing to find the term �??Zionist�?? being used to equate a jew.

This is, of course, problematic, because not every jew falls under one or more of the many definitions of what a Zionist is. We also cannot assert that every Zionist is a jew, because many, often well-meaning, [Aryan] gentiles fall under one or more of the many definitions of what a Zionist is.

It is also true to state that the general anti-Semitic definition of what a Zionist is dangerously close to what the Israeli �??left�??s�??, and the international anti-Zionist left, definition of what a Zionist is. Since if anti-Semites are generally arguing a similar line, and indeed borrowing heavily, from the anti-Zionist �??left�??s�?? literature on the subject then it leaves the way open for jews and/or their supporters of the Israeli �??right�?? and �??left�??, who identify with the two general definitions of Zionism I have outlined above, to charge that �??anti-Zionists�?? and anti-Semites are similar. As well as that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites and that anti-Semites are allied with Islam and Arabs against Israel and the jews.

This dangerous closeness between the definitions used by the anti-Zionist �??left�?? and the anti-Semitic �??right�?? largely originates in an increasingly advocated off-shoot of racialism, which has become increasing popular especially on the American anti-Semitic �??right�?? as time has progressed. This is the theory, championed by that doyen of the post war anti-Semitic �??right�??: Francis Parker Yockey (who may well have been part jewish[1]). This theory, which parallels other �??rightist�?? theories and draws on the work of Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Karl Haushofer, is that in order to fight the jewish menace: Nationalists must garner support from Third World, or �??the dark races�?? as they are sometimes referred to as, and to do this they must support these non-Aryan causes[2]. This theory is dangerous precisely, because it introduces thought which is not natural to the nationalist and does not acknowledge, because of Yockey�??s rejection of biological race and championing of �??spiritual racialism�?? as the determining factor[3], that the non-Aryans whose causes the Aryans under this theory are supporting do not have the interests of the Aryan race at heart. It also does not acknowledge that a non-Aryan, particularly a Semitic, ethnic or racial group could use this to manipulate Aryan sensibilities to their own ends.

This is precisely what has been in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which lies at the modern debate over the validity of Zionism. Philo-Semites and the jews have sought to claim that the province of Palestine is exclusively theirs by biological and historical right. While the Arabs and their, generally left-wing, supporters have sought to delegitimize this claim and/or to argue for a single state both jewish and Arab in Palestine. Now the problem the anti-Semitic right has faced in the debate over Zionism is how to respond.

This is by no means a very simple question since anti-Semites have historically been both antagonistic to Zionism and cautiously supportive of it. It is tempting to conclude, with the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of mainstream anti-Semitic thought today, that anti-Semites have always been opposed to Zionism as a rule of thumb. This is not true: since anti-Semites rightly saw in Zionism both a potential threat, hence their antagonism and an opportunity to solve the jewish question as it was in their own time.

The viewing of Zionism as a threat is indeed not a new phenomenon. In the early 20th century well known and populist anti-Semites such as Theodor Fritsch openly condemned Zionism as the latest part in the jewish conspiracy[4] in so far as it sought to unite the jews of the world together in one nation and then, which Fritsch correctly predicted, spread out to attempt, consciously or otherwise, to conquer or subdue the world and fulfil the supposed jewish destiny as the chosen of Hashem. It was viewed, in the conception of the time, that the jews, if a Zionist state was established, could potentially grow in power to be an even greater threat to Aryan civilisation than had been hither-to known.

In a slight paradox many famous anti-Semites in Fritsch�??s time (and after), such as Adolf Hitler, saw the opportunity presented by Zionism to provide a relatively peaceful solution to the jewish question, which importantly had gained its scientific aspect in the acknowledgement of the jews as a series of biological groups who shared much more in common with each other than they did their own host populations. This opportunity, which was especially necessary now that the jew had to be physically isolated and removed from the host population, was simply to allow the jews, i.e. the Zionists, to get their own people out of their host countries and into the new jewish state with the minimum of cost and fuss to the host people. Who then could deal with what remained of the jews in their countries in a much more simple fashion (such as sterilization, ghettos, deportation and/or labour camps).

This isn�??t to say that those who suggested Zionism was an opportunity to be rid of the jews once and for all were blind to the jewish nature, but rather that they understandably felt that it would be far better. To have the jews where one could know they were jewish, as representatives and citizens of a jewish state, than have the possibility of these same jews being lose in their host nations. Even with legal precautions, it was rightly argued, that there was the strong possibility that jews might in time be able to infiltrate into Aryan society unseen and even worse: mix their blood with unknowing Aryan men and women when they married and bred with them.

With the defeat of National Socialist Germany and the ideological destruction of anti-Semitism following the devastation, reprisal killings and terrorism of the Allies and the Comintern: the remaining anti-Semites began to look for a way to carry on the struggle against the jews.

Many anti-Semites found their metier following the creation the Israel and began to actively champion the cause of the Arabs as a medium to carry the fight to the jews. However over time this exposure to a Semitic environment and without a central ideological authority to act as a rudder: anti-Semites began to associate the anti-Semitic cause with simply being the true anti-Zionist cause. Since it was understandably held that the jews had wreaked destruction on National Socialist Germany and Europe and hence many anti-Semites intended to do all in their power to wreak destruction in vengeance on the jews: not only for smearing Germany with allegations about the so-called �??holocaust�??, but for destroying their lives and families.

This change is perhaps best exemplified in the figure of Professor Doctor Johann von Leers who was a prolific anti-Semitic author: before, during and after the Third Reich. Von Leers himself was an avid proponent of the theory that the jew is biologically criminal and wrote some expansive scholarly work on the subject. After the defeat of National Socialist Germany von Leers fled to Italy and then Argentina where he published and edited the leading voice of anti-Semitism in the world in years following the end of Second World War, �??Der Weg�??, until the mid 1950�??s when the political climate in Argentina, with the premature death of Eva Perón in 1952, began to turn against anti-Semitism and the National Socialist refugees. With the climate turning against him: von Leers sought new employment, which he found in Egypt, which was struggling to come to intellectual and ideological terms with the recent formation of the expansionist state of Israel nearby and the displacement and massacres perpetrated by the Israeli jews and their allies. Von Leers threw himself into the task of creating an educated anti-Semitic discourse against the jews that the Egyptian, and the larger Arab, could understand and build on in order to destroy the jewish state in revenge for the destruction wreaked and the injustices, such as the Nuremberg (and subsequent) trials, committed by the jews against the Aryan folk.

In order to do this von Leers converted to Islam, changing his name to Omar Amin, and began writing for what he increasing argued was the anti-Semitic anti-Zionist cause against the state of Israel and jewry. Von Leers had during his years of service become enamored with Islam and contrasted it with Judaism as a Hegelian opposite (i.e. an anti-thesis): von Leers had earlier supported a nostalgic call to revive the nature-based animistic religions of early Aryan history, but this gradually became subsumed by his need to find a more structured and morally encompassing antidote to jewry with explicit condemnation of the jew as the enemy of mankind. Von Leers found this in Islam and in particular with the strain of Islam advocated by his friend Muhammad Amin Al-Husayni: the Mufti of Jerusalem.

We can thus begin to understand the precedent that many anti-Semites claim to be following in that with the fall of National Socialist Germany and anti-Semitic fascism across Europe: the refugees who were still, commendably, loyal to the ideals and spirit of the times looked to find a way to strike back. Many of them found it by working against Israel, but this does not mean that one must automatically oppose Zionism in theory. The guerrilla war understandably waged against the jews of Israel by those still loyal to the National Socialist and anti-Semitic spirit was a war against the jews not a war against Zionism.

Von Leers and other National Socialists who supported the Arab�??s propaganda and military campaign against Israel, such as Francois Genoud[5], did so as a means to an end and adopted anti-Zionist rhetoric as to fit the times. Not so much, because they opposed the concept of Zionism, but they, as I have said, understandably wished to strike back against the jews of the world for their pre-eminent role in the war of destruction, terror and torture waged against National Socialist Germany during and after the Second World War. Anti-Zionism was thus the medium for the continuance of the fight against the jews and not a condemnation by National Socialism, or the anti-Semites of that time, of Zionism as an ideology.

The popular anti-Semitic acceptance of a belief converse to the actuality of events, as I have explained them above, has been aided and abetted by jews and their philo-Semitic allies: who have increasingly argued, since the end of the Second World War, that Arabic anti-Semitism is just the same as �??Nazi�?? anti-Semitism. The evidence, on which they base this argument, is the use of those loyal to the National Socialist and anti-Semitic cause made of the Arab peoples in facilitating anti-Semitism an opportunity to strike back for the war crimes committed by the jews and their allies during and after the Second World War. The jews and their allies also point to the relationship between the Arabs and the Third Reich during the Second World War and that the Mufti of Jerusalem (Al-Husayni) went to Berlin and met Adolf Hitler[6] as well as becoming friends with Heinrich Himmler and several other high-ranking members of the SS such as Karl Wolff.

However this argued case all but collapses when we note that it wasn�??t an unusual thing for high-ranking officials to form a friendship with a non-jewish non-Aryan in the Third Reich. For they maintained many non-Aryan friends from Italians, Spanish, Latin Americans, Slavs to Indians as well as Arabs such as Al-Husayni. All these friendly groups helped the Third Reich, and in particular the SS (including providing military volunteers for provisional SS Freiwilligen regiments and divisions), in some manner or another and often were strongly anti-Semitic in their orientation. It is thus ridiculous to suggest that there was an unusual closeness between the Third Reich and the Arabic world.

The Third Reich, much as the Allies and Comintern, saw the Arabic world as being a valuable geo-political arena in which they needed influence: in order to secure vital Arab oil supplies and secure/seize the Suez channel, which was the main artery of the British war effort. The Third Reich saw the opportunities offered by inculcating anti-Semitism among the Arabs as well as the fertile ground on which it could be sown. They thus conducted, using Al-Husayni as their primary tool[7], a sophisticated and well-financed anti-Semitic propaganda campaign amongst the Arabs and Islamic world in general in order to carry favour. In this they were quite successful, but only indirectly[8].

This influence has ironically been felt in modern anti-Semitism with the presumption, as I have said, of anti-Semitism naturally being opposed to Zionism and with an increasing anti-Zionist focus on the activities of Israel has allowed modern anti-Semites to take out of context their historical counterparts actual motivation and reasoning behind their anti-Zionism. Jews and their supporters have had, as I have said, a very considerable part to play in the rise of this assumption in that they have produced many works, popular and academic, and newspaper/magazine articles as well as documentaries suggesting that the Arabs are the �??new Nazis�?? and that Arab anti-Semitism is �??Nazi�?? anti-Semitism.

These beliefs have seeped into anti-Semitism through the mass media[9] with anti-Semites, although professing to remain sceptical of the mass media precisely, because of the overwhelming jewish presence in and power over it, taking to heart the ideas purported by jews and their supporters in their works and not taking a step back and thinking about the �??why�?? of supporting the Arab war against Israel. Let us however be very clear on this point: the Arabs do not wish to destroy the jews and nor do they, as the jews claim, wish to wipe them off the face of the earth. What the Arabs wish to do is to destroy the state of Israel, which they contend exists on their land, and in more militant cases they wish to, in the spirit of their own racial nationalism (which is very similar to the practical results of Zionism), to subject the world to dictates of Islam (with the Arabs as the pre-eminent racial group: much as in the jewish conception of the world).

The ideology of using the �??dark races�?? to fight against the jews that was, directly or indirectly, championed by van den Bruck, Haushofer and Yockey makes its appearance here in the popular anti-Semitic conception that anti-Semitism must ally with the Arabs against the jews. However as we have discussed the Arabs are not actually anti-Semitic: they merely associate jews with Zionism and are as antagonistic to Israeli Arabs, such as the Druze, who actively support Zionism as they are jews. When the Arabs write, march and attack jews: they are not attacking jews as a biological group, but rather are attacking jews as a surrogate of Israel, which itself maintains that it exists as a homeland and a place of refuge for the jews. Therefore to the consciousness of the Arab: if Israel is maintaining it is the homeland of the jews and have or alleged to have done terrible things to Arabs in Palestine then it is only natural to seek out a surrogate to take out the pent up frustration, anger and rage on. That surrogate logically, became the wider idea of the jews as the enemy of the Arabs (as argued by Al-Husayni), but the logic was not that the jews were actually the enemy, but rather that Zionists and Israel were the enemy, but they professed that were representing the jews (so therefore in order to lampoon or strike back at Zionists and Israel you need, in the Arabic mind, to attack the jews: this doesn�??t meant the Arabs are anti-Semitic only anti-Zionist).

When the Arabs write, march and attack the �??Israel Lobby�?? they don�??t mean �??jewish world power�??, even if they write and declare as much, but rather they mean the power of Zionist political and lobbying groups in the United States of America and parts of Europe. When President Ahmadinejad of Iran embraced the rabbis of the anti-Zionist organisation, Neutri Karta, in Tehran: he didn�??t lampoon them as jews, but rather he embraced them as his friends and talked of their common enemies: Zionists and Israel.

Why did President Ahmadinejad do that if he was anti-Semitic in the �??Nazi�?? sense?

The answer is quite simple: he wouldn�??t have. To accept a jew as a friend and an aid as a biological anti-Semite would and is an unforgiveable act: precisely because it goes against the fundamental point of biological anti-Semitism in the complete rejection of the jew and all of his wares: emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual.

It thus cannot be said that Arabs are actually anti-Semitic, but they are ardently anti-Zionist as a rule. When we talk of Arab anti-Semitism what we are really talking about as a rule is Arab anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiment.

When advocates, knowing or unknowing, of this �??revolt against the modern world�??, as Julius Evola styled it, speak of allying with Arabs and/or speak approvingly of the Arab war against Israel as a war against the jews. They are, in fact, firstly misunderstanding the nature of Arab anti-Semitism and presuming in their racial subjectivity that the Arabs understand the jewish question in the same way that they do as well as presuming that the Arabic peoples have the same fundamental grievances against the jews as themselves.

These advocates presume this in that they assume that what might on the surface seem to be anti-Semitic critique is just that, but rather Arab nationalists will happily accept the aid of an anti-Zionist and/or a sincere converted jew (to Islam) into their rank, but yet in anti-Semitism this is not so. The Arabic peoples, as I have said, are not anti-Semitic, but rather anti-Zionist. The Arabic grievance is with the Zionists and the state of Israel not the jews themselves. Thus it is not a war against the jews, but rather a war against Israel and may even be considered a war to help create the conditions, which might allow for an Arabic, through the medium of Islam (much like the jews use of Judaism: although actually more invidious, because it makes the pretence of being universalistic), empire to be established.

This leads us into the second misunderstanding these advocates makes in that they assume that the Arabs interests are identical or close to the interests of the Aryan folk, but they are not. As I have noted the Arabs are a people who, like their Semitic kin: the jews, wish to rule the world as part of what they consider to be their right to do so. Their medium for this, as I have said, is the religion of Islam: whose leaders have historically always been of Semitic racial stock (and more often than not Arabs).

How can the Arabic peoples, whatever their grievances, as Semitic kin of the jews be regarded as allies or even as informal partners in the war against the jews?

The answer is simply that they cannot.

The reason for this in the biological conception of the jewish question is relatively simple. In that if the jews are Semites and bear close relation to the Arabs, who are also Semites, to such an extent that they can be considered genetic �??brothers�??. Then the jews and Arabs must be of similar if not the same stock and thus the nature of the jew must also, and is, inherent in the Arabs. All that has changed between the two is the language, the professed religion, the customs and some of the physical attributes.

The Arab is the cousin of the jew: so why should one oust the jew from his death-grip on the Aryan folk only to allow the jew�??s relation, the Arab, to take the jew�??s place at the neck of the Aryan folk by suggesting an alliance with and/or celebrating the anti-Semitism of, the Arabic peoples?

Have they not learnt from what the biological struggle against the jew has taught us?

Have they not understood that the jew�??s very existence in the Aryan folk is a threat to them even when they are under legal and police scrutiny? It is the biology of the jew that is the fundamental threat for every creature can only develop, evolve and act within its biological frame and not exceed it. The Arab is the genetic cousin of the jew so therefore the Arab is to be considered in the same sentence as the jew: as an enemy of the Aryan folk and a parasite on the organism of the nation.

When we understand that the Arab and the jew are cousins it becomes increasingly clear how the Arabs, especially the Arabic Palestinians, have used the Aryan folk in their struggle against Israel and its Zionist supporters. Much as the jew has used the Aryan folk in their much wider aims: the Arabs have their own supporters in North America and Europe who champion their cause as much as the Zionist jews and the philo-Semites champion the cause of Israel in those same lands.

[1] For more information see Kevin Coogan, 1999, �??Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Post War Fascist International�??, 1st Edition, Autonomedia: New York.
[2] This can be contrasted to National Socialism�??s own doctrines where-by such a �??revolt of the Third World�?? would be unthinkable and Adolf Hitler�??s famous refusal to even suggest that a non-British India would be a positive thing and his subsequent refusal to use Indian nationalism to his advantage. Despite the potentially large positive bonus for Germania�??s war effort that would accrue from this recognition: as the Japanese found with Subhas Chandra Bose and the forces he raised to fight for them. For a contrasting view to that offered by Yockey please see the work of Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant, which influenced Adolf Hitler.
[3] See Revilo Oliver�??s comments and critique of this in Revilo Oliver, 1981,�??The Enemy of our Enemies�??, 2nd Edition, Liberty Bell: Reedy, pp. 2-50.
[4] Fritsch went as far as to suggest that the Protocols of Zion, the authenticity of which he understandably believed, were the unofficial minutes of the first Zionist congress in Basel led by the official, although not actual, founder of Zionism: Theodor Herzl in his Theodor Fritsch, 1933, �??Die Zionistischen Protokolle: Das Programm der internationalen Geheimregierung�??, 14th Edition, Hammer Verlag: Leipzig.
[5] This doesn�??t include Ahmed Huber: who, like von Leers, converted to the Islam as it was preached by Al-Husayni (although more sincerely than von Leers I would contend), but doesn�??t, as many philo-Semites would contend, mean he supports the kind of Wahabist lunacy purported as a means to racial revival by Arabs all over the world.
[6] Who then supposedly explain to Al-Husayni that he wanted to exterminate all the jews of the world. However no convincing proof has ever been offered as to Hitler�??s words to Al-Husayni and certainly such a statement would be contrary to what Hitler himself often spoke of when he discussed the solution to the jewish question i.e. emigration and deportation with the placing in ghettos of those jews who chose to remain in the borders of the Third Reich.
[7] Since he had the reputation as an Islamic hero for his part in the guerrilla war fought against the jews and the British by the Arabs under Al-Husayni�??s aegis in the mid-late 1930�??s, as well as his authority as a high-ranking Islamic religious leader and his claim to be a descendent of the Prophet Mohammed.
[8] Due to Al-Husayni�??s post war status as the leader of the Arabic Palestinians against the Israeli jews: his opinions influenced by anti-Semitic works of the Third Reich became highly thought of by Arabs seeking cogent explanations for Israel�??s sudden re-emergence on their land.
[9] Good propaganda is subtle and the subject of the propaganda does not realise he/she has been successfully influenced by the propaganda: anti-Semites, whatever they may personally or collectively maintain and sincerely believe, are not an exception to this rule and have merely been propagandised in a different way to the mainstream audience for which the jewish and philo-Semitic propaganda was intended.

Opinion on World Events: The Gaza UN School Incident

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:39:00 +0000

I am sure you have heard of the recent shelling of the UN school in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces (or IDF for short) using mortars. Now what you may not have heard or seen is the absolute hullabaloo going on in the background between the jewish and philo-Semitic supporters of Israel and the rest of the world. The former seek to justify the attack while the later condemn it unconditionally. I won�??t defend Hamas or the Israelis, but rather I am only interested in looking at this rationally taking into consideration what we do know and what this proves or doesn�??t prove.

Let us recap what supposedly happened:

The UN school in Gaza was a place of refuge, naturally since the UN is neutral, where it is estimated over 1,000 displaced persons had gathered. Israel proceeded to launch, what is said to have been, a mortar attack on the UN school. This is in violation of the neutral status of the UN school, which as a peacekeeping organisation is a place of refuge for those displaced in war.

How do Israel and her supporters seek to justify this attack?

We are told that the IDF attacked the UN school, because a Hamas unit/cell was using its grounds to launch a mortar attack on nearby IDF units. The jews and their supporters then maintain that the IDF merely returned fire and then unfortunately hit the UN school. As a further argument it is asserted that amongst the dead in the UN school were two members of the Hamas unit/cell that was supposedly launching said mortar attack. This according to jews and their supporters therefore justifies the attack and whilst they maintain they are very sorry about the Palestinian dead: they also maintain it was both necessary and an unfortunate accident (i.e. the IDF didn�??t �??know�?? there was a UN school there).

As evidential proof of this claim concerning the supposed mortar attack launched on the IDF from the grounds of the school: the IDF have released a video showing what they assert is a Hamas unit/cell launching a similar attack from the same school grounds a year ago.

Let us think about these arguments used by the jews and their supporters for a moment.

Now if indeed a Hamas unit/cell did launch a mortar attack from a school on the IDF and please note we only have the IDF�??s suggestion and two �??anonymous residents�??, who �??feared for their lives�??, who spoke on the phone to the Associated Press as evidence for this being the case.

No UN staff, to my knowledge, have come forward to say this is the case, which we have to note is of interest. Since if there was mortar fire coming from the grounds of the UN school the UN staff there should have at least heard it and would likely have seen it. The UN staff would have no reason, as a neutral party in the war, to lie for Hamas, but yet we have heard nothing from them to support the Israeli version of events.

Why?

I would conjecture that the reason we haven�??t heard anything from this quarter is the simple reason that they didn�??t hear or see anything to indicate a mortar attack was being carried out from the UN school grounds. This isn�??t to say it might not have happened and due to circumstances it wasn�??t picked up on by the UN staff, but rather that it seems very odd indeed that nobody else, but the IDF and two supposed �??residents�??, seems to have noticed the first attack.

Does the assertion made by the IDF that they found the corpses of the two leaders of the Hamas unit/cell with weapons in the rubble of the UN school evidence of the first attack having taken place? No: it isn�??t. Why isn�??t it evidence?

It isn�??t evidence for the first attack by a Hamas unit/cell on an IDF unit nearby since there is no evidence, beyond the questionable assertion by the IDF, that these two Semite men were involved in the attack at all or even that the weapons they carried are their own. Carrying weapons is nothing unusual in Gaza and there is the very real possibility that they may have been simply been in the school for other, more innocent reasons, but because they were Hamas members they armed themselves to protect their families from harm. There is also the possibility, which we cannot rule out because of the nature of cover-ups in military conflict, especially in police actions as this can be classed as. That Israeli forces placed weapons at the scene in order to give them an excuse after they had realised they had hit a UN building. We can�??t suggest this as anything, but a speculative point, however it is something that needs to be considered in any analysis for precisely the reason of doing as the jews claim they do in �??maintaining balance�??.

We simply don�??t have any evidence to conclude that these two Hamas members were involved in this alleged mortar attack. It is, of course, perfectly possible that they were involved and that they did conduct a mortar attack from the grounds of the UN school, but no conclusive or even suggestive evidence has been given for this other than the official statement of the IDF concerning the matter.

However even if we assume that the IDF were responding to a mortar attack from the school grounds it begs the question that if they could identify that these two Hamas men were involved in this attack before the response, this seems to be implied by those defending Israel and even possibly in the IDF's own statement, why they could not wait to perform an ancillary strike or apprehend the two men at a later time?

Why was it necessary for the IDF to return mortar fire when they knew the rough position of the Hamas unit/cell and either did or didn�??t have the information that there was a neutral UN-administered school nearby? Either way the fault must lie with the IDF�??s commanders and/or troops on the ground or the operational staff at the command and control level.

You might ask why this is must be so. The reason that the fault must lie with either the commander and/or troops on the ground or at the operational staff level is that if there was a mortar attack and the IDF knew it had come from the UN school area and did not take precautions against civilian casualties. By co-operating with the UN to look for Hamas suspects potentially sheltering in the UN school as the two dead Hamas members were said to have done. There was no need to simply launch return fire on the UN school when a man hunt operation would have sufficed to flush out the alleged Hamas mortar unit/cell.

Therefore if the IDF commanders and/or troops on the ground launched a mortar attack on the UN school knowing it was there then they are guilty of war crimes: since they deliberately bombed a non-combatant target killing numerous innocents in the process. Likely, I suspect, because it contained those who many nationalist Israeli jews, i.e. a belief likely widely held among IDF soldiers, consider amalek and they believe that Yahweh, the jewish God, ordered them to exterminate from the face of the earth. This belief has been argued to be central in much jewish �??right-wing�?? thought by Elliot Horowitz among others and we can reasonably suggest that such thought is pervasive inside the IDF who are generally jewish nationalist in orientation. This belief, that Yahweh has ordered the death of implacable enemies of the jews who are identified as amalek, thus could act and perhaps did in this case, as a rationale for the attack if indeed it was, as I suspect, deliberate.

We should also take into account that Israeli society in general is notoriously opposed to the UN, because they deem it to be a pro-Palestinian organisation that prevents Israel from doing what it believes must be done. This belief is also particularly predominant among nationalist jews who write about anti-Semitic conspiracies involving Arab states, oil companies and �??deluded liberals�?? at the UN. Opinion within the IDF although likely less visceral than that among the nationalist (secular and religious) right in Israel is similar since the IDF can be said to regard the UN as a yoke on their body preventing them from doing what they, as jews, feel they have to do against the Palestinian Arabs.

However if the IDF commanders and/or troops on the ground launched a mortar attack on the UN school without knowing it was such. Then it was an accident, but it thus becomes the operational staff at the command and control level�??s responsibility, because Gaza is a place well known to their troops and themselves. They also, as they have admitted, were and are well aware of the UN school�??s location and what it was. Hence if they failed to provide their troops with accurate intelligence and information as to their surroundings: they must be held responsible for this incident.

So we can thus say that the fault must lie with the IDF (hence Israel is at fault) and not with anyone else: regardless of whether Hamas launched a mortar assault from the grounds of the UN school or not.

Does the footage provided and cited by the IDF in their defence of what they assert is a Hamas unit/cell firing from the grounds of the UN school over year ago proves that such an attack occurred here? Of course it does not: all it proves was that in 2007 a mortar attack was launched by parties unknown from the UN school grounds not that one was launched from the UN school grounds in 2009.

It might be suggested by jews and philo-Semites that this suggests that the UN school was used by Hamas units/cells to launch mortar attacks on Israeli forces. Indeed this is partially true: since mortar attacks have been launched from the grounds before, but it does not prove it was the case this time or justify the attack on the UN school. Rather it further implicates the IDF in the action, because in 2007 when they assert they came under mortar attack from the UN school grounds: they didn�??t shell the UN school. Why did this become a necessity of war in 2009 when it was not in 2007?

It is also pertinent to point out that had the UN school been unintentionally sheltering Hamas units/cells then all the IDF had to do was make a request to the UN to search the premises and the Arabs in it. However launching a mortar attack on the UN school was and cannot be justified on any grounds even as counter-battery fire (since the jews either had access to, and the ability to read, detailed maps or did not: hence either the commanders and/or troops on the ground are responsible or those in operational staff at the command and control level are).

Therefore we can conclude in the absence of evidence that there was no military or political justification for such an attack and that Israel must be found to be worthy of indictment for war crimes for casually allowing their soldiers to attack a neutral power and a place of refuge for non-combatants and civilians.

This isn�??t to say that the causus belli of the jews and the Arabs on each other isn�??t valid: for race is as valid a reason for war as any other and indeed is the basis of much evolutionary conflict. However we can learn from the jewish actions how Semites fight: that is that they are interested only in �??fighting dirty�??, as they say. When one gets in the way of a �??dirty fight�?? then it is only natural one is going to get hurt, but this doesn�??t justify the attacks made by the jews on neutral ground, but rather demonstrates the alien mentality of Semites, jew and Arab, in general.

In Brief: The Abuse of Adolf Hitler�??s Words to Dismiss/Ignore Arguments

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:17:00 +0000

A very common method used by Nationalists and anti-Semites to ignore arguments, or as a �??get out of jail free card�??, in a debate is the quotation of Adolf Hitler�??s �??Mein Kampf�??. It is important to understand this quotation, because of the frequency of its use, as stated above, to get out of bad positions when debating opponents (or each other), which is usually the result of sloppy research and broad statements being made: without the specific knowledge and/or ability to evidence and clarify them. This is an �??In Brief�??, because the required clarification although considerable can be concisely dealt with. This quotation, in full (it is often given in part), is as follows:

�??The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.�??[1]

This quotation might, at first, appear to support the contention that it can be used to ignore arguments. However if we examine it closely we begin to comprehend Hitler�??s meaning. In that when the quotation states the jewish marxists lost the argument, but then returned again and again with the same arguments the days after, no matter how many times they were defeated or corrected, with the recollection that they, the jews and/or marxists in question, had in fact won the argument the previous day. What Hitler is actually talking about is repetition of the same arguments that have been answered as in simply repeating old claims without answering objections and/or modifying the assertion/argument in the light of new information.

What Hitler is not saying here is that if a claim/assertion/argument is considered �??jewish�?? by someone, i.e. a wholly subjective interpretation and only partially valid for an expert in the jewish question (i.e. somebody who has spent many years in-depth as well as primary research regarding the jews), then it can countered/debunked by claiming the person making the claim/assertion/argument is in fact jewish and parroting jews.

This statement of what Hitler is not saying is the meaning often attached by Nationalists, who think he meant what I have stated he did not mean, to the quotation. What Hitler is making here is an observation about jewish and marxist strategy when debating[2], which is to make a long series of claims, but when challenged on them. The jew/marxist in question simply repeats bland assertions without factoring in coherent evidenced critique or answering the objections point by point. Then as an optional point, that again we often still see today[3], the jew and/or marxist will come back after a time and simply repeat the same old arguments that have been answered without answering or even recollecting the objections (often ignoring them entirely).

This is what Hitler speaks of when he discusses how the claims were repeated, but yet when coherent critique was offered: the arguments made by jews and marxists seemed to be made of jelly and nothing solid or substantial. By this he means that the jews were repeating the same assertions and platitudes after having admitted they were false the day before having no actual evidence to support them. By using this quotation as an excuse to not answer your critics/detractors you, in fact, become the same as the jew and/or marxist that Adolf Hitler is talking about in these very lines.

This quote is not an excuse not to answer your detractors and critics, but rather it is a declaration that you must and that by repeating arguments ad infinitum, but not addressing or taking account of counter-arguments presented, you are acting like the jews and/or marxists that Hitler so aptly describes. I dare say Adolf Hitler would have been quite sickened by the use of his words to avoid debate with jews and/or marxists. rather than to attack to the eternal enemies of the Aryan race in a measured and rational military manner.

If you have any real respect for Adolf Hitler, as a man, as a writer and as an ideal, then you would not use the words of this truly great man as an excuse for your own failings. Aryan men and women are honest, true and good: they don�??t hide behind the great men of the past and certainly not the hero the Second World War. If you don�??t know something, or make a mistake, then admit it and be honest: do your research and work hard. Please don�??t act like a jew and hide in a corner trying to invoke the name of Adolf Hitler to silence your opponent: it is utterly repugnant.

[1] Adolf Hitler, Trans: James Murphy, 1939, �??Mein Kampf: A Retrospect�??, Vol. I, 1st Edition (Unexpurgated), Hurst & Blackett: London, pp. 63-64.
[2] One that I would contend could be more broadly applied today to include most of what are colloquially termed �??Conspiracy Theorists�??: including not a few of the so-called �??anti-Semites�?? in the world today.
[3] One obvious example of this can be found in the �??9/11 Truth Movement�?? who seem to, once rebutted, simply reappear a variable, usually short, time later making exactly the same claims with the same sources having not introduced any further research or evidence to their claims (other than the accusation that their opponents are automatically jews or shills in the case the �??anti-Semitic�?? part of the �??9/11 Truth Movement�??).

A Christopher Jon Bjerknes Debacle: Responsum concerning Albert Einstein

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:23:00 +0000

Some time ago I made a variety of critical remarks on the claims pertaining to Einstein's alleged plagiarism, including quotes from Bjerknes �??Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist�??, on the Stormfront message board (also contained in parts in a previous blog-article here).

Recently, on Bjerknes' own blog[1], a response was issued by him and therefore I'd like to respond to Bjerknes and his criticism.

He writes:

�??The value of my work and my expertise on the subject of Albert Einstein and the history of the development of the theory of relativity has been gratefully acknowledged by the prominent and innovative physicists Prof. Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg of the University of Nevada, Reno, and Prof. Dr. Anatoly Alexeevich Logunov, former Vice President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. If I had made the mistakes wrongfully attributed to me on the "Stormfront" message boards, these renowned scientists would not have relied upon me and my work. Prof. Logunov has published several books and articles which discredit the views of this "LionAxe" regarding Einstein and Minkowski's plagiarism of Poincare's theory of relativity and space-time, some of which appear for free on the internet�??

What we have here is an argument that firstly is an appeal for authority fallacy in that since allegedly the physicists Winterberg and Logunov believes Einstein was a plagiarist. Bjerknes is therefore making a valid argument and that unless he had no expertise the aformentioned scientists wouldn't have relied upon him and his work. Now I have emailed Professor Winterberg and he didn't agree that he relied on Bjerknes for his views, moreso on his own views and work[2].

Secondly Bjerknes is accusing me of misrepresenting him and that I have some how denied that the history of relativity hasn�??t been a collective work contributed to by many scientists. This is false. Not once have I made the claim that science, especially concerning the history of physics, hasn't been portrayed in an oft one-dimensional frame or that there was no history of relativity to speak of prior to Einstein.

He continues:

�??It is noteworthy that "LionAxe" quote mines my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist (2002) for a remark about Johann Georg von Soldner's work, when I stated in that book that I would address the General Theory of Relativity in another book (AEIP p. 107). That subsequent book Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity appeared in 2003, and in it I republished Soldner's relevant paper and provided a detailed analysis of Einstein's plagiarism of Soldner's, and others, work, and there explained the nature of Soldner's theory. In addition, I have since published a freely available chapter on Soldner's theory in my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (2006) which contains important amplifications of my book Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity. It appears that "LionAxe" is obviously not interested in my arguments, for he does not cite these specific works where my arguments are spelled out in intricate detail, but instead wants to quote mine a book I wrote which was not devoted to addressing this issue, and even under this opaque veil of ignoring my relevant writings, "LionAxe" misrepresent my views and the facts. Those interested in my arguments on this issue of Soldner's work should read chapters 11, 12, and 13, of my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (2006); where you will learn that "LionAxe" is wrong. "LionAxe" is also mistaken in attributing to Einstein and Minkowski what Poincare, Marcolongo and Melchior Palagyi, among many others, created before them. On this subject, refer to my online book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein and Prof. Logunov's above linked works.�??

Bjerknes objects to me quoting his initial book since, as he himself basically says, his argument is not qualified enough and berates me for not having further read his elaborations made elsewhere. Well he did make and word those arguments, which he continues to make in his additional work (as I've looked at them). So his complaint is pointless.

Now on the subject of Soldner. Einstein's calculations followed from the idea of gravitational time dilation. As far as the history is concerned: I know of no evidence that Einstein somehow stole the result from Soldner. Bjerknes thinks otherwise. For example he quotes Einstein saying:

�??That the idea of bending light rays was bound to emerge in the time of the emission theory is quite natural, as is the fact that the numerical result is exactly the same as that according to the equivalence hypothesis�??.

Here Einstein is simply noting that it had been addressed without the contextual predictions of any inclusive relativity theory and he's not noting on Soldner's work. Einstein hadn't arrived at finding the doubled figure to be a valid one when the above quote was made. So he wasn't talking about Soldner and the contention that he was simply repeating newtonian emission theory is a moot point. Since Einstein never claimed that newtonian emission theory was his idea. When I do not quote Pythagora when using Pythagora's theorum. I am not stealing anything since the references are inherent in the mathematics and tools used (which Einstein never claimed, as per relativity, to have invented).

This is what Bjerknes often does: he makes the case of priority interchangeable with plagiarism. Which is odd, since then a score of the most known scientists in physics and natural sciences would be plagiarists by the same logic: especially Newton for his usage of Hooke's or Descartés�?? work.

Descartes' law of inertia: �??Every body, As far as in its power, Always remains in the same state.�??[3]

Which Newton renamed to his first law of motion: �??Each thing, As far as it is compelled, Preserves its state.�??

Using the same line of accusation as oft applied toward Einstein: one could be equally justified in saying that Newton plagiarized Huygen�??s law of momentum-conservation and renamed it Newton's Third Law. That Newton stole Kepler's Third Law and re-wrote it as two Newtonian laws: Newton's law of gravity and Newton's second law or Hooke's work. Does it make Newton a plagiarist just because he wasn't the first to assert that gravity might obey an inverse square law and that his could account for the planets moving in ellipses for example? If we follow the Bjerknes�?? logic this is a given, yet I disagree here as well.

Did Newton plagiarize Leonardo's principles?

�??All movement tends to maintenance, or rather all moved bodies continue to move as long as the impression of the force of their motors (original impetus) remains in them."(Principle of Leonardo)[4]

�??Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.�?? (wording of Newton's first law of motion)[5]

Einstein had already thought about the calculation made by his approach to invariance (etc), which was later called the �??special theory of relativity�??. However: he already knew it to be wanting, because of the principle of equivalence acceleration means the bending of light in an accelerated frame implying the bending of light by a massive object. Einstein's whole idea was to generalize the SR, which was about inertial frames, to include the laws of physics as seen from accelerated frames. So, he set about to make such a theory, not even possible in the early 1800's, because the mathematics needed for it was not yet available. It doesn't matter whether light bending is part of Newton's theory or not, because anyone who had studied these matters was discussing and asking themselves if and why a photon passing by a massive object in its path is bent. That's a forgone conclusion not sign of plagiarism on Einstein's part.

Bjerknes further quotes Einstein saying:

�??It may be added that, according to the theory, half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the Sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification (curvature) of space caused by the Sun.�??

Again, Bjerknes is not noting on Soldner's work, but on two things;

1: these problems were known and juggled with prior to Einstein.

2: They followed naturally by the work on gravitational time dilation.

Bjerknes quotes Einstein further, in an attempt to make it seem as if Einstein knowingly �??plagiarized�?? Soldner:

�??I discovered in 1911 that the principle of equivalence demands a deflection of the light rays passing by the Sun with observable magnitude �?? this without knowing that more than a hundred years ago a similar consequence had been anticipated from Newton's mechanics in a combination with Newtons emission theory of light.�??

How does the above constitute any lie or concession of plagiarism? He's being correct, he did find that the principle of equivalence demanded the formentioned, without claiming it as his own. Since anyone of his peers would know that ideas concerning the problems of the mechanics physics, or deflection of light, were an issue discussed and addressed prior to Einstein. He knew the arc of bending, per century, had to amount to 43 seconds and Einstein provided the work for how to approach that, which Soldner effectively didn't the same at all.

It all follows perfectly logically and to be expected of course, that if one believes in corpuscular theory of light (as Newton did, which Einstein recognized) then it is obvious such corpusles would be affected by a gravitational field.

Let me make the obvious point. If one assumes in Newtonian theory that light is a corpuscle with weight and will fall in the gravitational field, then one does get the half deflection reported.

What I wonder is how this works out when one adopts a wave theory like Maxwell's, which would have been the appropriate thing to do in the early 20th century. Had anyone computed what happens in Newtonian or Minkowski spacetime? Would there be any deflection at all? Or does it depend on the coupling one assumed between gravity and electromagnetism?

Einstein himself noted on how the differences between his and Newton's speculations were quite few, a couple were the distortion of the oval orbits of planets around the sun (which when Mercury was confirmed, held concistently not only with this specific prediction but with the entire theory given) and the work on why and how shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum as per light waves emitted from stars of appreciable mass (not a given or clarity given by Soldner, neither did he later declare his work through the electric nature of light).

Also, Born and Hilbert (not sure which of the two wrote the following) commented on Soldner stating:

�??The final value of of the curvature of light follows naturally out of the general relativity theory. It is a mistake to believe that Soldner had foreseen the relativity theory�??.[6]

As an additional note of curiosa, here is an excerpt from a paper that in detail investigated Soldner's work on deflection, its editions and comparitive discussion on Newton, Lenard, Einstein et al:

�??Thus Soldner did nowhere draw false inferences but fell a victim to the printer's devil, and it is indesputable that Soldner obtained the Newtonian value of the deflection of light, which with respects to the constants of his time amounts to 0.84, and not to Einstein's value. Any information to the contrary about Soldner's calculations is erronous. The preeminent point in Soldner's theory consist in his (vigorously refused by Lenard but, in fact, genial) reference to Epicurus and Lucretius, who postulated the equivalence of inertia and gravity from philosophical reasons. All the same Soldner's theory differs completely from the general relativistic explaination for the deflection of light, as can be seen from the velocity, which in Soldner's and Einstein's approaches take oppostice courses.�??[7]

Double deflection comes from two equal parts. One is a falling of the light in the gravity of sun, which is essentially the Newtonian effect. The other comes from the slight deviation of the geometry of space around the sun from Euclidean geometry. That is a decidedly non-Newtonian effect. Einstein came to see how this wasn't correct. His 1913 "Entwurf" theory did not predict a disturbance to the geometry of space around the sun, so it only predicted the Newtonian half deflection, which is what Einstein reported. For a brief time in1915, Einstein entertained a variant theory in which the trace T of the stress energy tensor vanished. Also that variant theory is equivalent to the final theory in empty space. That is the case dealt with in light deflection by the sun.

To imply plagiarism here is as nonsensical as to invoke the �??Thomson Experiment�?? of 1897 as proof of plagiarism. Thomson's work here was not comparable to mass-energy equivalence work done, also, in the experiment, he forced a stream of electrons through opposing fields (magnetic- electrical) and measured the ratio of the electron�??s,which he is credited to have discovered, charge to its mass. This is not the same as rest energy, which in turn is not to be confused with inertial mass.

As I've stated before, a notable difference between those who get credit for a "good idea" and those who do not is that one is only, generally, credited when turning a "good idea" into a testable and proven theory/thesis, which Einstein did, including it in a frame of work that was well beyond the grasp and understanding of physicists a hundred years prior. So, the fact that there is a trace to ideas and approaches to problems there-of, while not being fervently cited by future scientists, is not a thing or sign of plagiarism. When already known formulations/theories/tools are used to derive new approaches and frames of work then those derivations for a more unique entity, if not then Newton, Oppenheimer and so forth would be plagiarists along with numerous of others.

Bjerknes continues:

�??Logunov and I have already refuted this "LionAxe's" nonsense. Poincare's PoR is the same as Einstein's plagiarized version. In fact Einstein and his wife copied it almost verbatim from Poincare, the minor and insignificant differences in wording being due more to translation than anything else. Poincare's name is not generally associated with the PoR, rather Einstein's is, and to deny that fact is simply absurd. Ask the average man on the street who Henri Poincare was, and he will likely not know. Ask him who first stated the "principle of relativity" and he will likely state "Einstein". Of course, as my books are dedicated to proving, countless experts in the field know that Poincare first iterated the PoR. "LionAxe's" attack is unfounded and disingenuous.�??

Poincarés approach and work on relativistic physics were not the same as Einstein's, if they were then Poincaré would have agreed with Einstein's work, which he did not. And Poincaré is, in the well established history of science, associated with PoR, just not as much as Einstein, but that is not Einstein's fault. It is not Newton's fault that his name is generally associated with gravitational physics, planetary motions etc, whereas the average laymen would respond with �??say again?�?? when asked about Robert Hooke or even Kepler. Likewise would you get a clueless response when asking people on what Copernicus derived from Ptolemy's astronomy and so forth.

Here follows a lengthy excerpt from an excellent and thorough paper written by Roger Cerf[8], discussing and clarifiying the erronous case of the plagiarism charges made by people like Louis de Broglie and especially Jules Leveugle.[9]

�??Although Poincaré cannot be credited for having discovered special relativity, did he recognize the equivalence between inertial mass and energy of a body as Leveugle claims? Leveugle�??s claim[10] rests on the fact that in 1900. Poincaré obtained an expression for the quantity of motion of radiant energy[11] that agrees with the relation E=mc2. VonLaue[12] paid tribute to Poincaré for this result, from which itfollows that a charged particle in motion, for example, anelectron, possesses an electromagnetic mass. These findings are far from Einstein�??s assertion of the general equivalence between inertia and energy.[13] The philosopher François L�??Yvonnet, in a book of dialogs with the futurologist Thierry Gaudin,[14] has nonetheless followed the example of Leveugle and asserts that Poincaré �??had very clearly formulated therelation E=mc2.�?? Both Gaudin and L�??Yvonnet discuss why this relation, allegedly due to Poincaré, was attributed to Einstein: the latter�??s article was written in German Gaudin and �??Einstein perhaps had a greater sense of communica-tion�?? L�??Yvonnet[15]. If Poincaré had conceived E=mc2 in 1900, his colleague Langevin would have known. Langevin had been closely following Poincaré�??s work, and both men spent a week traveling together in the United States after the St. Louis International Congress of Arts and Sciences in 1904.[16]

Langevin would not have suddenly come a few years later to tell his co-worker Edmond Bauer that he was on track to find a relation between the inertial mass and the energy of a body.[17] He had checked it for an electron for which it followed from Lorentz�??s and Poincaré�??s work on radiation and was searching for a general theory. Bauer recounts that he was at the time in charge of abstracts for the journal Le Radium, and that he came across an article by someone named Einstein, where he saw the relation E=mc2 that Langevin had been telling him about. He ran immediately to inform Langevin, without even reading the article. We see that Poincaré may have had mathematical hints available to him for a major discovery in physics, that is, E=mc2, without having even a suspicion of their significance. In his 2004 book Leveugle emphasized that in Poincaré�??s 1900 example, the body emitting the radiant energy E loses the inertia m=Ec�??2. This addendum by Leveugle to the E=mc2 controversy leaves unchanged our last remark concerning Poincaré�??s lack of insight into certain aspects of the physics involved. Poincaré�??s considerations on a body emitting radiant energy clearly show his unawareness of the equivalence between inertial mass and energy. He returned to the example of radiant energy in the lecture he gave at the International Congress in 1904 in St. Louis mentioned earlier and noted that the recoil of the emitting body occurred as if the projectile, that is, the radiant energy, were a �??ball.�?? However, as pointed out by Janssen, Poincaré insisted that �??our projectile here has no mass, it is not matter, it is energy.�?? [18]

Also, neither Einstein or Poincaré were the first to state �??the principle of relativity�??. It goes back to at least Galileo and has a long there-of on-going history of transformation.

Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes' writes:

"Between 1887 and 1905 there were several attempts, most notably by the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of objects contracting and clocks slowing down when they moved through the ether. However, in a famous paper in 1905, a hitherto unknown clerk in the Swiss patent office, Albert Einstein, pointed out that the whole idea of an ether was unnecessary, providing one was willing to abandon the idea of absolute time. A similar point was made a few weeks later by a leading French mathematician, Henri Poincare. Einstein's argument were closer to physics than those of Poincare, who regarded this problem as mathematical. Einstein is usually given credit for the new theory, but Poincare is remembered by having his name attached to an important part of it." (pp. 22-23)

Einstein not once claimed that he had invented the mathematical tools for proof, such as the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction[19], tensor-calculus etc. But he had succeeded in unifying several results under the "umbrella" of one theory. Poincaré, for example, was actually nothing less than the most important mathematician of his times. Hence it would be borderline impossible for anyone to steal/plagiarize his work. Since anything he put forth were, and are, well known in the world of physics. Therefore: the thesis purported by Bjerknes that Einstein had just taken it, somehow retracting credit from the creators of the given tools, is glaringly fraudulent.

First of all: Poincaré did maintain aether as crucial, even as late as in his 1909 Lille address in which he included it. Even if Poincaré did equations to explain why the Michelson Morley experiment hadn't yielded proof for aether: he continued to base his predictions and assumptions that there was an aether. This was one of the reasons why he didn�??t accept Einstein�??s predictions or work to be accurate. Had it been a case of plagiarism: why would Poincaré disagree with the material that he himself purported?

A reason why Poincaré might not have liked Einstein (Poincaré didn�??t include Einstein�??s work or theories in his lectures, writings etc, yet never accused him of plagiarism) was probably because Poincaré never managed to establish much from the relevant conjectures and good ideas. To which Einstein received much of the thunder that Poincaré had hoped to achieve, not fame, because he had that already, but to be correct. Also he might have felt offended by Einstein when he didn't include him as a reference in his initial paper, which came out a few months after Poincaré's that dealt with similar problems.

However, contrary to popular yet erroneous claims made by some, Einstein did mention Lorentz (not to mention Plank, Hertz, Maxwell, Brown, Lenard etc) in more than one of his 1905-1907 papers and also gave reference to Poincaré�??s work[20] (directly on the action/reaction principle).

One might ask, considering some people claim Einstein plagiarized Poincaré, what differences made Einstein�??s work his own original venture?

*Einstein completely discarded the ether, as he predicted and theorized that the expressions of the laws of physics should be the same/similar for any inertial frame. Also: as mentioned before, his meaning of "new kinematics" meant that time and space, measured in differing inertial systems, were on the exact footing.

*Poincaré didn't exclude the aether, as he viewed it as the privileged reference-frame wherein "true" space and time were defined.

*Einstein viewed the radiation paradoxes of Poincaré to be only solved by assuming the inertia of energy.

*Poincaré didn't bring up this paradox problem again.

*Einstein brought forth the operational meaning of time dilation.

*Poincaré didn't consider the aspect above therefore.[21]

SR basically established that the relativity principle is fundamental to physics in the sense that the laws of physics; in all inertial frames, must be identical. Since Einstein discarded a privileged frame; this was given, Poincaré didn't discard it and he in fact based his assumptions and predictions on a privileged frame. Poincaré formulated the principle differently: since according to Poincaré�??s relativity principle. It would be impossible by means of an experiment internal to a given inertial frame to know whether this frame is in motion or at rest with respect to the aether frame. Hence Poincaré's approach to extended space time transformations, unlike Einstein's approach, assumes an aether frame.

The space and time transformations improved by Poincaré from Lorentz were therefore based on a set of "fictitious" transformations: since they had been obtained based on systematic errors during their measurements. Einstein's theories differed greatly. Poincaré simply did not establish, or reveal, the alterations and changes to the space-time predictions that follow from the theory of relativity. Einstein did however.

The key points of Poincaré's "Sur la Dynamique de l'�?lectron" yielded that, under L-transformation, the equations of Maxwell were invariant. Einstein viewed the radiation paradoxes to be only solved by assuming the inertia of energy. This was in contradiction with Poincaré�??s views and papers and also Poincaré never addressed this problem again. Einstein brought forth the operational meaning of time dilation whilst Poincaré didn't consider the above.[22] These were just a few points, but it is obvious that Einstein's SR differed substantially from Poincaré�??s.[23]

Anyone who erroneously awards all the credit to Einstein is wrong, but it isn't Einstein's error. Poincaré's theory on special relativity tried to reconcile two incompatible ideas, which were the existence of a preferred inertial frame and the relativity principle. Einstein discarded the idea of this given and privileged reference frame, which was the correct and revealing move to do at the time of these predictions. The very notion that anything could have been stolen from Henrí Poincaré is inherently false in my opinion because, among other things, in 1905 Poincare was already a superhero, one of the world�??s most famous scientists and mathematicians. The research and faculty reviewers in the scientific establishment in Europe jumped over anything published by Poincaré. Hence: through a close but educated analysis, what is clearly revealed is that Henrí wasn�??t able to formulate a proper theory of relativity.[24]

Whilst Henri Poincaré effectively and quite philosophically adhered to the PoR: he did believe that this principle might actually be deducible from a revised version of electrodynamics. Subsequently: Poincaré was not ready to take the important step of eliminating the ether concept that had hampered effective and revealing critical insight, whereas Einstein succeeded in eliminating it. This concept was in stark contrast with the essence and simplicity for a correct grasp of the principle of relativity: since it is supposed to treat all frames on an equal footing. Poincaré was also a bit bewildered by the fact that gravitational phenomena seemed to be inconsistent with the PoR.

Therefore, in a sense, he was obstructing himself by having too large a canvas per se. Poincaré's work was more an intermediate, or transitional, step between the prior standard of electrodynamics and the more complete and defined theory formulated by Albert Einstein. Besides the aether problem persisting within Poincaré�??s explorative works. He also persisted with holding a difference between the effect of contraction of moving bodies, along the direction of relative motion, and the notion of relativity of simultaneity, which follows from the idea of a local time.

The essence of special relativity lies in the thesis that Newton's account of space and time is incorrect and that all processes unfold against a space and time governed by SR. That thesis was laid out clearly in Einstein's 1905 paper. Poincaré did not build on two kinematical postulates, but worked in terms of the Maxwell equations. He also didn�??t take the following steps necessary and it is these differences that set Einstein's work sharply apart from his. Poincare never laid out that central thesis. He did make some suggestive remarks about the speed of light and simultaneity: yes. But most importantly: they were never developed into the simple (nor a provable and testable) claim that Newton was wrong on space and time.

What Poincaré does say is a great deal muddier with philosophical avenues and open to other interpretations. For example Poincare had clear conventionalist leanings and in his work there seemed to be more than one natural way to distribute time through space using notions of simultaneity.

Similarly: one must realize that aspects of Poincare's remarks on the principle of relativity were inconclusive. He remarked that no experiment would reveal our motion with respect to the ether. That is fully compatible with continuing to believe that there is ether with a distinct state of rest.If Poincare had the special theory of relativity and believed that processes unfold against a space and time governed by a kinematics different from Newton's: why did he not just say it? As Einstein showed in his paper, it is not that hard to lay it out in a few simple sections, and Poincare was hardly inarticulate.

However it is a note to be put forth that Poincaré was quite near the solutions and he did bring forth a lot of relevant angles which most mainstream historians have missed:

�??Historically, the important point is that this more limited principle was a major novelty when Poincare´ introduced it. Another example of a pro-Einstein bias is the ignorance or downplaying of Poincare�??s interpretation of Lorentz�??s local time. Until very recently, most historians of relativity overlooked the fact that Poincare offered this interpretation in 1900, in a widely read memoir. Even if they acknowledged its occurrence in Poincare�??s St. Louis lecture of 1904, they failed to see the structural similarity with Einstein�??s derivation of the Lorentz transformations.

Other historians have had the opposite bias. Exclusive focus on the formal and empirical content of relativity theory (the Lorentz group and covariance properties) has led some of them to ignore the difference between Poincare�??s and Einstein�??s concepts of space and time, while nationalism, anti-Semitism, or esprit d�??Ecole induced others to read much more into Poincare´�??s text than is really there. For instance, it has been claimed that Poincare´ had the second principle of relativity theory on the basis of his having written in 1898 that the astronomer [who dates stellar events in light-years] has begun by supposing that light has a constant velocity and, in particular, that its velocity is the same in all directions. That is a postulate without which no measurement of this velocity could be attempted. . . . The postulate conforms to the principle of sufficient reason and has been accepted by everybody; what I wish to emphasize is that it furnishes us with a new rule for the investigation of simultaneity.

It is clear from the context that Poincare meant here to apply the postulate only in an etherbound Frame.�??[25]

In Poincaré's "Sur la dynamique de l�??électron"(1906): he does indeed disclose the modern form of the Lie algebra of Lorentz group, Lorentz transformation, velocity addition theorem.
But most importantly: Poincaré neglects analysis of the relativity of simultaneity. It also neglects analysis of the inertia of energy. I don't think Poincaré really understood Einstein�??s contributions issuing from the Lorentz convention. Poincaré was a brilliant mathematician yes: he was however not equally brilliant as a physicist. He clearly regarded geometry to be an abstract science.[26]

Most of the mathematical tools used in Special Relativity were created by Lorentz, Hertz, Maxwell and Poincaré etc. This is however not equivalent with having reached the breakthrough of revealing a testable, workable formulation of Special Relativity. Nor is it reasonable there-of to suggest more credit is due unto Poincaré than Einstein in revealing the physics: the beating (and functionally testable) heart of the theory of Special Relativity.

*Poincaré regarded the aether as a medium necessary to propagate the electromagnetic waves.

*Poincaré acknowledged the Lorentz aether, which assumes the existence of a privileged aether frame. He expressed his agreement with Lorentz in the following terms:

�??the results I have obtained agree with those of Mr. Lorentz in all important points. I was led to modify and complete them in a few points of detail.�??[27]

His agreement implies that the speed of light is isotropic exclusively in the privileged frame, as is easily deduced from Lorentz theory (for that, see his explanation of Michelson's experiment where the speed of light is c+v or c-v in the two opposite directions).[28]

It was Poincaré who seemed a bit confused and bewildered on these issues; thus in a sense he dropped the ball on SR quite obviously. In hindsight: it might be hard to imagine how he wasn�??t able to establish the breakthrough material needed. If Poincaré declared in other texts that the speed of light is constant then this assertion is at variance with his approach of "Sur la dynamique de l'électon".[29]He confirmed his belief in the aether many times. For example:

�??Does an aether exist, the reason why we believe in an aether is simple. If light comes from a distant star and takes many years to reach us, it is during its travel no longer near the star, but not yet near the Earth, nevertheless, it must be somewhere and supported by a material medium.�??[30]

In his 1905 publications, Einstein did describe the construction of inertial coordinate systems, and he implicitly asserted that the propagation of light was isotropic with respect to the same class of coordinate systems, in terms of which mechanical inertia is isotropic.

The fact that Lorentz work was notably important is not disputable.

The fact that Poincaré was skirting the bush, coming close to arriving at a correct and provable theory of special relativity is correct.

The fact that Einstein's work on Special Relativity put the pieces together and revealed the complete theory in a coherent, correct and provable formulation is not really disputable.

Lorentz and Poincare developed most of the math used, but never fully embraced the principles behind it. As late as 1909, Poincare apparently still held some doubts as to whether Einstein was right or just plan crazy! (Of course, many others also had similar doubts).

On some level Lorentz grasped the superiority of the purely relativistic approach, as is evident from the words he included in the second edition of his "Theory of Electrons" in 1916:

�??If I had to write the last chapter now, I should certainly have given a more prominent place to Einstein's theory of relativity by which the theory of electromagnetic phenomena in moving systems gains a simplicity that I had not been able to attain. The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time, and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity.�??[31]

Bjerknes, in his blog-article, continues with quoting Max Born as proof of Einstein's alleged plagiarism. This was something I had previously criticized Bjerknes as it is nothing short of quote-mining with the adding of words and context into Born's mouth.

On the blog he writes:

�??In its haste to attack me, "LionAxe" misrepresents the context of my quotations of Born's statement. This quotation first appears in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist on page 30 as follows:�??

After his complaint, he proceeds to quote Born from his books �??Einstein's Theory of Relativity�?? and �??Physics in my Generation�??. The problem here is that Born is not in any sense or form calling Einstein a plagiarist, nor his he negating any credit to Einstein, rather he's addressing Lorentz's and Poincaré's work on relativity and what it was.

In Born's introduction chapter to the aforementioned book he writes:

�??The reason Einstein's name alone is usually connected with relativity is that his work of 1905 was only the initial step to a still more fundamental �??general relativity�??, which included a new theory of gravitation and opened new vistas in our understanding of the structure of of the universe.

The special theory of relativity can be justifiably considered the end of the classical period or the beginning of a new era. For it uses the well-established ideas of matter spread continously through space and time, and of casual or, more precisely, deterministic laws of nature. But it introduces revolutionary notions of space and time, resolutely criticizing the traditional concepts as formulated by Newton. Thus it opens a new way of thinking about natural phenomena. This seems to be Einstein's most remarkable feat, the one which distinguishes his work from his predecessors, and modern science from classical science.�??[32]

The introduction by Born ends with these words:

�??One should regard this method, used with such success by Einstein, as a heuristic principle pointing to weak spots in traditional theory which has turned out to be empirically unsatisfactory. It has become the outstanding method of fundamental research in modern physics, particularly in the development of quantum theory; and because of this fact Einstein's way of thinking has not only led to the summit of the classical period but has opened a new age of physics.�??[33]

Of course, Bjerknes ignores any such statements as he appeared to be dead set on extrapolating any mention of relativity's historical evolution as a mark of Born's admission to Einstein's plagiarism.

Bjerknes continues:

�??My quotations are accurate. They demonstrate that Max Born questioned Einstein's priority for what Einstein presented as if unprecedented. Those are facts. I in no way misrepresented Born's statements.�??

Yes, Bjerknes, you have been misrepresenting Born's clarification on the history of relativity as a sign of his admission that Einstein plagiarised their work and added little of note to them. Einstein never claimed to be the inventor of relativity, though laymen might assume him to be its inventor, because the history of relativity going back four-hundred years is not presented along with the cool relativistic mass or pop-icon fumbling by the media, none of which is Einstein's fault.

Galileo is the most important scientist in getting the Principle of Relativity (PoR) going in physics. Additionally: Newtonian mechanics (NM) satisfies the PoR in spirit, �??LET�?? does not. It is true that both NM and LET are covariant under change of inertial frames, yet the similarity stops there.

I agree with Einstein's subjective appraisal of the situation then found in 1904. Because, you see, to leave LET as the paradigm of E&M was to leave a blatant disharmony in theoretical physics, so to harmonize the two, the solution seems obvious: either introduce absolute velocity into NM, or remove absolute velocity from LET (right move). Also the latter means conforming E&M to the PoR. Not just hinting about it, not just musing about it, but actually creating a testable and provable approach and detailing the methodology of doing so, adding the predictions and getting it correct.

I'm sure all that Bjerknes cares about is that SR 'merely reproduces the equations of LET', so he regards Einstein as a thief. The problem is that such an appraisal of what Einstein accomplished is completely stupid. Without SR, theoretical physics in the20th century would have required the constant bending of the knee to the concept of absolute velocity, yet with SR, it did not. In fact, theories built on SR require (locally) the improved heuristic that they must be derivable from a Lagrangian using Lorentz covariance. Thus the practical and philosophical differences between LET and SR as a foundation to modern physics are not only substantial but fundamental. Most physicists since 1905 got it and still get it. Bjerknes does not apparently.

So, what Bjerknes and other Einstein-bashers ignore is that it is fairly easy to derive a theory in
which light bends (like that of Soldner), or even a theory in which Mercury has a non-Newtonian perihelion advance (like that of Gerber), but it is much more difficult to derive a theory which gives you both of these phenomena in a precise fashion and without a bunch of free parameters. Not to mention a wealth of phenomena Einstein had no inkling of, such as frame dragging and black-hole formation, but which are predicted by his theory.

What Special Relativity proves is what Einstein claimed it proved: i.e. that E&M can be formulated without using the ether concept of absolute rest (thus absolute motion). Poincaré didn't put forth work that proved this, while he did indeed provided much important intermediate work between Maxwell, Lorentz and subsequently Einstein. Again, it is clear Bjerknes does take any hint of scientific evolvment of ideas and work in relativity as a sign and proof of Einstein's plagiarism.

I'm rather certain that had Newton been jewish and, in Bjerknes view, �??hoodwinked�?? an historical relative of his, he'd be all over Newton with the same logic, which would be equally slanted toward irrationality and such pseudo-intellectual spew (pardon my french).

[1] http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2008/12/odd-and-misleading-attack-against-me-on.html [Accessed: 10/01/2009]. All quotations from Bjerknes unless otherwise indicated are taken from this response.
[2] Private Correspondence with Professor Winterberg
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/ [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[4] Michael Lahanas, �??The myth of Newton's apple, did Hipparchus discover Newtons gravity and inverse square law?�??, http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HipparchusGraviation.htm [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[5] Isaac Newton, Trans: Motte-Cajori, 1934 (1729),[1687], �??Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica�??, University of California Press: Berkeley. This is available at the following address: http://www.physicstoday.org/mar00/principia.htm [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[6] Professor Campbell, �??Einstein Theory Again Is Verified�??, New York Times, 18th December, 1921.
[7] Treder, H.J, Jackisch, G, 1981 �??On Soldner's Value of Newtonian Deflection of Light�??, Astronomische Nachrichten, Vol. 302, p. 275.
[8] Roger Cerf, "Dismissing renewed attempts to deny Einstein the discovery of special relativity", Am. J. Phys., Vol. 74, No. 9, September 2006
[9] Jules Leveugle, 1994, �??Poincaré et la relativité�??, La Jaune et la Rouge, Vol. 494, pp. 31�??51
[10] Ibid, p. 33 and Jules Leveugle, 2004, �??La Relativité, Poincaré et Einstein, Planck, Hilbert: Histoire Véridique de la Théorie de la Relativité�??, L�??Harmattan: Paris, pp. 23-24
[11] Henri Poincaré, �??La théorie de Lorentz et le principe de réaction,�?? in Lorentz Festschrift, 1900, Archives néerlandaises des sciences exactes et naturelles, Vol 5, pp. 252�??278
[12] M. von Laue, �??Inertia and energy,�?? in P. Schlipp (Ed.), 1970, �??Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist�??, MJF Books: New York, Chap.19.
[13] Albert Einstein, 1905, �??Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhaltabhängig?,�?? Ann. Phys., Vol. 18, pp. 639�??641.
[14] Thierry Gaudin and Francois L�??Yvonnet, 2003, �??Discours de la Méthode Créatrice Ose savoir-Le-Relié�??, Gordes.
[15] Ibid, p. 161
[16] Paul Langevin, �??Le Physicien,�?? in P. Boutroux, J. Hadamard, P. Langevin and V. Volterra (Eds), 1914, �??Henri Poincaré, L�??Oeuvre Scientifique, L�??Oeuvre Philosophique�??, Félix Alcan: Paris, p. 169
[17] E. Bauer, 1964, �??La physique il y a 50 ans,�?? Bulletin de la Société Française de Physique, January, p. 10.
[18] M. Janssen, �??The Trouton experiment, E=Mc2, and a slice of Minkowski space-time,�?? in A. Ashtekar et al (Eds), 2003, �??Revisiting the Foundations of Relativistic Physics�??, Kluwer: Netherlands, p. 35.
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[20] Albert Einstein, 1906, �??Das Prinzip von der Erhaltung der Schwerpunktsbewegung und die Trägheit der Energie�??, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 20, pp. 627-633.
[21] Oliver Darrigol, 2004, �??The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection�??, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/430652 [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[22] http://www.levynewphysics.com/3-someimportantquestions1.htm [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[23] http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0607/0607067.pdf [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[24] Supurna Sinha, 2000, �??Poincaré and the Special Theory of Relativity�??, Resonance: Journal of Science Education, February, pp. 12-14. This maybe found at the following address: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h0331238v8010741/ [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[25] Darrigol, Op. Cit.
[26] Sinha, Op. Cit.
[27] �??Sur la dynamique de l'électron�?? quoted in �??Relativity and Aether Theory a Crucial Distinction�?? by Joseph Levy. This maybe found at the following address: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610067.pdf [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[28] Russell McCormmach, 1970, �??H. A. Lorentz and the Electromagnetic View of Nature�??, Isis, Vol. 61, No. 4
[29] http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Poincare/Poincare_1905_toc.html [Accessed: 10/01/2009].
[30] Henri Poincaré, �??La science et l�??hypothèse�??, Chapter 10 of the 1968 French edition, �??Les théories de la physique moderne�??, Champs: Flammarion. Cited in Levy, Op. Cit.
[31] Hendrik Lorentz, 1915, �??The Theory of Electrons: And its Applications to the Phenomena of Light and Radiant Heat�??, 2nd Edition, p. 197in the original text, and p. 321 in the Dover 1952 reprint.
[32] Max Born, 1962, �??Einstein's Theory of Relativity�??, Courier Dover, New York, pp. 2-3.
[33] Ibid., pp. 3-4.

Responsum to Marc Samberg

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:25:00 +0000

Marc Samberg is a jew, his Hebrew name is Mech-el, who is very active both in posting news and comments across several reasonably sized jewish newsgroups around the internet. In particular he runs a Yahoo group called �??stillnotmusicanymore�??, which is a high-volume mailing list with just about everything from adverts to jokes in the very poorest Freudian taste. Marc posted the following comment on the �??EEJH�?? newsgroup recently and I would like to briefly respond to it as the comment demonstrates the standard, not particularly bright, illogical Zionist jewish take on a variety of issues relating to criticism of the jews. Marc also occasionally attempts to debate various anti-Zionist/anti-Israel newsgroups, whose members appear to be as ignorant as he is on a variety of issues. However let us see if Marc wants to engage in a little debate with Semitic Controversies.

�??If the Zionists and Jews truly control the media, then why does italways look so bad for Israel? Cheesh. Wake up and smell the cameldung being hurled at you!!!

You can't have it both ways. Either the media is controlled by Jewsand Zionists and the news looks good, or else proof that that is a lieis in the bad news.�??

Marc: this argument is an example of a straw man fallacy where you have projected a view that no anti-Semite that I am aware of holds. In that you have suggested that jews and Zionists are the same thing. Jews and Zionists maybe the same in your preferred worldview, but they are in reality not the same thing. Jews do not have to be for Israel and nor is the media particularly anti-Israel.

You see Marc jews, like you, don�??t necessarily support Israel, because as I am sure you are aware there are these jews who are called �??self-hating jews�??. Often coupled with the further amusing allegation that these jews are �??anti-Semitic�?? made, of course, by Zionist jews, such as yourself. Therefore your argument founders, because you by your own logic cannot equate the media being run by Zionists to the media being run by jews. After all since when in being jewish, i.e. born as such, did one have to support Israel and/or Israel's actions?

It is also important to point out that the media is not actually �??anti-Israel�??. I know organisations, such as 'Honest Reporting', exist to prove such contentions, but you see the mainstream media in Europe and the United States is only opposed to Israel�??s treatment of its own ethnic/racial minorities not Israel itself. The fact remains that these media outlets don�??t question the right for jews to live in Palestine/Israel, the right for Israel to exist as a state and nor do they question Israel�??s right to be a jewish state. What they do question, however, is Israel�??s right to terrorise and discriminate against a subject population in the light of their own general profession to belief in either a nineteenth or late twentieth century liberalism.

Now morally and ethically as a National Socialist I have no problem with either the Israeli or Arab (i.e. the Palestinians and their racial kin across the Middle East) response, but from a western, liberal point of view Israel�??s actions are going to be seen as reprehensible. What you, and those like you, would, of course, point out is that Israel receives undue focus in their media and this arguably true: it does. However this isn�??t as you allege, because the press is biased against Israel and/or is �??anti-Semitic�??, but rather this is because Israel has over the years drawn attention to itself by its consistent grand-standing and declarations that its creation and the legitimacy of its actions were justified by the so-called �??holocaust�??. You see these actions on the part of Israel, as well as by the Arabs own campaigning (highlighted to some extent in the literature of the Soviet Union, which has been labelled by some jewish authors as �??anti-Semitic literature in the language of Marxist-Leninism and anti-Zionism�?? [see for example the work of �??Sir�?? Martin Gilbert on the subject in the 1980�??s]), have drawn attention to Israel�??s relations with the Palestinian Arabs and its use of force to subdue them.

Simply put: jews have drawn this attention and scrutiny on themselves by their consistent claiming of special, or in the 'holocaust studies' verbiage: 'unique', victim status. Let me use an analogy to explain the world�??s actions: if you have a social security claimant who makes a lot of, very public, fuss about his or her disability demanding constant, and often increasing payments, to support themselves, because of it. You, as the custodian of that money with a responsibility for how it is spent to the folk at large, receive some disturbing reports that this benefits claimant is not really disabled at all, but has been and is going around disabling others who have been complaining, but this benefits claimant has been threatening them with further violence if they complain. This violence further has been performed in some cases, while it continues to be threatened to all. Then because of this the people the claimant has been disabling now threaten and attempt disorganised violence against the claimant who generally wins, because he is not actually disabled while many of his opponents are.

There are many more disabled claimants out there claiming disability benefits falsely, but this claimant in particular has attracted your attention because of his or her actions, which have actually caused new claimants to arise. As well as that the claimant has particularly drawn attention to themselves by nosily falsely propounding the idea that their disability is some how unique and special. As well as that therefore they should get increasing payments and sympathy from you as the custodian of that benefit money. Would you not investigate and attack such a case of benefit fraud?

If not then you, and Israel as a nation, can hardly be considered morally and ethically superior and therefore you are as anti-Semites, like myself, have described you for centuries (i.e. as immoral vulture-like creatures in human form). If you would investigate then your argument falls flat on its face, because what I have described is what jews have been doing for the last few decades, possibly the last two centuries if you wish to be a little broader, and therefore you admit yourself that Israel has no cause to make about the mainstream media being �??anti-Semitic�??, or being particularly vindictive towards Israel, for they have valid grounds for criticising Israel considering that they are the source of much of Israel�??s strength.

Therefore your argument Marc is complete nonsense.

Book Review: Vicomte Léon de Poncins, Undated, [1929], �??Freemasonry and Judaism: Secret Powers behind the Revolution�??, A & B Books: New York

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:21:00 +0000

Vicomte Léon de Poncins is a name well known in Catholic, anti-Freemasonic and anti-Semitic circles for his numerous, and often quite courageous, works on what he saw as the secret forces that were seeking to subvert society in his day and historically. His work is often cited as a reference by contemporary would-be anti-Semites, as well as serial conspiracy theorists, such as David Duke and Jeff Rense when they make assertions concerning jews in history and in contemporary times. Four of de Poncins�?? many books have been translated into English and are often sold in English language nationalist and/or anti-Semitic bookshops. These are: �??Judaism and the Vatican�??[1], �??Freemasonry and the Vatican�??[2], �??State Secrets�??[3] and �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??. It is important to review the two most of important of these[4], of which the book of primary importance is �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? since this is the one most cited by these would-be anti-Semites.

�??Freemasonry and Judaism: The Secret Powers behind the Revolution�??[5] is an English language edition[6] of de Poncins�?? 1928 book, �??Les Forces secrètes de la Révolution�??[7], and the publishing house �??A & B Books�?? is aligned with negro nationalism. Also indicating the steady popularity of de Poncins work over racial boundaries and between the various different racial nationalist movements that exist at present and the very real necessity to review de Poncins�?? work in the light of what is known today rather than what de Poncins would have known at the time of �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??s�?? original writing. That said it would be out of the scope of this review to carefully analyze each and every assertion de Poncins�?? makes and the evidence on which he bases these assertions. Hence we will discuss the general thesis, the component parts and some of the more important specific arguments of �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??.

The thrust of �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? is quite a simple one in that Poncins as he himself states in his foreword as follows:

�??The aim of this work is not to produce new unpublished evidence but to set out and summarize the whole question for a reader who is supposed to be ignorant of this subject.�??[8]

Therefore it should become apparent to the reader that de Poncins�?? is writing for those without expertise in the intricate questions that he is addressing: the influence, or lack, of Freemasonry and/or Judaism in world affairs and more precisely how these factor into the revolutionary climate and activities that were prevalent both at the time that de Poncins was writing and for the decades up to and including that of his death in the 1970s. Thus if we see individuals citing de Poncins as an authority for some fact or another then we must tread carefully with this assertion for as de Poncins tells us in the above passage. He is not writing a precise work, but rather generalising and writing for the interest of the lay reader rather than a researcher on the subject. If a researcher on the subject was to cite �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? as an authority for some fact or another then they we must suggest that they are to be found wanting[9].

This isn�??t to say that �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? is without value, but rather that it is not meant as a work for citation for the researcher (i.e. acting as proof as itself), but rather as a general introduction to the subject. For a more in depth conception of what de Poncins�?? argues it is necessary to read his many books in the original French since although he wrote many general introductions he also researched and wrote several works based on original research that included far more extensive, and sometimes original, documentation and in-depth discussion than he produced in his general books. For de Poncins, as I suspect he would himself readily admit, was a populariser of political and literary concepts in the best journalistic tradition. This is demonstrated very quickly in �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? since de Poncins uses only a few sources (and cites them frequently), but these sources are in-depth discussions of the subject and as de Poncins himself correctly notes: they do disagree with each other on many specific points as well as the general theory. So, in a commendable show of relative objectivity, de Poncins offers the reader the logic of the differing schools of thought, citing the authors on either side, and suggests that the reader decide for themselves what they think is the case (which we will discuss below).

De Poncins cites a variety of now relatively rare learned French and German language works[10], usually by members of the Catholic clergy and often also members of monastic orders, concerning the Freemasonic conspiracy against civilisation: whom the literature, and de Poncins in his turn, argues are revolutionary by their very nature and wish to substitute Godly order, as represented by de Poncins in the Catholic Church[11], with an atheistic rationalistic conception of the world, which would be literally revolutionary in terms of the established norms and forms of the world, especially to a ardently Catholic aristocratic conservative like de Poncins. This conception of Freemasonry as being revolutionary and of its centrality to the major revolutions in Europe is not unique to de Poncins, but rather was, as I have said, a common feature of conservative, usually Christian, discourse on history and the forces that opposed conservatism/revolutionary conservatism.

The particular revolution that Freemasonry is most identified with is the French revolution in 1789, in which it is contended, not unreasonably, that the Jacobins and the other radicals were associated with Freemasonic sects, sometimes argued to be the Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt [12]and Count Adolph Knigge[13]. De Poncins, like his conservative contemporaries, takes this argument further and suggests that because Freemasonry wishes to abolish religion, particularly Christianity, and seek a foundation of a new �??rational�??[14] and essentially atheistic society. That you can make a direct connexion between the forces that de Poncins argues were behind both the French revolution of 1789 and the forces that were behind the Bolshevik and Marxist revolutions from 1917-1919. In particular de Poncins cites several sources, which allege that Béla Kohn[15], a leading figure in the communist take-over in Hungary[16], and other leading communists and socialists involved in the take-over were members of Freemasonic lodges in Hungary and in fact planned the take-over of Hungary in these lodges.

I cannot find any evidence of this being the case outside of de Poncins�?? work[17] and the anti-Semitic/anti-communist literature in general, but it is of note that the Hungarian government after the overthrow of the communist coup did outlaw Freemasonry and seize its documents in relation to the communist coup. This means that the Hungarian government, whether it was correct or incorrect in this belief, certainly believed that Freemasonry was involved with the communist party in some way.

However de Poncins does not note that his earlier citations[18] as to the support of the Freemasons lodges for the new communist government may have been in fact the reason for such suppression, rather than the Masonic lodges having been the origin of the communist take-over as it suggested by Jouin who de Poncins quotes. Hence even with this knowledge and the citations de Poncins makes from Jouin�??s book we cannot substantiate or dispose of this accusation, but rather must we leave it as an avenue for further specialist research.

The citation of Jouin�??s work in general, and in the case of the Hungarian communist coup of 1919 in particular, is the logical bridge that de Poncins uses to combine his arguments concerning Freemasonry being a revolutionary force with his other fundamental argument, which dominates the second section of �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??, that the jews are, like Freemasonry (and in fact dominate, or are allied with, it), a revolutionary force. The particular bridge offered in the case of the Hungarian communist coup is the assertion that 90% of Freemasons in Hungary were jews. Now certainly while the communist coup of 1919 had a significant amount of jews in its higher echelons, and can be argued to be one of the most jewish-dominated of the communist revolutions/coups, there seems to be no actual evidence of the percentage of Hungarian Freemasons who were jews or of partial jewish ancestry[19] and the assertion of 90 percent seems perhaps a little too high: although in the absence of evidence to the contrary we must suspend judgment of his argument until conclusive evidence, which supports, partially supports or disposes of this assertion can be located. Hence we cannot assert that de Poncins is right or not, but it does seem that some of the figures he is citing in his arguments are perhaps a little unrealistic or unbelievable to contemporary scholarship (although they were a common occurrence in political and intellectual discourse at the time both Jouin and de Poncins were writing).

De Poncins then stops to consider an important question of which revolutionary force, given in de Poncins�?? thesis that they are working together, is the primary issue. His discussions on this point are brief[20] but to the point. De Poncins correctly summarizes that there were, and are, two major different schools of thought[21] in terms of the relationship between Freemasonry and the jews. De Poncins also usefully informs us, which of the major authors he cites advocate which theory. These are put quite simply in de Poncins�?? own words:

�??That the Jews have entirely created masonry in order to corrupt the nations of Christian civilisation and to propagate behind this veil the general revolution which is to bring about the domination of Israel. It is simply a tool and a means in the hands of the Jews.�??[22]

And:

�??Freemasonry was a good and sound institution in principle, but revolutionary agitators, principally Jews, taking advantage of its organization as a secret society, penetrated it little by little.

They have corrupted it and turned it from its moral and philanthropic aim in order to employ it for revolutionary purposes.�??[23]

It is certainly praiseworthy that de Poncins mentions these different theories and doesn�??t try to direct his reader along one of the two major theories (although he makes it known that he personally favours the second), but rather suggests that the reader make up his or her own mind concerning, which theory best suits the facts of the situation as they are known to them.

In terms of the two theories there is a problem with both of them in that they assume that jewish power is by nature conspiratorial rather than a result of the jewish racial condition[24]. This presumption was a very common one at the time of de Poncins (and the authors he cites) time of writing[25] and again we cannot blame de Poncins, or the authors he cites, for it. However crucially this perspective misses out that jews are not a conspiracy in the traditional Aryan/Slavic conceptions of it, but rather are a series of extremely egoistic individuals with considerable inferiority complexes who identify their fellow jews/jewesses with the relevant parent and hence feel they desperately have to do the best for/protect their kin (asking and answering the question: what is best for jews, as a substitute for the question: what is best for my jewish mother and father).

This is what I argue is the truth of the jewish question and we can see how these two theories fall down in the light of this, because they presume that the jews have consciously manipulated Freemasonry into being revolutionary in character, but yet if what de Poncins argues earlier in �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? is true, i.e. that Freemasonry is by its general character revolutionary, because it is rationalistic and atheistic, then it cannot have been consciously manipulated by jews.

The non-revolutionary character of English freemasonry, as argued by Nesta Webster among others,[26] is hence easily explained by de Poncins�?? own earlier clarification that Freemasonry, became politicised as the 18th century wore on. Therefore we may argue reasonably that actually continental Freemasonry became politicized and English Freemasonry did not.

There is little reason to suppose jews were actively involved in this politicization either considering that England and later Great Britain was living in a time of great increasing jewish power within its borders[27] and especially among its merchants who would have been drawn to revolutionary rationalistic movements far more than aristocrats who had no bars to their social mobility (which Freemasonry if it became politicised could potentially sweep away).

If the first thesis, that Freemasonry is the creation of the jews, is true then we come on the problem of a lack of evidence for early jewish involvement in Freemasonry and indeed the Masonic constitution of the Grand Lodge, the first Masonic institution, in 1717 seems to have involved very few jews since it was the brainchild of Jean Desaguliers rather than a jewish or pre-dominantly jewish cabal. Although it has been argued that there is a �??Hebrew Manuscript�??, of one �??Joseph Levy�??, which Desaguliers allegedly stole and then became the �??Father of Modern Masonry�?? with[28]. I have not seen any substantial evidence for this accusation although this assertion of Freemasonry�??s jewish origins remains both unproven and un-refuted until conclusive evidence is brought forth to prove, partially prove or disprove the assertion.

This thesis also encounters the problem that it takes the claims of the Masons themselves, that they were and are descended from the traditions of original Hebrews, at face value, rather than looking at their claims in context of the need in a secret society to create a mythos for that society to act as the social adhesive between the members of the fraternity. There were of course fairly few mystical traditions to draw on 1717 in comparison with the many different traditions, often created from whole cloth, that are propounded today. It is thus far more rational to presume that the Masonic tradition was created precisely to create this mythos to service as a social adhesive, rather than to assume that the Masons are a predominately jewish organisation created by jews who we should believe are telling their truth about their jewish origins. For why, if it is a jewish secret society, would Freemasonry claim to be descended from the Hebrews of the Bible? Surely if it were a jewish revolutionary organisation it would seek to distance itself from its jewish heritage and select an Aryan tradition, such as the Greek Gods and Goddesses for example, to create its mythos out of.

Although we can�??t, as in the former case, dismiss this thesis entirely due to a lack of substantial evidence to prove, partially prove or disprove it. We can however suggest that it seems unlikely given what is known about Freemasonry and how jews would likely operate as a conspiracy if they operated as such.

Hence although �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? is a very interesting book and was in its time both factually arguable and timely: it has not aged well due to more information now being available from better sources than de Poncins, and those he cites, had at their disposal. Its focus on the combination of Freemasonry and the jews as the twin arms of a great conspiracy against Christian civilisation is perhaps its downfall in that during the Second World War. Freemasonry, which we should not simply dismiss, as the religiously skeptical do, as a force in world politics, was all, but destroyed as a political force by the Reich Security Main Office, and laudably so, who rounded up the members of the Masonic fraternities and confiscated their possessions and written records. Hence the conception of the Freemasons and jews as the twin arms of a conspiracy that de Poncins argues, while cogent at the time of writing, is not useful in today�??s world where Freemasonry has been relegated to a decaying club that is desperately trying to regain its former power and glory.

�??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? also, unfortunately, as a work tends to take focus off of the jewish question and split it, necessarily, between the two agencies that de Poncins terms �??secret powers behind the Revolution�??. Hence to the reader today it might seem to indicate that they should concern themselves with both Freemasonry and jews: this inevitably leads some otherwise intellectually honest individuals into the highways and byways of the lunatic literature accusing the nebulous and ephemeral �??Illuminati�?? of complicity in all, or most of, the wrongs of the world as they perceive them.

The focus on jews must be maintained for although they are certainly not the whole cause of all ills in the world: they are, I would argue, often directly and/or indirectly involved in producing them due to their need, both in terms of secular and religious jews, to �??repair the world�??. If we dissipate research into other power blocs, real or imagined, that are already well-covered then it weakens our research effort to cognitively understand and map the jewish question today as well as historically. This is important for without this research effort modern anti-Semitic propaganda and intellectual work will not come to the fore and anti-Semitism will stay in its comfort zone of 19th and early 20th century anti-Semitic cognitive frameworks and understanding. Therefore anti-Semitism will remain ineffective and a fringe intellectual movement and no serious anti-Semite can possibly wish this: can they?

[1] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, Trans: Timothy Tindal-Robertson, 1967, �??Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion�??, 1st Edition, The Britons: London.
[2] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, Trans: Timothy Tindal-Robertson, 1968, �??Freemasonry and the Vatican: A Struggle for Recognition�??, 1st Edition, The Britons: London.
[3] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, Trans: Timothy Tindal-Robertson, 1988, �??State Secrets: A Documentation of the Secret Revolutionary Mainspring Governing Anglo-American Politics�??, 2nd Edition, The Britons: London.
[4] The two most important for anti-Semites are, of course, �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? and �??Judaism and the Vatican�??, but the later is barely known and rarely cited today. While the former is well known and often cited today by anti-Semites.
[5] Léon de Poncins, Trans: Anon., Undated, [1929], �??Freemasonry and Judaism: Secret Powers behind the Revolution�??, 1st Edition, A & B Books: New York.
[6] Timothy Tindal-Robertson is the translator of �??State Secrets�??, �??Freemasonry and the Vatican�?? and �??Judaism and the Vatican�?? into English, but the original translation of �??The Secret Powers behind the Revolution�??, which became �??Freemasonry and Judaism: The Secret Powers behind the Revolution�?? was performed in 1929 rather than in 1968-1975 when Tindal-Robertson translated de Poncins�?? other works likely at the behest of �??The Britons�?? publishing house (who published his translations). Since I have been unable to find an original edition I am unaware of who the original translator was, but it does seem that �??The Britons�?? although operating in 1929 and already famous as an anti-Semitic publishing house were not the publishers of this original translation (although it is referred to in their catalogue it is not listed under their imprint).
[7] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, 1928, �??Les Forces secrètes de la Révolution�??, 1st Edition, Brossard: Paris.
[8] De Poncins, �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??, p. 13
[9] Michael Santomauro writing for �??Ziopedia.org�??, which has been reproduced by David Duke on his website (on 11/08/2006), commits this mistake when he cites the translation of de Poncins�??, �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??, in the earlier edition for quotes from jewish economist Werner Sombart. Santomauro is specifically citing the quotes from de Poncins who is using a French translation of Sombart�??s German work and then the translation of de Poncins�?? text has translated the translation. I have not checked the original German work, although I have read the usual English translation of it, but it is careless at best to cite a translation of a translation and expect it to hold evidential water without having checked the original text. This can be found at the following address: http://www.davidduke.com/general/what-about-jews-who-think-the-same-or-worse-as-mel-gibson_850.html [Accessed: 29/12/2008].
[10]These works however would have been readily accessible to the bulk of the French population when de Poncins wrote �??Freemasonry and Judaism�?? both in public and private libraries as well as from patriotic and/or Catholic booksellers. Thus the references that seem esoteric and obscure to our time were in fact standard nationalist/Catholic literature in de Poncins�?? time, which reinforces my earlier point that de Poncins was writing to introduce the subject to the neophyte and not to write a learned treatise on it. Hence quoting de Poncins in this work as an authority is rather like citing a short popular book on Adolf Hitler and then using that as your authority as to why you don�??t Adolf Hitler i.e. it is nonsensical. For more information about some of authors whom de Poncins cites, as well as the situation which he was writing about, please see Pierre Birnbaum�??s, Trans: Jane Marie Todd, 1996, �??The Jews of the Republic: A Political History of State Jews in France from Gambetta to Vichy�??, 1st Edition, Stanford University Press: Stanford.
[11] It is not always the case that it is presumed to be simply the Catholic Church, but rather Christianity as a whole that is under threat. De Poncins focuses on the Catholic Church as he was himself a devout Catholic and because France was and is a traditionally Catholic country. English Protestant clergymen writing at the same time as their French Catholic for example used much the same conception. This was re-enforced in the case of Catholicism by numerous Papal Bulls condemning Freemasonry. A list and discussion of the most important Papal Bulls concerning Freemasonry can be found at the following address: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm#VIII [Accessed: 29/12/2008].
[12] Adam Weishaupt was himself allegedly of jewish origin and his surname is certainly arguably a common jewish one.
[13] Knigge was an aristocratic German freemason who has been argued to have been the real driving force behind the Order of Perfectibilists better known as the Illuminati.
[14] �??Rational�?? here must be stated to be the 17th/18th century idyll of the �??liberal, rational gentleman�?? rather it, as Revilo Oliver characterised it in his 1965 speech �??Can Liberals be Educated?�??, is an irrational �??belief in the wonders of science�??. It presumes that the world can be endlessly improved through an increase in what its proponents believe is 'rational' and is worsened through what they believe is �??superstition�??: i.e. it is an essentially atheistic religious belief that prefigures the religiously sceptical (i.e. sceptics who act in such a manner as to infer that their scepticism is actually their religion and not the result of what they themselves believe to be �??rational cognition�??) of today.
[15] A Hungarian mixed jew (i.e. mischlinge), whose mother was a gentile and whose father was a jew of the tribe of the Kohanim (hence in halakha/halacha [jewish law] he would be considered a full jew and also a potential priest for the third temple in Jerusalem). Kohn, or as he styled himself Kun, himself, and also notably the jewish socialist/communist Joseph Pogany (who later became a leading communist agitator in the United States of America), escaped after the fall the Soviet Republic in Hungary and took a leading role in the Comintern, specifically being involved in communist agitation in Germany at the behest of his sponsor the jewish communist Grigory Zinoviev, until he was arrested in Stalin�??s purges in 1937 and executed in either 1937 or 1939.
[16] Often called the �??133 Days�??: a useful and informative summary, although coloured with the horror earnestly and understandably felt about the atrocities the �??Red Guard�?? and the �??Lenin Boys�?? had committed, of this can be found at the following address: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Outlaws_Diary_Appendix.htm.
[17] De Poncins, on pp. 72-76 of �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??, cites the summary of �??secret papers�?? found in Hungarian Masonic lodges provided by Monsignor Jouin on p. 120 in vol. 3 of his 5 volume, 1919-1927, work, �??Le peril Judeo-maconnique�??, but without either Jouin�??s original work and/or the �??secret papers�?? concerned it is impossible to give a judgement concerning this argument.
[18] De Poncins, �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??, pp. 68-72
[19] It is unclear what precise definition of who is and who is not a jew. Jouin is using since both racial and religious definitions were common in anti-Semitic religious work at the time: although I suspect Jouin maybe using a combination of both I cannot confirm this.
[20] De Poncins, �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??, pp. 100-107
[21] I have seen it asserted that Freemasons in fact control the jews, but I have not seen any literature assert this and it would seem this assertion has more to do with the fanciful idea that the Illuminati are the primary force in terms of �??secret powers�?? behind the events in the world.
[22] De Poncins, �??Freemasonry and Judaism�??, p.101
[23] Ibid.
[24] De Poncins gives a lengthy exposition of his jewish conspiracy argument on pp. 183-237, but since this is mostly short snippets on various organisations, which is not complete and misses out a number of major organisations, it would be beyond the purview of this review to detail the flaws in both the list, description and relationships given by de Poncins. Since that in itself would require a seperate detailed analysis with numerous qualifications and clarifications on the organisations involved and the nature of jewish power.
[25] Since it is a subjective racial conception of how an Aryan or Slav would have to operate in order to achieve the same results and power gained by the jews. These racial conceptions differ between the two races, but their generality is the same: hence why I am condensing them together for explanatory purposes.
[26] See Nesta Webster�??s, 1924, �??Secret Societies and Subversive Movements�??, 1st Edition, Boswell: London, pp. 294-326
[27] For more information on this please see Albert Hyamson�??s, 1951, �??The Sephardim of England: A History of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish Community 1492-1951�??, 1st Edition, Methuen: London.
[28] This has been argued perhaps most extensively in the material that can be found at the following address: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonry1.htm [Accessed: 05/01/2009].

Some Reflections on 2008 and Some Thoughts for 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:13:00 +0000

Semitic Controversies was conceived as place where anti-Semitism could begin to be re-thought, re-evaluated and re-constructed in order to begin the long and difficult process of rebuilding a credible opposition to the jews as a whole. It started out life as a series of conversations between me and my close friend, Hans Anderberg, and has grown from there into something I am proud to be involved with. We are almost half a year old as we come up to Christmas and although we have been through many trials and doubts over this period as to whether it was all worth the thought, the effort and the sleep deprivation.

It has been an interesting few months as many people who label themselves �??anti-Semites�?? have questioned Semitic Controversies status as an anti-Semitic blog, although I would have thought this was evident from even a cursory reading, because we have consistently questioned anti-Semitic orthodoxy and sacred cows on numerous points from the Talmud Balvi to the Judeo-Bolshevik thesis. The irony is that we are true anti-Semites for the simple reason that although we are dedicated to exposing and fighting jewry: we know that we have to fight jews with the most precise weapons possible. That requires us to separate the gold from the base metal in terms of the voluminous anti-Semitic literature that exists out there and hence forces Semitic Controversies to examine the anti-Semitic literature first in order to determine what is useful and what is not. That is why Semitic Controversies publishes so much on the anti-Semitic literature and the consistently repeated arguments and sources there in. It also allows us while we are critiquing the anti-Semitic literature from the perspective of critical anti-Semites to improve upon or note ways that one can improve on anti-Semitic arguments used.

Since, although there are a great many canards and irrational speculations within the anti-Semitic literature, there is often a fundamental grain of truth behind the base metal of the original argument. That is the grain of truth that we must as anti-Semites seek not only in order so that we can build new and more factually correct arguments for our own time on top of those from times past, but so anti-Semitism can move from the lunatic fringe to the intellectual mainstream.

In order to facilitate this move Semitic Controversies will be moving into 2009 with a view to becoming a more permanent presence in the anti-Semitic international and will be looking to work towards achieving pre-eminent status among anti-Semites as an authority where those critical of jews can go to have their arguments evaluated and constructively critiqued. We also wish to begin to provide a news service regarding jews, similar to that provided by Robert Spencer�??s philo-Semitic �??Jihad Watch�?? and �??Dhimmi Watch�??, in order that those critical of jews can receive daily updates as to the latest stories of interest regarding jews and our weekly analysis of the jews. Semitic Controversies is also looking to begin to split out our critiques and essays into specific sections categorised as �??Contemporary Jewry�??, �??Antisemitica�??, �??Book Reviews�??, �??Israel�??, �??Jewish History�?? and �??Judaism�??.

Hence in 2009 to facilitate this move from a regular blog on various issues concerning jews Semitic Controversies will be moving to a website format and will focus on building on three key aspects of the jewish question: a critique of standard anti-Semitism, building a critique of jews as the new anti-Semitism and then elucidating news and current events in the light of the new anti-Semitism. Allowing the reader to see jewish news and understand it in such a way as we argue is both rational and anti-Semitic. We have had new recruits to Semitic Controversies throughout our short existence and we will be pleased to start bring you their writings in the New Year.

We haven�??t been posting as much for the last month or so, but I can assure you this is only temporary and with my comments as to why posting has been less has been added some personal matters and illness, which have dominated my own and most of the contributors lives for the last month. However we now have a large amount of articles in the works from the various contributors that range from book reviews and responses to critics to a thesis on understanding the public and private face of jewry and our analysis of William Dudley Pelley�??s destructive influence on anti-Semitism.

We hope you will continue to read Semitic Controversies and if you disagree with something we have written, have a topic you would like us to cover, would like to ask some questions of us and/or would like to contribute to or help manage Semitic Controversies then please send us an email on: semitic.controversies@googlemail.com.

It only remains thus for myself and the team to wish all our readers a very enjoyable Yule tide and a very merry Christmas.

Yours truly,

The Editor,

In Brief: The �??Nobody told me about it�?? Fallacy

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:10:00 +0000

Recently on Debbie Schlussel�??s blog[1] she commented that she gets a lot of �??anti-Semitic BS�?? in replies written and sent to her email box. By that we can aptly state what �??anti-Semitic BS�?? is: criticism for anything Schlussel likes and/or supports, which seems to be equated with �??anti-Semitism�??, against herself as a jewess, in her eyes. However Schlussel�??s general misrepresentation, wild accusations and lunacy are not of interest to us here. What is of interest to us is a further comment she makes in the same article where she dismisses the idea of a jewish conspiracy on the grounds that nobody, i.e. no jew, has told her about, or let her in on, a jewish conspiracy[2]. She uses the example of international bankers, or as it is more commonly called international finance, as the practical example to show in her eyes how �??insane�?? such an idea is.

This is a common fallacy often used by jews in order to counteract claims of a jewish conspiracy and can be answered very simply. In that it is using the fallacy of unfalsifiability in order to attack a straw man characterisation of the varied anti-Semitic arguments on this point.

It is using the fallacy of unfalsifiability, because there is no proof, and can be no proof, that nobody told or informed the jew or jewess in question about a conspiracy of any kind. Therefore the argument is unfalsifiable, because we cannot prove or test whether the jew or jewess in question has been told or informed about a jewish conspiracy, and therefore it is invalid. It is a straw man fallacy, because the anti-Semitic position is very varied and no anti-Semitic school of thought actually argues that all jews are involved in a conspiracy against something, but what is posited by some older anti-Semitic schools of thought is that the conspiracy is centred around jewish identify and therefore all jews are potential, not actual, conspirators.

Therefore all jewish claims there is not a jewish conspiracy, because they �??haven�??t been told about it�?? are fallacious arguments and cannot be used to claim there is/are no such thing(s). As an additional comment if they, the jew or jewess in question, had not been told about a jewish conspiracy, if indeed it did and/or does exist, then they as one specific example would not disprove the rule inherent in the argument. So therefore the �??Nobody told me about it�?? argument cannot be held to be a serious one and nor can Schlussel�??s specific contention be held to hold any intellectual water at all.

[1] Debbie Schlussel, 17th December 2008, �??Hey Conspiracy Theorists, Here�??s How I �??Build-a-Burger�??'. This is available at the following address: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/12/hey_conspiracy.html#comments [Accessed: 18/12/2008].
[2] �??Afterward, I got a couple of angry, anti-Semitic e-mails, calling me rude and "explaining" how the Jews control the world (and how 9/11 was an "inside job"). Like I've always said, I'm still waiting for my share of this "control," my piece of the "international banking system."�?? Schlussel, Op. Cit.

Weird Accusations: An IP Trap?

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:49:00 +0000

Recently during an argument with one of the contributors to this blog, a Stormfront poster declared that he had been �??warned�?? that Semitic Controversies was an IP trap: i.e. a site set up to locate people by tracing their IP. This was used as an excuse by said posters not to read the article that he was linked to.

It should also be noted that said poster on Stormfront also made a series of accusations stating that he would not post links to his sources for they would be �??removed�?? by those seeking to �??cover up�?? 9/11: presuming of course that what he said to say was so important and dangerous that intelligence agencies/the government/politicians would go to any lengths to stop him saying it. Certainly this is possible, but extremely unlikely given that there are a great many more dangerous people out there than individual posters on Stormfront and the intelligence agencies/government would have to be very bored indeed to use their valuable assets against people whose grasp of logic and of what one can reasonably infer from the evidence is tenuous at best. It is plausible to suggest that this poster was simply trying to find any reason to ignore what we post here and to not deal with cogent argument.

The contributor concerned expressed surprise at this particular accusation and reproduced his article in full for the Stormfront poster concerned, only then to be accused of �??plagiarism�?? in reproducing the whole article without citation to Semitic Controversies. Since Semitic Controversies has never exercised copyright over any of the work published here and has a note at the bottom of the blog stating that the copyright remains in the hands of the authors who write the work and that they can be contacted for any who wish to reproduce the work through the central mail box.

Since the accusation that Semitic Controversies is an IP Trap has been made. I thought I would publicly clarify the issue. Although I doubt it will stop it being used as an excuse by those who are unable and/or unwilling to engage in rational critique and debate: it is here anyway.

Semitic Controversies does indeed use a free counter (supplied by Sitemeter), which includes the IP address, country of origin, type of browser being used and where the reader is being referred from among other things. I use the information therein to look for regular readers to see how many we have and where in the world they are. I also use it to see if there are any new links to Semitic Controversies around the internet so that if I disapprove of a link I can email the webmaster/administrator concerned and ask them to take it down.

For there are some individuals and organisations out there: who have inferred that Semitic Controversies is associated with them when it is not and hence swift and appropriate action is required. Since Semitic Controversies is proudly independent of all organisational ties and supports no current Nationalist organisation although had it the choice it would declare its absolute fidelity to the National Socialist German Workers Party in the Third Reich, but this is neither here nor there.

Hence the free counter allows me to nip these kinds of problems and issues in the bud and also allows me to keep a track of where referrals come from and what countries these readers ostensibly originate from. Although it should be stated that Semitic Controversies does get quite a lot of anonymous traffic that I make no attempt to look into for the simple reasons that I don�??t have the tools, expertise, the time and the wish to do so.

I don�??t record who comes to Semitic Controversies and I have never bothered to look at, let alone store, the actual IP of individual or groups of readers. I merely make a mental note of the country of origin and the referral. If I wished to operate an IP trap then I would use far more advanced software and I wouldn�??t have allowed that software to have its symbol on the Semitic Controversies front page. I have however made our statistics on Sitemeter private for the simple reason that I don�??t want prying eyes to use that information against either readers or contributors.

So there we are: Semitic Controversies has a free counter and is not an �??IP Trap�??.

Book Review: Alan E. Steinweis, 2008, �??Studying the Jew: Scholarly Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany�??, 2nd Edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:25:00 +0000

Serious studies of National Socialism are rare, but serious studies of National Socialist scholarship, especially as it relates to the most emotional topic that is associated with it and the Third Reich, the jews, are even rarer. Most studies that claim to be �??serious studies�?? of this topic are afflicted with the kind of suffocating and smarmy postscript that has evolved into the mythos of, i.e. the justification, the era in which we live[1]. This Steinweis, who is the Rosenberg Professor of History and Judaic Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, correctly notes is due to the automatic presumption on the part of the authors concerned that everything that was associated with National Socialist ideology was simply irrational and lacking in any substance what-so-ever.

What Steinweis in introducing the subject area does not state is that this presumption has allowed whole theoretical castles in the sky to be built around the policies and concepts that make up National Socialism, which at their best do not do it justice as a credible political ideology, because they assume it has no rational basis. Where-as it most certainly did, and does[2], and at their worst deliberately misrepresent the Third Reich and National Socialism and make them out to be completely evil. In some cases, such as in the work of Daniel Goldhagen, this has been taken further into the realms of demonic.

In writing a book on National Socialist scholarship regarding the jewish question Steinweis moves, as he himself notes, into an understudied area that has not been generally covered since 1946[3], because of this simple presumption of irrationality. There have, as Steinweis informs us, been several specific studies of some parts of the subject area, and of some of the individual scholars who contributed to the National Socialist critique of jews in the Third Reich, in recent years. However the literature is still very sparse with much opportunity for further study.

Steinweis is certainly to be commended for writing such an accessible, and quite enjoyable, work and writing it in a relatively unemotional and factual manner, while not engaging in too much condemnation and manipulation of the facts to suit his personal bias in the issue due to his being of jewish origin. Steinweis has commendably done his research and concentrates on what he, rightly, considers to be the key scholars who created the rational anti-Semitism that Adolf Hitler had long called for as a counter to the almost purely jewish domination of the study of jews. It is noteworthy that Steinweis recognises that Adolf Hitler in the earliest days of the N.S.D.A.P., and during his own political awakening, recognised that the traditional anti-Semitic materials, such as those the anti-Semitic movement�??s own titans: Theodor Fritsch, Adolf Stoecker and Eduard Drumont, were not sufficient and that in addition to the traditional low to medium-brow literature, which sought to condemn the jews, but which did not provide a scholarly case against them. What was required was a scholarly inter-disciplinary collaboration to create what Steinweis refers to as a �??Nazi Jewish Studies�?? with its own reference literature and standard works This is precisely what, as Steinweis records, a number of eminent scholars from a variety of different fields of study set out to do.

However: despite doing an excellent job of presenting the general history of anti-jewish scholarship in the Third Reich. Steinweis does not give much credit to National Socialist scholarship regarding the jewish question. Although Steinweis has certainly, as I have stated, done his research; he refuses to give credit where credit is due. Instead of a realistic and scholarly appraisal of the works of the Third Reich and whether there was a scholarly basis for their contentions concerning the jews. Steinweis simply ignores the possibility that �??Nazi anti-Semitism�?? may have been correct in whole or in part in its analysis and condemnation of the jews.

This is despite his declaration at the beginning of �??Studying the Jew�?? that National Socialist scholarship in the Third Reich has been summarily dismissed as propaganda, but should be looked at on the basis of it being scholarship rather than as �??regime propaganda�??. Hence Steinweis proceeds to commit exactly the same error he noted was unfortunate in his introduction: he simply presumes that such scholarship was �??pseudo-scientific�?? and �??fallacious�?? rather than make a balanced critique of such work. What is particularly notable is that Steinweis takes any opportunity to find one objection, often quite slight, to an anti-Semitic work and to infer that this makes the work invalid in terms of scholarship. If we were to apply Steinweis�?? own standard here to his own work then he would be equally, if not more, fallacious than the scholars he is writing about.

An example of this can be found in his comments concerning Hans Guenther, which make up most of the second chapter, �??Racializing the Jew�??, of �??Studying the Jew�??. Steinweis is at his most specific here in his analysis of Guenther�??s middle-brow study of the jews as a race[4]. Guenther cites a variety of different authors, including jews such as Maurice Fishberg[5], whom argued against the concept of race both in its application to jews and as a lens for understanding humanity. Steinweis notes that these authors disagreed with Guenther and hence Steinweis claims Guenther was being disingenuous in citing their work, the thrust of which Steinweis rightly notes disagrees with Guenther.

However what Steinweis, in his anxiousness to discredit Guenther, omits to mention is that Guenther is making very specific points and is noting that others have found specific evidence, to which he adds his own interpretation, in the light of other evidence, on. This is hardly being disingenuous or unscholarly, as Steinweis claims, but rather it is the normal practice of scholars across the many disciplines that make up academe. For example if one disagrees with the conclusions and thrust of another scholar�??s argument, but agrees with a specific interpretation on one point that is relevant to your own work. It is not misrepresenting the other scholar to cite that one point from their work in support of your own even if the arguments made are completely opposed to one another. Since Guenther was not suggesting that the jewish scholars in question actually supported either his interpretation or conclusion, but rather that they made a point, or a series of points, which were worth noting in terms of his own interpretation, arguments and conclusions: hence Steinweis�?? argument cannot be considered as valid.

However not all Steinweis�?? negative criticism is unjustified in that he briefly cites and discusses the work of Johann von Leers, who besides writing a lot of middle-brow works on jews in general, wrote some notable scholarly work concerning jews and criminality where he argued that jews were inherently, i.e. biologically, pre-disposed towards crime[6]. Steinweis correctly notes that for one particular figure[7] von Leers drew on a 1927 Polish anti-Semitic pamphlet: this is of course problematic, but hardly worth of the emphasis Steinweis places on it. Steinweis himself does not cite or analyze the publication, which von Leers is citing, but simply dismisses it. Presumably, because it is anti-Semitic and therefore irrational in Steinweis�?? eyes. We must opine that in this it is Steinweis who is being irrational and unscholarly, and not von Leers, for he has made not attempt to analyze von Leers�?? work, but merely has sought to find some reason, which can be argued as a valid criticism, to dismiss von Leers' entire book as so much anti-Semitic rubbish.

Steinweis makes another, perhaps more cogent, general criticism of von Leers�?? work in that he notes that von Leers left out some figures that might have counted against his general thesis[8]. However this later criticism relies upon on a problematic understanding of von Leers�?? argument concerning jewish criminality. Where von Leers is arguing quite specifically that jews are fundamentally disposed towards crime, but this does not equate that jews must have more incidences of all types of crime, but merely that they must show significant incidence of crime across socio-economic boundaries hence potentially indicating a biological pre-disposition towards certain types of criminality. This is what von Leers sets out to prove.

Steinweis�?? objection, although valid, does not discount von Leers�?? thesis, as Steinweis claims it does, but rather von Leers�?? thesis simply requires further clarification and the refining of the original argument. It is also important to state that von Leers�?? use of one bad reference does not negate his work either being scholarly or his thesis being valid. Hence it is reasonable to suggest that Steinweis is looking for a reason, however trivial, to call into question the scholarship and integrity of scholars in the Third Reich researching and writing about the jewish question.

Steinweis�?? negative assessment of all the academic work of the scholars who forged the inter-disciplinary field of �??Nazi Jewish Studies�?? has only one minor exception where he notes as to the work of Volkmar Eichstaedt. Who researched and wrote a meticulous bibliography of works, �??Bibliography on the History of the Jewish Question�??[9], relevant to the jewish question with precise cross-referencing from numerous different catalogues. Eichstaedt also notably added in an asterisk next to each author�??s name who was known to have been a jew by religious profession and/or by birth/lineage. He further adds in a question mark next to each authors name who may have been a jew, but whose status was indeterminate. Steinweis pays Eichstaedt the grudging compliment that this work became the standard index on the subject and was used well after the defeat and occupation of Germany as a standard reference work in the philo-Semitic study of jews.

That Steinweis doesn�??t see fit to actually praise any of this work, aside for his grudging positive notation about the utility of Eichstaedt's work, is notable, because as stated above, it carries on the assumption that Steinweis distances himself from in his introduction. Steinweis himself appears to be suffering from a problem that he traduces the main scholars in the Third Reich involved in developing the field of �??Nazi Jewish Studies�?? for. Steinweis notes that the specialists on the jewish question in the Third Reich attacked what they, correctly, saw as the problem of inherent bias in the domination of the scholarly study of jews by jews. In that jews were very unlikely to produce a balanced and accurate depiction of their own history due to the racial perception and interests of the jews as a race.

Steinweis�?? objection to this is an ostensibly correct one: in that if the logic of racialism holds then racialist thinking contradicts the assertion of the Third Reich scholars on the jewish question that their own works were in the objective spirit (since they are biased against the jews due to being of Aryan biological origin). However what Steinweis misunderstands is that different races have, and will always, think that their approach to a subject is objective when in fact in terms of racialism it is subjective. It is not that the scholars concerned were objective, because they, like their jewish counterparts, were actually writing from a subjective racial viewpoint, but rather that they felt that they were being objective, because they were looking at the issue as members of the Aryan race. Likewise the jewish scholars whom they cited thought they were objective, when they were actually racially subjective, as members of the jewish sub-racial/ethnic group.

Steinweis himself fits within this paradigm since he maintains that he is objective, but as we have pointed out above with reference to two examples, but he is not and consistently interprets issues that best suit his jewish heritage and on similar presumptions to those he criticises. Hence Steinweis�?? argument that there is a contradiction in terms of these claims is quite incorrect.

This isn�??t to say that Steinweis�?? study is without considerable value, because it does give the reader an excellent historiographic picture of scholarly anti-jewish writing in the Third Reich, citing all the major authors and giving some background to them. As well as allowing the reader to begin to engage with the literature and thought that Steinweis is describing. However Steinweis�?? analysis, and refusal to give credit when it is due, does not give the scholars he is discussing a fair and honest appraisal and gives the impression of �??pseudo-scholarship�?? that contradicts Steinweis�?? earlier professions to treat the scholars concerning with honesty and consideration in terms of their academic work.

It is obvious throughout Steinweis�?? description and analysis that there is an overt agenda present in �??Studying the Jew�??. In that in addition to describing the Third Reich studies on the jewish question. Steinweis in the case of nearly the all individuals he discusses goes onto describe the post-Third Reich careers of the scholars concerned. This is meant to, as Steinweis states in his conclusion, highlight the �??lack of justice�?? and �??Nazi influence�?? in post-Third Reich German scholarship. Hence becoming more fodder for the jewish guilt-industry that surrounds the Second World War and re-enforcing the notion that jews are �??victims�?? and that Germany hasn�??t done �??enough�?? to �??remove Nazi influence�??. This is the jewish agenda that �??Studying the Jew�?? is riddled with and hence it must be pointed out that in reading �??Studying the Jew�??. One must be wary of this further disingenuous attempt to claim that anti-Semitism has no rational basis and that jews should be �??compensated�??, because they suffered �??discrimination�?? at the hands of National Socialism. The irony of course is bitter but in today�??s topsy-turvy world it is to be expected most of all from the cause of that state: the jews of which Steinweis is but one of many.

Hence although �??Studying the Jew�?? is of value as a general historiographic guide to scholarship on, and scholars who addressed, the jewish question in the Third Reich: the work is so beset with problems as to make its analysis problematic at best and all but worthless at worst.

[1] The same can be said for the popular view of the Second World War, which ascribed as a �??German war of aggression�?? and that Britain was clueless as to the �??evils and irrationality�?? of �??Nazism�?? only �??standing her ground�?? many years after popular, i.e. the jewish, postscript maintains it should have. Of course: this, as with many a popular conception in the current era, is almost entirely poppycock built around a slim and selective propaganda foundation. The actual facts of the lead up to and the beginning of hostilities are essentially the inverse of the popular version of events with a campaign of propaganda of such a scale as to be on the scale of the Roman demonization of the Germanic and Gallic tribes and comparable in extent to modern �??holocaust�?? propaganda combined with an aggressively hostile diplomatic game played by France and Great Britain, with the support of the Roosevelt administration, ending in these powers giving a blank cheque guarantee to Poland to do �??what thou wilt�??, which presaged the attempted genocide of those perceived to be of Germanic stock in Western Poland by murderous Slavic mobs.
[2] For if Marxism must be admitted as a credible ideology then so must National Socialism: the reason the former is considered as a credible alternative and the latter is considered an irrational aberration is due to their alleged treatment of jews. Who dominate, and have dominated, Anglo-American culture for the last century and who have turned all their energies into opposing critique of jews and arguing that the jews being critiqued for their involvement in anything equates anti-Semitism.
[3] This study was by Max Weinreich in his 1946, �??Hitler�??s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Hitler�??s Crimes against the Jewish People�??, 1st Edition, YIVO: New York.
[4] Hans Guenther, 1930, �??Rassenkunde des Juedischen Volkes�??, 1st Edition, Lehmann: Munich.
[5] Guenther cites Fishberg�??s then well known work on the physical anthropology and physiology of the jews, that was heavily influenced by Franz Boas whose measurements have been recently discovered to have been falsified (although neither Fishberg or Guenther could have known this): �??Jews, Race and Environment�?? [2006, [1911], 1st Edition, Transaction: New York].
[6] Johann von Leers, 1944, �??Die Verbrechernatur der Juden�??, 1st Edition, Hochmuth: Berlin.
[7] This was concerning the domination of the prostitution trade in Poland by jews.
[8] These figures related to violent crime.
[9] Volkmar Eichstaedt, 1938, �??Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Judenfrage: 1750-1848�??, Vol. I, 1st Edition, Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt: Hamburg.

On Jewish 'Traitors': Jack Bernstein (Part II)

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:48:00 +0000

Bernstein brings this questioning of the Semitic origins and legitimacy of the Ashkenazim and specifically their assertion of their right as Semites to a homeland in Palestine, to its height when he asserts as follows:

�??These Khazars are now known as Ashkenazi Jews. Because these Khazar Ashkenazi Jews merely chose Judaism, they are not really Jews �?? at least not blood Jews.�??[1]

And three paragraphs later:

�??At the time, Palestine was inhabited by a half a million Palestinian Arabs and a few Palestinian Jews who are blood related and who had lived together in peace for centuries. With Palestine as their choice for a homeland, European Ashkenazi Jews began migrating to Palestine.�??[2]

These assertions on the part of Bernstein are questioning the legitimacy of Ashkenazi origins, asserting that they are merely converts whom in Judaism are generally regarded as a second class and not full jews originating from the biological line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and therefore as noted above attacking the very root of the central Zionist claim: that jews have a right to have their own state in Palestine. This is especially notable when Bernstein asserts that Ashkenazim are not �??blood Jews�??. Hence they are illegitimate and second class citizens in Judaic law and is further confirmed by Bernstein�??s assertion that there were �??a few Palestinian Jews who are blood-related�?? to Arabs and other Semites. Therefore in Bernstein�??s conception these few jews are the �??real jews�??, while the Ashkenazim, although they claim to be, are not.

Further to this we find Bernstein stating that:

�??Leading the cry, "We are God's Chosen People" are the Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish blood in them.�??[3]

This statement, in the section entitled �??God�??s Chosen People�??, is the fullest expression of Bernstein�??s using an argument as to the potential origins of the Ashkenazim and striking back at them with it. Since in the above quoted sentence he brings the logic of the illegitimate, in terms of Judaism, origins of the Ashkenazim through and applies it to Zionism in order to fundamentally undermine, as stated above, Zionism�??s claim to have a jewish state in Palestine and thus Israel�??s right to existence.

Bernstein�??s consistent refrain that the Khazars didn�??t accept Judaism for religious reasons, but rather did so for political ones, is another point at which Bernstein is undermining the basis for the Ashkenazi claims, because although a convert is not well regarded in Judaism, a convert who converts out of nothing but secular concerns is considered far worse[4]. This further demonstrates Bernstein�??s need to question the legitimacy of the Ashkenazim and illuminates the reason for doing so again. In that Ziva, in his conception, is the real jew, while he and the other Ashkenazim are not and hence she is better than the Ashkenazim, including himself, which is not an uncommon sentiment from a man who certainly seems to be deeply in love with his wife and is greatly offended and angered by the questioning of her jewish legitimacy by other jews.

This last part of Bernstein�??s argument is very important, because it focuses on asserting jewish legitimacy for the woman he loves, Ziva, whose legitimacy as a jew has been questioned by the Ashkenazim. This thus protects Ziva from attack, while projecting the very same attack, ostensibly used by the Ashkenazim on her, back onto the Ashkenazim themselves. This projection of the, presumably verbal, attacks on his wife onto the Ashkenazim takes the form of Bernstein�??s attacks on Zionism. Both because its main proponents, i.e. Ashkenazi jews, have been the ones who have been responsible for the hurt to his wife, and also because it allows Bernstein to satisfy his own need for revenge, because in calling into question his wife�??s legitimacy his fellow Ashkenazim have questioned his own manhood.

This, of course, demands some kind of necessary revenge on Bernstein�??s part and hence this is what Bernstein is delighting in doing here by attacking the Ashkenazim in such a way as to potentially deeply hurt them. Hence revenging the presumably deep hurt his wife may or may not have actually felt which may or may not have been openly expressed to Bernstein himself on the cause of that hurt. This is a Freudian frame of reference that Bakan has indirectly asserted was taken by Sigmund Freud from his jewish heritage, especially jewish mysticism, and thus offers the opportunity to understand jewish behaviour in the proper context as well as its underlying psychology and motivation[5]. Hence we are well within our logical bounds to apply it to understanding Bernstein�??s actions and reactions as they are indicated in the text.

We see further expression of Bernstein�??s very personal animus towards Ashkenazi jews, as well as potentially additional confirmation for there having been an incident between himself and the jewish community of kibbutz Ein HaShofet, when he states as follows:

�??Throughout their history, these Polish and Russian Ashkenazi Jews practiced communism/socialism and worked to have their ideas implemented in these countries.By the late 1800s significant numbers of these communist/socialist Jews were found in Germany, the Balkans and eventually all over Europe. Because of their interference in the social and governmental affairs of Russia, they became the target of persecution by the Czars. Because of this, migration of these communist/socialist oriented Jews began. Some went to Palestine; some to Central and South America; and a large number of them came to the U.S.�??[6]

As well as:

�??As I explained earlier, most were communist/socialist oriented with some of them being radical Bolshevik communists whose aim is world domination.�??[7]

Bernstein in the above is using the considerable involvement of Ashkenazi jews with radical movements in 19th century Russia in order to condemn the Ashkenazi as marxists/communists and, as has already been said, the allusion to this concerning the Kibbutzim, i.e. being marxist communes, seems to be based, as I have argued, on some negative event between Ziva and the Ein HaShofet community. However as stated the allusion to the marxist origin of the kibbutzim is due to Bernstein�??s perception of marxism/Bolshevism, as well as �??Nazism�??, as being totalitarian and hence denying the right to himself and Ziva to be married and happy. It is not so much about the actual ideologies concerned, but more about Bernstein�??s perception of them as taking his and Ziva�??s �??freedom�??/�??liberty�?? away from them.

Bernstein�??s own words on this point a very instructive: since he reveals his thought concerning what he considers �??Nazism�?? and �??marxist/Bolshevism�?? to be in the following sentence:

�??This war-creating country which has been portrayed as 'the only barrier to communism in the Mideast' sell its war products to anyone who has the money �?? including repressive dictatorships �?? FASCIST or COMMUNIST.�??[8]

If we note Bernstein�??s use of the description, �??repressive dictatorship �?? Fascist or Communist�??, it becomes very clear that the characteristic that Bernstein is thinking of, in his use of adjectives denoting �??totalitarianism�??, is defined by the loss of �??liberty�?? in Bernstein�??s case of course this is the loss of the ability to marry the jewess, i.e. Ziva, he loves.

This attitude is perhaps best further pointed out by noting that both marxism/Bolshevism and �??Nazism�?? would not in terms of ideology have any objection to an Ashkenazi and Sephardi couple entering into coital relations or marriage. For in marxism/Bolshevism there is no differentiation between the two groups, since the only differences which matter in marxism are class distinctions and even then one can be �??de-classed�?? so no objection can be made to inter-ethnic/racial group marriage or breeding.

In �??Nazism�??, more properly National Socialism, there is no objection to this on the grounds that the two persons concerned are in National Socialist racial science both are classified as jews and hence have every right to mix their blood. As well as since National Socialism focuses on the well-being of the Aryan race and the racial hygiene of the jewish sub-racial groupings is for jews to be concerned with and not National Socialists.

Hence we can assert that Bernstein�??s allusions to �??Nazis�??, �??Gestapo�??, �??Marxists�??, �??Bolshevism�?? among other things are analogies from the popular literature, and Bernstein�??s own perceptions, in order to explain what he is feeling and he asserts he experienced in such a way as to make his own work appeal and be more readable (in order that other�??s may �??understand�?? and �??sympathise�?? with his perceived plight). These perceptions centre around the treatment of Ziva and hence can be argued to be merely expressions of feeling, rather than any real condemnation, because of Bernstein�??s perception of �??totalitarianism�?? and his own �??rights�?? as a jew.

What Bernstein then proceeds to do to again attack Ashkenazi jewry, in a way he knows will considerably hurt their sensibilities, by asserting a whole series of connexions between marxism and Zionism noting that they are in his view the same thing. We should also mention that Bernstein adds in consistent allusion to Nazism in his monologue on the subject. Further confirming the interpretation that I have been arguing here that it is not so much the ideologies, but rather how these ideologies in Bernstein�??s perceptions would impinge on his relationship with Ziva.

This use of a communist and Zionist connexion, based on their apparent shared jewish heritage, reaches its peak, and perhaps most hysterical, expression in the following section, entitled �??Communism in Israel�??, which I quote in full:

�??The Zionist controlled news-media in the U.S. has led the American people to believe that Israel is the only barrier holding back communism in the Mideast. This would be humorous if it did not have such serious implications for the United States.

From what I have said so far, you should now realize that Israel is basically a Marxist country mixed with some Nazi-type fascism. A large book could be written about it, but for now I only wish to add:

1. Israel is the only country in the Mideast that allows communist parties to operate �?? there are three. Ironically, it is the Arab countries which forbid communist parties to operate. (The exception is North Yemen which, through treachery, was taken over by the communists). Some of the Arab countries buy military equipment from communist countries because they can't get enough from the U.S. to offset the huge amounts the U.S. provides Israel. But, that's as far as any Arab/Soviet ties go.

2. The Soviet Union allows a good number of Jews to leave if they promise to go to Israel and Israel welcomes these communist oriented Jews. It must be noted that once out of the Soviet Union, many, if not most, Soviet Jews come to the U.S. instead of going to Israel. It must also be noted that hundreds of thousands of Jews have left Israel since its founding; some sources put the number at one million. Some of these Jews have requested to go back to the Soviet Union rather than live in Israel. Life for these Jews is better in Soviet Russia.

3. The latest scientific developments that the U.S. provides Israel are channeled on to the Soviet Union. The main center through which this scientific information passes is Israel's Weizman Institute in the town of Rehoovot about 40 kilometers south of Tel Aviv.

4. About one-third (1/3) of the knesset belong to one of Israel's communist, socialist or other Marxist oriented parties.

That should put to rest the lie about Israel being the only barrier against Communism in the Mideast.In fact, it is the Arab countries that form the barrier that has stopped the spread of communism in the Mideast. Israel is one leg of the New York/Moscow/Tel Aviv Triangle which is behind the communist movement.�??[9]

In this above quoted section we can see the attempt to hurt the Ashkenazi, whom Bernstein does rightly associate with Zionism, by Bernstein�??s suggestion that Zionism, represented by Israel, and communism, represented by the Soviet Union, are closely aligned with one another[10]. What Bernstein is using is an old anti-Semitic theory, not entirely without some factual/historical foundation, that the jews of the Kremlin were closely co-operating with the jews in New York, but adds a third twist that they were further closely co-operating with the Israeli government. This assertion, and his own personal addition, by Bernstein are intended to create the illusion that Ashkenazi jews are in fact the problem that is commonly ascribed as international jewry (hence in common parlance: are to blame).

Since if the Ashkenazim are the jews in the Kremlin, New York and Tel Aviv and therefore the power-brokers and those responsible for all/most of the nefarious activities and crimes ascribed justly or unjustly to jews then it leaves the field open to the Sephardim and the Mizrahim to claim that they had nothing to do with it and hence allow these two jewish ethnic/sub-racial groups to escape the spotlight of anti-Semitic critique for any involvement with these activities and crimes.

In this then we begin to really see another aspect of Bernstein�??s motivation for writing this work for if the Ashkenazim are simply to blame for the ills associated with Israel, Zionism and communism then it deflects attention away from other jews. Notably this includes his wife Ziva.

Whom it can be argued he is doing this for in order that she would be able to escape criticism and any realised reprisals on the part of those critical of jews, which Bernstein believes are coming, but what he does not seem to be so sure of is precisely when said reprisals will actually occur. So in order to protect Ziva, and those he has made a larger surrogate for her, he is trying to deflect criticism away from the Sephardim and Mizrahim as well as revenging himself upon the Ashkenazim for their alleged maltreatment of her. Hence his revenge and his protection of Ziva become one joint action.

This touches on the heart of the meaning of the term: �??jewish traitor�??. In that no jew is really a traitor to jewry, but rather is an agent of it. That jew might seem to be acting against jewry by calling attention to what, in Bernstein�??s case, he suggests the Ashkenazim are up to.

However what jewish �??traitors�?? are actually doing is answering the fundamental question that all jews ask themselves, �??What is best for jews?�??, differently to the majority of other jews. Thus in order to assure jewish survival by either provoking fresh waves of anti-jewish feeling at a target that they feel may cause a more destructive outbreak in the near or distant future if allowed to go unchecked and hence they minimize/prevent that behaviours real consequences for jews (by starting the wave of anti-jewish feeling earlier and making it much easier to nullify as well as less destructive). Or in the other instance the jewish �??traitor�?? feels that his/her fellow jews are going to be persecuted regardless. The reasoning may change to the jew condemning jews, while suggesting that they themselves or a small group of jews are actually on the anti-jewish side (or are simply �??different�?? or �??special�?? in some way) and hence offer their services as a �??decent�??, �??good�?? or �??former�?? jews, much like Benjamin Freedman did, regardless if this means persecuting their own kinsmen: thus allowing them the jewish people to survive, and to rebuild, rather than face the possibility of complete extermination.

Bernstein is enacting a combination of both these two motivations for his jewish �??traitor�?? behaviour in that he both is trying to provoke the storm before it turns into a terribly destructive hurricane, because he sees the activities of his fellow jews and comprehends that resentment is growing and wishes consciously or not to prevent catastrophe. He also, likely because of his feelings for Ziva, wishes to focus the anti-Semitic feelings on the Ashkenazim, whom he also has a great personal enmity to, who are responsible in his mind for many of the activities and crimes that are justly or unjustly suggested to be the result of jewish endeavours and actions. In this once again we note he saves Ziva, and his surrogates for Ziva: Sephardi and Mizrahi jews as well as notably Arabs, while revenging himself on those who have hurt or attacked her.

Bernstein�??s attitude to the Arabs is interesting, because he simply denies that there are extensive Arab/Soviet relations beyond military contacts completely ignoring the Soviet Unions role in the Middle East as a countering bloc against the United States of America Since the Soviet Union had failed to gain Israel as an ally, which it has sought to do in Israel�??s first years of existence and Israel had become orientated towards the United States of America. The Soviet Union naturally looked to the Arab bloc for allies. Who were becoming deeply disenfranchised by almost unconditional American support for Israel and who correctly identified the source of his support to be anchored in the position and power in the United States of jews, whether devoted Zionists or not, whom were loyal to their jewish ancestry often in contradiction to the best interests of the United States. Hence a Soviet and Arab bloc alliance formed and hence further polarisation between the two camps, Israeli and Arab, occurred.

However the source for this pro-Arab attitude is not hard to find in that Ziva was identified as an Arab by the Ashkenazi, which Bernstein indirectly notes on when he recounts as follows:

�??One day, I entered a cafe in Tel Aviv. The place was crowded and I sat down on the only seat available. Also sitting at this table were 5 Sephardic Jews from Morocco. They learned that I was studying the Hebrew language, so they were helping me with my studies when a blue-eyed, Nazi-type Israeli police officer walked into the cafe.

He ordered me to "Get away from those Kooshim. 'Kooshim' in Hebrew means 'Niggers.'�??[11]

Bernstein�??s description of the use of the pejorative word �??Kooshim�?? to describe the Sephardi jews in the café is something that can also be suggested to be in his eyes: a word used to describe Arabs. In that because Bernstein identifies the policeman as blue-eyed there would have been real physical contrast between him and the Sephardim whom he was with.

Hence the policeman looked down the Sephardim because they were darker and probably also because they looked like Arabs. Hence it is possible to suggest that in Bernstein�??s mind the Arabs are just like the Sephardim/Mizrahim in that they have been unjustly treated by the Ashkenazim and displaced/massacred by the Ashkenazi creation of Zionism. Hence they like Ziva become a victim of unjustified maltreatment in Bernstein�??s mind and his pro-Arab sentiments were likely increased with the added personal dimension that Ziva was originally from a Mizrahi family who resided in Iraq before coming to Israel.

Hence it becomes quite arguable that Bernstein�??s pro-Arab comments are the result of this identification of the Arabs with his wife Ziva�??s origins as well as the similar treatment, in his eyes, that both Ziva and the Arabs have received from the Ashkenazim and their creation Zionism. Hence it allows Bernstein to also take the side of the Arabs as well as the side of the Sephardi/Mizrahi jews and thus also re-enforce his position by recalling injustice to the Arabs and defending them, rather irrationally as it happens, from the suggestion that they are in alliance with the Soviet Union, which I discussed briefly above.

Hence we can conclude that Bernstein is a jewish �??traitor�?? in that he seeks to revenge himself on the Ashkenazim by both attacking them and manipulating the next wave of anti-Semitism to fall preferably exclusively on them rather than on his wife�??s kinsmen: the Sephardim and the Mizrahim: hence protected that which he loves and destroying that which threatens it at the same time. Bernstein�??s work is one, as we have discussed, which derives almost entirely from his personal feelings, especially his relationship with his wife Ziva and their experiences together, and not from wide reading and thought.

Bernstein manipulates information throughout the text to suit his own personal agenda and although he presents a very unsavoury picture of Israel, which appeals to many an anti-Semite, the work is marred by his deeply personal motivations, hysterical accusations towards the Ashkenazim, by potential additions from Len Martin and a lack of precise references. Even as a testimonial it is not worth the paper it is written on, because of all these problems with the text. I suggest that no anti-Semite who wishes to conduct a through critique of this text uses it as evidence of any kind other than of the hysterical and essentially Freudian mentality of the jews and especially of the Ashkenazim.

Bear in mind this work is there to manipulate your thoughts into hating the Ashkenazi and letting the Sephardim and Mizrahim off from any charges laid at their door. Do not presume just because a jew such as Bernstein seems to be on your side that he is indeed so for the jew will always ask this question first and foremost in any interaction he has: �??what is best for Jews?�?? Now that is not what is best for Aryans: is it?

[1] Bernstein, Op. Cit.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] For example on this point see the Mishneh Torah, Shoftim, The Law of Kings, 8:14.
[5] David Bakan, 1990, [1958], �??Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition�??, 3rd Edition, Free Association: London.
[6] Bernstein, Op. Cit.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] In fact they have historically had a deep animosity to one another even in the days before the Bolshevik revolution it was regarded in the jewish community that the young generally had one of two choices in terms of ideologies. Those choices were Zionism or Communism not Zionism and Communism as Bernstein necessarily assumes in his work.
[11] Bernstein, Op. Cit.

On Jewish 'Traitors': Jack Bernstein (Part I)

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:50:00 +0000

The name of Jack Bernstein is well known both in Nationalist and leftist circles as a jew opposed to Zionism. The main work that appears under his name is of a similar importance in its use as key reading and as a source of citations in Nationalist literature is: �??The Life of an American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel�??[1]. The work itself seems to have been dictated to one Len Martin and is not actually Bernstein�??s own writing although it is presumably verbatim: with the necessary tidying up from an oral to written format kept to a minimum. This would seem to be evident in the highly unusual structure of the book: for it is a series of small self-contained arguments/talks on various subjects concerning Israel and Ashkenazi jewry. It in structure is not unlike Reginald Scot�??s �??The Discoverie of Witchcraft�??[2], but in a more contemporary fashion, with each section relating to a specific point that the author wishes to make/argue, but these points are not necessarily interconnected, but rather are points of concentration decided by the author and only give the opinions of the author rather than factual argument.

The reason for Bernstein�??s popularity on both, and ostensibly opposing, sides of the political spectrum is routed in this structure. In that he takes a strong anti-Zionist pro-Palestinian stance, but at the same time he rejects communism and lampoons the jews as having their origins in Khazaria as well as declaring the Israelis to be fascist. By this mercurial switch between criticism of Zionism as both communist and fascist and questioning the Semitic roots of the Ashkenazim: Bernstein manages to successfully straddle the political fence between the Nationalist right and the Internationalist left.

What sealed Bernstein�??s book in a place, where it is cited by both the political right and left, as an authority is the supposed circumstances of his death, which is alleged to have been conducted by Mossad: Israel�??s foreign intelligence service and notoriously fanatical Zionists[3]. In order to silence so effective a critic who was �??revealing too much�??. I can find no date or particulars of this alleged assassination and nor can I find a short or extensive biography of Bernstein or any detailed source as to the circumstances surrounding his death.

We can however state that, however much importance is ascribed to Bernstein now, it is hard to see why he would have been the target of a successful assassination attempt by the Mossad. Assassination is a weapon of last resort for any intelligence/security service and firstly is only conducted when there is no other opinion, secondly is usually conducted in such a way as for it not to seem like an assassination, and thirdly is preferably conducted in a remote location and even more preferably in a location where the local security services can be persuaded via bribes or threats to look the other way.

Political assassination is not an uncommon strategy among jews, particularly for the violent religious Zionist fringe in Israel itself[4], but there would seem to be no particular reason why Bernstein would have been such a threat as to expend a large quantity of state resources in killing him.

Bernstein was one of a plethora of critics of Israel and Zionism, but there seems no reason why he was especially dangerous and should be dealt with in such an extreme way. Sephardi jews have long complained, and criticised the Ashkenazim, about their treatment in Israel so Bernstein wasn�??t notable in this regard. His arguments that Israel was a fascist/�??Nazi-like�?? state were, and are, standard fare on the political left. His arguments that the Ashkenazim were descended from the Khazars were then a point of academic contention, which had then been recently revived by Arthur Koestler�??s book on the subject[5]. His arguments concerning the alliance between Zionist bankers in New York and Bolshevik/communist jews in the Soviet Union were, and still are, standard fare on the Nationalist right.

In short: Bernstein argued nothing that was not argued before, during or after his time: yet he is alleged to have been singled out and targeted quite specifically, presumably as stated because he was especially dangerous, by the Mossad.

Since we don�??t seem to have a reasonable motive for the Mossad singling out Bernstein then we must suggest that he wasn�??t singled out by the Mossad at all. Particularly as there doesn�??t appear to be any record of the manner of his death or what evidences the state the Mossad were involved at all.

A solution to this may be found in some of Bernstein�??s first words, which are a �??challenge to his Zionist brethren�??, in the book, which are as follows:

�??But, if a Jew is the person doing the exposing, you resort to other tactics.

* First, you ignore the charges, hoping the information will not be given widespread distribution.

* If the information starts reaching too many people, you ridicule the information and the persons giving the information.

* If that doesn't work, your next step is character assassination. If the author or speaker hasn't been involved in sufficient scandal you are adept at fabricating scandal against the person or persons.

* If none of these are effective, you are known to resort to physical attacks.�??[6]

Now if we consider the possibility that Bernstein died in, for example, a car accident, which is an infamous method for removing problematic individuals: as it can be made to look like accident and the task is done with the minimum of risk and involvement (as per my comments on assassination above). Then it might be suggested in order to make Bernstein�??s work more appealing and his words more authoritative, because if he was dangerous enough to be assassinated by the Mossad then he must, as the logic goes, be on to something very important. The assertion that Bernstein was assassinated by the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency that is best known outside of Israel itself and has a considerable mythos of invincibility that makes its involvement in any conspiracy almost de rigueur in alternative political literature of the conspiratorial variety, was promulgated.

These apparent words of Bernstein found in the first pages of the book, that I have quoted above, are then regarded as prophetic, by the reader, of what happened to Bernstein, because he was simply too dangerous an opponent of the Zionist conspiracy to let live (and hence may have had some inkling he would be killed by the Mossad). This then re-enforces the notion in the reader�??s mind that Bernstein had something very important to say and that his opinions and testimony should be heard with great reverence and regarded with great authority. This is certainly a reverence and authority that, on the face of it, the work, and Bernstein as an author, do not deserve, since if we remember that Bernstein is an Ashkenazi jew himself and the opinions he gives on a variety of issues are quite lurid: we begin to understand that it isn�??t either admirable or likely useful in many meaningful sense of the term.

If similar assertions were coming from a �??holocaust survivor�?? they would be regarded, rightly in most cases I would argue, as so much fabricated jewish nonsense, but because they are coming from a jew who is critical of both Israel and the influential jewish establishment: this same kind of lurid testimony and opining is taken as solid evidence of jewish perfidy. Yet, as I have covered above in my introductory discussion of �??jewish traitor�?? testimony and the general problem and considerations that have to be made with, this is a hugely problematic double standard, which renders the critique of jewry that uses it hypocritical (and inconsistent ergo irrational) as well as open to dismissal by pro-jewish authors via the targeting of this double standard. Anti-jewish thought, as I have said, needs to leave behind this weakness and treat all jews as jews, and as such we must remember once more than Bernstein is first and foremost a jew and however much apparent value we see in what he writes we must always bear this singular fact foremost in our minds.

It is possible that these most important words, and in particular: �??If none of these are effective, you are known to resort to physical attacks�??, are not Bernstein�??s own, but rather Len Martin�??s. Since it is an interesting and notable co-incidence that the key part of the emphasis of the authority of Bernstein is the manner of his death, as you will see when he is cited particularly by the Nationalist right in that there is generally affixed an addendum to the effect of �??assassinated/killed by the Mossad�??, and this short passage, which as I have said acts to re-enforce the belief in the importance of Bernstein�??s opinions and testimony. This combined with Len Martin�??s likely responsibility for spreading the suggestion of Bernstein�??s having been assassinated by the Mossad[7], makes for further suggestion that this first part of Bernstein�??s book may not in fact be his, but rather a deliberate addition by Martin in order to facilitate the authority and hence the sales of the work.

Since if the booklet is taken an authoritative and devastating critique, which can be facilitated by the idea that the author was assassinated by the Mossad for his views [ergo he �??knew something especially dangerous�??], then the sales of the work will be much higher than if it is just a normal set of opinions. Since the work itself has little value in terms of making an evidenced argument, it has to have another point of interest (or otherwise it is simply akin to reading a long string of assertions by a jew posting on an internet forum) and that point is provided as I have said by the claimed manner of Bernstein�??s death.

Hence although it is impossible to definitely say that Bernstein�??s assassination by the Mossad did not happen: it does seem very improbable given what evidence we do have and that this assassination has become the main selling point of a work with little else in particular to recommend itself, but the mythos of the author�??s assassination. Hence in pointing this out we strip Bernstein of his perceived authority and can begin to look at his work as it actually is without having to contend with complaints emanating from the claimed manner of his death.

Bernstein�??s political sympathies would appear to lie more with the political left than with Nationalism since he takes great pains to detail the �??Nazi-Zionist collaboration�?? as being the cause of the so-called �??holocaust�??, the discrimination by the Ashkenazim against the Sephardim and the Zionist conspiracy against the Palestinians and Arabs in general as well as the war crimes committed by Zionists/Israeli soldiers during the several conflicts that Israel has been involved in its short existence.

It is all worth saying that Bernstein comes out in this book as a devoted anti-racist, of an apparently liberal/libertarian political persuasion, whom is fighting on behalf of the people of the world against the Zionist Ashkenazi jewish elite whom he styles as the �??new Nazis�??. His motive in this seems to be just as much about ideology, as about his own personal circumstances. Since Bernstein brings up his wife, Ziva, a Sephardi jewess several times throughout the work to indicate her experiences. Bernstein also often uses his marriage to Ziva as the starting point of the many anecdotes of which the work is made up.

This bring us onto another important point in that much like Benjamin Freedman and Maurice Samuel, Bernstein is writing from personal perspective and without references. Unlike Freedman, but like Samuel, Bernstein doesn�??t claim to have any special knowledge or authority, but rather to have simply been the witness to the behaviours and observations he describes. This makes it very hard to take Bernstein�??s points as actual argument, but rather we have to take what we would normally categorize as arguments as being the opinions of a jew and his anecdotal relation of events as simply being testimony, which must be corroborated in the standard way in order for it to be considered of value in an argument.

Using Bernstein to evidence a particular point without noting that this is a jew relating his own personal experience, regardless of the appealing, but I would suggest poisoned, evidence that he offers us, and hence, because we must remember that Bernstein is a jew, without corroboration it must be treated with an extremely sceptical eye. It is also worth repeating that Bernstein does not write from a balanced well-argued perspective, but merely personal opinion and that as with any account of this kind we must pay keen attention to detail.

This detail is essential to understanding Bernstein�??s work for what Bernstein is writing here is opinion, which may or may not represent facts and experiences accurately, but what we must try and do is deduce the value of Bernstein from these short opinions and anecdotes. In performing this task we have to look at one particular aspect of Bernstein�??s work and that is what he has included in it. Since this detail, more than actual argument used, is essential to Bernstein�??s position for it offers us an insight into Bernstein�??s thinking and the sub-text involved in the production of this work.

As I have said above what Bernstein includes mainly relates to his Sephardi jewess wife, and his reasoning and thought seem to be centred on her and the treatment she received from his fellow Ashkenazim. One of the very first things he does in the work is to introduce Ziva, properly Fawzia Daboul, his wife to us and gives us some brief biographical ideas about when he met her and her origins as a Sephardi jewess from Iraq[8]. He also elaborates on how he and Ziva courted[9] and how they were married.

After these biographical notes, which are of note because they are Bernstein�??s route to the core motivation of his writing, Bernstein reveals to us how he is motivated by his marriage to Ziwa to become opposed to his fellow Ashkenazim. He describes his experience, which leads his thoughts into beginning his case against his fellow Ashkenazim as well as against what he perceives, not unjustly so, as the fruit of their creative labours: Israel.

Bernstein states as follows when leading us into his opinions on the Ashkenazim and Israel:

�??Ziva and I were happy, but our marriage created serious problems. You see, Ziva is a Sephardic Jewess and I am an Ashkenazi Jew. For an Ashkenazi Jew to marry a Sephardic Jew is frowned upon in Israel by the ruling Ashkenazis. To understand why this is the case, you must realize the difference between the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews.�??[10]

This is qualified in the paragraph above the quoted passage by the following statement:

�??Yet, I was happy to leave after 4 months �?? two months earlier than originally planned. During the time I was working in the Kibbutz, I carried on courtship with Ziva. She was one of the reasons I left the Kibbutz after only 4 months �?? we were to be married.�??[11]

It is not unreasonable to suggest with these comments, leading into Bernstein�??s thoughts on the origin of the Ashkenazim, rather he is motivated by the ill-treatment of his wife as a non-Ashkenazi jewess married to an Ashkenazi jew by his Ashkenazi kin. As Bernstein states: �??it was love at first sight�??, which suggests a strong and passionate romantic relationship between himself and Ziwa. We may presume Ziwa shared his feelings to a significant degree, if not completely, for the reason of Bernstein�??s passionate regard for her.

It is also possible to infer from the second passage cited that his relationship with Ziva was arguably a point of friction between Bernstein and the other members of the kibbutz named Ein HaShofet[12]. Since Bernstein�??s leaving the kibbutz early in order to marry would be somewhat unusual and in the course of his and Ziwa�??s courting we may reasonably suggest she at least once visited him on at Ein HaShofet. This is all the more plausible when we take into account that Ein HaShofet was created by a combined group of Ashkenazi jews from Poland and North America. It is thus quite plausible to suggest that Bernstein may have begun to form his views from the fiction between himself and his fellow kibbutz members. This may also be suggested by the following comment he makes about the kibbutzim in general:

�??A kibbutz is a farming and sometimes industrial venture. It is important to explain that Israel's Kibbutz system is a Marxist idea brought to Israel by the Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Israel mainly from Poland and Russia. These Jews are part of that bunch of Jews know as the BOLSHEVIKS.�??[13]

Here Bernstein is lampooning kibbutzim as a form of applied Marxism and as (proto-) Bolsheviks, but notably he states that the idea was brought to Israel by jews from Poland and Russia. Since in Bernstein�??s writing the �??Nazis�?? are similar to the �??Bolsheviks�?? in that they all persecute jews in some manner or another (i.e. as totalitarian deniers of freedom to himself and Ziva). This association of Marxism/Bolshevism with National Socialism can be seen in the following statements by Bernstein:

�??Once out of the service, a number of the ex-service people join the Shin Bet, the equivalent of Hitler's Gestapo. Like the Gestapo, they engage in repressing anyone who acts or speaks out against the Marxist/Fascist government of Zionist dominated Israel.Like in Nazi Germany, all people in Israel are required to carry identity booklets called "Teudat Zehut" in Hebrew.�??[14]

And then:

�??Concerning Nazism/Fascism, please let me clear a point. Germans are an admirable people �?? I dare say even great. But in Germany, the general population were victims of the Nazis who through cunning and brutality gained power. In Germany, the average Jews were victims of the Zionist elite who worked hand in hand with the Nazis. Many of those same Zionist Jews who, in Germany, had worked with the Nazis, came to Israel and joined hands with the Zionist/Communist Jews from Poland and Russia. It is the two faces of communism and Nazi-style fascism that rule Israel. Democracy is merely an illusion.Regarding the tie between the elite Ashkenazi Jew and the Nazis, take a look at the word 'Ashkenazi' �?? look again 'Ashke-NAZI'.

Interesting isn't it?There is a great confusion regarding the relationship of fascism to communism. Fascism is national socialism. Communism is international socialism.�??[15]

Here Bernstein makes it quite clear that he is a democrat, i.e. a liberal or a libertarian, who sees National Socialism and Marxism/Bolshevism as being simply �??totalitarian�??. To him they are the same, even if actually opposed to one another, since Bernstein is reasoning from the perspective of that these ideologies impede him from marrying the woman he loves, Ziva, and hence the Ashkenazi jews must also be �??Fascists�?? and �??Bolsheviks�??. This is most obviously representing in Bernstein�??s puerile notation about the word, Ashkenazi, singling out the ending as the colloquial diminutive term for National Socialism or a National Socialist: �??Nazi�??. It is also plausible to suggest that Bernstein knows that being called �??Nazis�?? would be deeply offensive to Ashkenazi jews, who are obsessed with their supposed suffering in the so-called �??holocaust�??, and hence allows him to once again attack and emotionally hurt those who are deliberately attacking and emotionally hurting his wife: Ziva.

In light of this when we note that Ein HaShofet was composed of a significant proportion of jews from Poland[16], put that together with the above lampoons and our discussion of Bernstein�??s motivation originating from the treatment of his Sephardi/Mizrahi wife by his fellow Ashkenazi. It becomes quite plausible that Ziva did visit him and that he came into some form of conflict with his fellow Ashkenazi kibbutzim members over his intending to marry her.

Thus we see that Bernstein is using the lurid, and quite possibly hysterical, description of the kibbutzim as a network of marxist/Bolshevik communities as a tool to attack those who tried, likely repeatedly and in increasingly drastic ways if they did so, to make him break off his engagement to Ziva. This then acts as a reasonable starting point for understanding Bernstein�??s work in that when we see him attack the jews: it is because of the experience he has had with discrimination against his wife and he focuses that anger on the Ashkenazim and the state of Israel, which he see�??s as turning a blind to and even sanctioning this behaviour towards the woman he loves.

This origin of his thought becomes increasingly clear as we move through the text, shortly coming to another passage where Bernstein rails against the Ashkenazim in the context of the treatment that Ziva has received. Bernstein states as follows:

�??For the first three years of our marriage, it was necessary for us to live with Ziva's aunt. This was because of the critical housing shortage in Israel and because of racism. Housing is allotted as follows:

* Ashkenazi Jews who have lived in Israel for many years are given first choice.

* Second in line are Ashkenazi Jews from Europe �?? especially if they are married or marry an Israel-born Ashkenazi Jew.

* The next favored are Ashkenazi Jews from the U.S. �?? especially if they marry an Israeli born Ashkenazi.

* Sephardic Jews have the next choice of whatever housing is left.

* At the bottom of the list are Moslems, Druze and Christians.

Opportunities for employment follow the same pattern: Ashkenazi Jews get the choicest jobs, Sephardic Jews next, and Moslem, Druze and Christians fill the menial jobs with a great many left unemployed. Even through I was an Ashkenazi Jew from the U.S., I was placed lower on the list for housing because I married a Sephardic Jewess.�??[17]

This attack on/description of the discrimination against Sephardi jews by the Ashkenazim, which is not likely to be untrue given that discrimination by the Ashkenazim against the Sephardim and Mizrahim is well documented in both jewish[18] and non-jewish sources[19], need not have been placed in the context of Bernstein�??s own experiences having married a Sephardi/Mizrahi jewess. However he does so frequently talking from the perspective of being engaged in a personal animosity with those who have made the woman he loves want for anything deliberately. For in the above quoted passage Bernstein complains of not being able to gain housing and suitable employment opportunities for the sake of Ziva. Suggesting that Ziva is both the unwilling cause of his present misfortune and that Bernstein apportions the blame on those discriminating against Ziva and not himself: for as Bernstein states. This discrimination was �??because he married a Sephardic Jewess�??.

This according to Freud�??s theory of psycho-analysis, the key as I have said to understanding jewish thought, would be a simple manifestation of the built-up loathing for those who indirectly/directly questioned Bernstein�??s manhood in questioning the suitability of the woman he most desired, Ziva, in the questioning of the legitimacy of the Ashkenazi pre-eminence.

This manifestation of the loathing for those who would question Bernstein�??s manhood is manifested most obviously in Bernstein�??s assertion that the Ashkenazi jews are not Semites at all, but are rather descended from the Khazars and hence the foundation of Zionist ideology, the key part of the legitimizing argument for the existence of Israel, is thus invalidated and the legitimacy of the Ashkenazim is questioned in their own eyes since the question to many Zionists and Ashkenazim of fundamental importance is whether they are Semitic and the �??true inheritors�?? of Palestine.

[1] Jack Bernstein, 1985, �??The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel: As told to Len Martin�??. The full text is available at the following address: http://www.jackbernstein.org/. There is no pagination in this online edition of the work, which I am forced to use due to the lack of a reliable print copy. Hence page references cannot be reasonably given, but I will endeavour to give some indication of which part of the work the quotation/assertions in question maybe found.
[2] Reginald Scot, 1930, [1584], �??The Discoverie of Witchcraft�??, 1st Edition, John Rodker: London.
[3] For a general, although I suspect not wholly accurate, account please see: Gordon Thomas�??, 2007, �??Gideon�??s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad�??, 1st Edition, St. Martin�??s Griffin: New York; Ian Black & Benny Morris�??, 1992, �??Israel�??s Secret Wars: A History of Israel�??s Intelligence Services�??, 1st Edition, Grove Press: New York and Dan Raviv & Yossi Melman�??s, 1990, �??Every Spy a Prince: The Complete History of Israel�??s Intelligence Community�??, 1st Edition, Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
[4] Such as the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by a jewish radical named Yigal Amir.
[5] Arthur Koestler, 1976, �??The Thirteenth Tribe�??, 1st Edition, Random House: New York.
[6] Bernstein, Op. Cit.
[7] Since the following note, presumably written by Martin, is included in the text: �??(This honest and courageous Jew was assassinated some years ago, by MOSSAD).�?? Ibid.
[8] Since she was from Iraq she would actually be a Mizrahi, rather than a Sephardi, jewess, but Mizrahim generally follow the Sephardi religious ritual in Judaism and with Bernstein�??s own definition of a jew as a follower of Judaism rather in the more accurate racial sense. This would also correspond with Bernstein�??s comments about their being married in a Sephardi synagogue.
[9] Bernstein however fails to note that the Kibbutzim, on which he briefly opines, were often also religious as well as socialistic in nature, as well as that some of them were non-marxist and nationalistic in nature. Bernstein�??s lurid and apparently hysterical statement that: �??EACH OF THESE KIBBUTZ ARE AFFILIATED WITH ONE OF ISRAEL'S MARXIST PARTIES ranging from SOCIALIST TO HARD-CORE COMMUNIST�?? is patently untrue since as I have said there were highly nationalistic kibbutzim, such as the Gush Emunim who were, and are, followers of the jewish radical rabbi Abraham (Avraham) Kook, as well as marxist and simply religious ascetic kibbutzim. On this point see Roger Friedland & Richard Hecht, 1996, �??To Rule Jerusalem�??, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 200-209.
[10] Bernstein, Op. Cit.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Translated: �??Spring of the Judge�?? and named after the famous jewish supreme court justice: Louis Brandeis. This kibbutz is located in northern Israel near the city of Haifa.
[13] Bernstein, Op. Cit.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Depending on Bernstein�??s definition of Poland: this could include parts of the most densely populated, in terms of jews residing there, part of Russia: the former pale of settlement. Russia could also include Poland as it had absorbed it into its territory in the 18th century under Catherine the Great and later absorbed Poland into Russia again with the defeat of National Socialist Germany in 1945.
[17] Bernstein, Op. Cit.
[18] For example Daniel Elazar, 1973, �??Local Government as an Integrating Factor in Israeli Society�?? in Michael Curtis (Ed.), Mordecai Chertoff (Ed.), 1973, �??Israel: Social Structure and Change�??, 1st Edition, Transaction: New York, pp. 21-23, contends that such discrimination was significant in the early years of Israel�??s existence, but that Sephardim have made strides since then in terms of local influence. However as of 35 years after Elazar wrote those words there is still a strong feeling in Sephardi circles, as well proof of (such as the very recent case of the Beit Yaakov schools in the Israeli city of Eldad), institutional discrimination against them by the ruling Ashkenazim. However when Elazar wrote his words at time roughly congruent with when Bernstein was gleaning his first impressions of Israel it points out that Bernstein�??s observation, although certainly exaggerated, is not without a factual foundation.
[19] For example the humanitarian organisation, �??Human Rights Watch�??, reported that: �??Although low income Jewish students--especially new immigrant, Sephardic, or Mizrahi students6--face some of the same challenges related to poverty that Palestinian Arab students do, the government provides disadvantaged Jewish students with a battery of resources designed to improve academic performance and to keep them from dropping out. The remedial and enrichment resources made available for Jewish schools include extra school hours and remedial and enrichment programs, offered both during school hours and after school, as well as truant officers, counseling, and the opportunity for vocational education.�?? Human Rights Watch, 2001, �??Second Class: Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel�??s Schools�??, Human Rights Watch: New York. The quotation is available at the following address: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-01.htm [Accessed: 30/11/2008].

Book Review: Carleton Putnam, 1980, 'Race and Reality: A Search for Solutions', 2nd Edition, Howard Allen: Cape Canaveral.

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:02:00 +0000

The current debate concerning race, between those whom recognise empirical reality, and those who would cling to the dogmatism and religious experience of 'modern' egalitarianism, is often considered to be a recent debate, which has only been reignited recently by the publication of such works as Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray�??s 1994 book, 'The Bell Curve'.

However in �??Race and Reality�??: Carleton Putnam writes of the very same debate, which raged in academia then as it does now. It betrays startling similarity to today's debate between science, and political ideology, or 'cultural Darwinism', and 'cultural Lysenkoism', as perhaps we can refer to it with some degree of accuracy. Both arguments have progressed, but the problems have stayed essentially the same.

Carleton Putnam was the cousin of the famous Professor Carleton Coon with whom he shared similar views on the subject of race. He was the Chief Executive Officer of Delta Airlines for several decades, a recognised aviation pioneer and a qualified lawyer. In fact this book was written as immediate sequel to his other major work, 'Race and Reason: A Yankee View', first published in 1961. Race and Reality on the other hand was originally published in 1967, but a second edition was re-launched in 1980.

Putnam extensively records the way in which the marxist jew Franz Boas, of much fame as the founder of modern egalitarianism in the biological and social sciences, made science match his ideology and how he was merely continuing a trend in his family towards socialism and an unrealistic utopianism. This perhaps is the ultimate irony in so far as it has been suggested in several recent psychological studies that pre-disposition to specific politics may be partly genetic, in the same way as personality can be said to have a strong genetic basis (as per the 'London School' of the late Hans Eysenck).

�??Race and Reality�?? also documents the scale of Boas', and his disciple�??s involvement with communism, as well as socialism, with Boas himself being a confirmed member of no less than 46 marxist organisations. Many with ties directly back to the Soviet Union then under the iron fist of Lenin and later Stalin. Thus as Putnam so clearly demonstrates modern egalitarianism started out as an extreme form of marxist ideology, i.e. all differences between people�??s must be explained purely in class and economic terms, and then tried to find selective evidence to 'prove' that it was scientifically correct. This attitude is much in the same vein as Karl Marx's original coining of the term, 'scientific socialism', in order to give it a veneer of supposed authority to his thought among the more liberally-minded in the scientific community, and the folk at large.

Interestingly, this evidence as demonstrated by UNESCO's pamphlets, written by the jewish anthropologist Anthony Montagu, formerly Israel Ehrenberg, is nothing to do with actual science per se, and concentrates on moral invective, scientific smoke-screens [creating unknowns/mysteries where there are none and pretension to bias on the part of those whom do not agree with them], and exploiting and twisting popular themes.

Putnam spends two chapters, which he calls "The Fantasy" and "The Facts", dealing with the general beliefs of the two camps and also clarifying and stressing the sheer qualifications in the racialist camp. This is perhaps the most important part of the book. Since what Putnam later recounts is a story of woe indeed, but it hinges on the fact that there was no basis for the �??Brown versus Board of Education�?? decision originally and that the relevant scientists were not consulted as to the scientific grounds for that decision. Thus Putnam rightly concludes the decision was not based on scientific grounds but rather on political ideology informing legal and social ideas.

He notes that all the 'science' used to justify the very legal decisions made, was never really put to the test since few 'race realist' scientists were even allowed to testify before the committee: the majority of those that were allowed being social scientists of one marxist stripe or another.

Putnam also discusses what many, otherwise sane academics, are so afraid of discussing: the disconcerting alliance of the media and boasian/marxist academics. Based I would argue on their shared ideals and in many cases further on their shared jewish heritage. This alliance Putnam demonstrates by quoting some very disturbing extracts and details both from his own and other's experiences. It is best conveyed to the reader in an example on ABC Television in 1962 given by Putnam:

'Smith (Anchor): 'Sir, what do you think about the statement that was made the American Anthropological Association? It says 'The Association repudiates statements now appearing in the United States that Negroes are biologically and in innate mental ability inferior to Whites/'[/I]

Putnam: 'I might compare the statement with a recent book written by the President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists [Coon] in which he presents evidence, and takes the position, that the Negro race is 200,000 years behind the White race on the ladder of evolution�??.

Smith: ' What are some of the findings?'

Putnam: 'The findings are that there is from every standpoint - from the standpoint of Zoology, from the standpoint of Anatomy, from the standpoint of Anthropology, from the standpoint of psychology - there is no question - the evidence is overwhelming in favor of a difference between the races in those elements which are involved in adaptability to our Western Culture.'

Smith: [In a changed background, facing the audience, Putnam cut from scene.] 'Mr. Putnam suggested that Dr. Carleton Coon, the president of the Association of Physical Anthropologists, gave some support to his view. We asked that Association, and it gave us this statement 'We condemn such writings as Race and Reason' �?? that�??s Mr. Putnam's book - 'There is nothing in Science that justifies the denial of opportunities or rights to any group by virtue of Race.' [Interview Terminated].'

Now this classic example of the manipulation of opinion by the media, which is why Putnam includes it in his work, confirms exactly what Pearson, in �??Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe�??, recognised in that the media is nothing, but a bed-fellow of the marxist movement in academe.

What Putnam doesn't mention, of course, is the fact that marxism [and associated views] have, especially in Boas�?? time, generally been a significantly jewish movement in terms of physical and intellectual leadership, and that co-incidentally the media happens to also have a very significant jewish presence both in terms of ownership as well as the face�??s of the media (and the �??television experts�?? it uses). However, we must forgive him for this oversight since Putnam is writing a book about race generally, rather than making a point of exposing jewish influence in European and Aryan countries both in the past and the present.

As you can see Putnam makes a compelling and objective case against the decisions made, and shows why he is correct in his assertions. It is also worth saying that on the publication of Putnam's 1961 book: 'Race and Reason: A Yankee View'. This same academic association on the instigation of a tiny minority of hard-line marxists put forward a motion to compose a press release condemning Putnam's book as unscientific. Coon asked that before a vote was taken, that all those who had actually read the book raise their hands, apparently only two or three in the entire room did so. Coon promptly packed up and left to go home for the night, much to the annoyance of the minority of hard-line marxists.

This media and scientific pattern has continued well beyond the time of Putnam's writing, and may well continue well into the future. Doubtless this book was any less well received, and as Putnam points out he has been called a 'racist' many times, but nobody has thus far managed to produce any serious evidence to contradict his or other race realist�??s ideas.

Perhaps one of the most interesting quotations to share with those readers who have heard the popular refrain from egalitarians, that there is no physical difference between different races brains, is from C. J. Connolly�??s 1950, 'The External Morphology of the Primate Brain', which studied a sample of 60 Negro, and White brains.

I quote:

"Comparing the two large groups of Whites and Negroes, while the variability is large and there is much overlapping, the mean values reveal significant differences. The dimensions correlate well with what we might expect from a knowledge of the cranium in the two races. The Negro brain is on the average relatively longer, narrower, and flatter that the brain of the Whites. The frontal region, as measured by the projectional distance to the mid-point of the second sulcus, is, relative to the total length of the brain, larger in male Whites than in Negroes, while the parietal is larger in Negroes than in Whites [...]. It can be said that the pattern of the frontal lobes in the Whites brains of our series is more regular, more uniform than in the Negro brain [...]. The White series is perhaps more slightly fissurated and there is more anatomising of the sulci [...] it is a matter of frequencies."

Putnam doesn't just take Connolly on his word, but quotes some of the best academics of the day in their analyses of the Negro and White brain. This is a great strength of the book since Putnam unlike so many other authors in this area has surveyed the material extensively, and has shown that it agrees on large racial differences, but ironically feels that it can't tell anyone about it.

Later in this book Putnam provides a blow-by-blow account of how the NAACP got the 'Brown vs. Board of Education' decision in the first place, but unfortunately does not mention that jews were instrumental in both this decision and in the creation of the early NAACP. And, then used this decision as opposed to their 'science' [which, was later shown to be utterly false in the academic literature] to nullify any further decisions, which opposed their egalitarian political ideology. It is perhaps interesting to note that by the time of 'Race and Reality's' second publication in 1980 all the research that had been used as justification for the 'Brown' decision had been found to be either fraudulent, inaccurate or wanting in many ways. But, by then of course it was all too late...

At the end of the book Putnam includes a section called "Point Counter-Point", which is essentially a racialist Frequently Asked Questions, or �??FAQ�??, answering every possible criticism that could be offered off Putnam's and Race Realism's position in general. It gives details as to the supposedly 'magnificent' African cultures, and notes the differentiation between the presentation, and the actuality. However unfortunately Putnam distances himself from the jewish angle claiming that National Socialist Germany was an aberration in terms of racialism and that racialism should not be �??judged�??, because of the Third Reich�??s real or imagined crimes. He also does not detail, as I have stated the significant jewish involvement in the �??Brown vs. Board of Education�?? decision, in the promotion of Marxism or in the creation of the NAACP. These are certainly weaknesses of �??Race and Reality�?? and do require further reading to correct, but the book does serve as an excellent learning guide for those seeking to understand what science said at the time of the Brown versus Board of Education decision and the �??Civil Rights�?? movement.

But perhaps the real value of the book is not the devastating arguments, and sources Putnam uses, but by the very humbling realisation of how racial sanity was defeated by racial insanity. Not by cold hard science, but by jewish-inspired real politick, media complicity, idealism and political manipulation. �??Race and Reality�?? is a lesson to racialists both in how they should look to compose their own works and that ignoring significant jewish involvement is a considerable mistake and that by ignoring it their arguments, become less factually-based and thus become open to co-option by these same jewish voices who in the 1960�??s were all for egalitarianism.

It is also worth remembering that many of the academics cited by �??White Nationalists�??, such as Arthur Jensen and Richard Herrnstein, in regards to race, especially to do with IQ testing and the resulting trends, are in fact jews, and that in unduly relying on them gives jews an escape route, as they have created in organisations such as American Renaissance, where-by said jews become �??whites�?? and �??White Nationalists�??. The danger is very real and this coupled with the poor state of anti-jewish critique, which we have been examining and beginning to correct here at Semitic Controversies, there is an opportunity for the jews to escape the scorching spotlight of accurate and incisive anti-jewish critique by re-inventing themselves as �??racialists�??.

It is more than time that the anti-Semitic intellectual movement began to get its collective act together and use the many intellectual tools available to re-forge the interdisciplinary field of anti-Semitic critique of the jews and Judaism that was lost when National Socialist Germany surrendered in 1945.

A Response to the Wandering Jew

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:17:00 +0000

I recently wrote a response on the forum, Vanguard News Network, that I would like to republish here to for the sake of both archiving it and clarifying some of my general thoughts on jewish ritual murder, also known as the blood libel in jewish and academic circles.

I point out that the common argument concerning the observance of kashrut precludes jews from having committed such crimes is a nonsense and presumes incorrectly that jews firstly all believe precisely the same interpretation of the Torah/Tanakh and that secondly all jews are wholly observant of the official dictates of Judaism. This is quite obviously an unrealistic argument to make, but often it is the only argument made by both scholars and laymen possibly because it offers a quick and easy road to pooh-pooh the allegation and then move onto the 'interesting bit' of why people believed it and still do believe it (etc).

Originally Posted by The Wandering Jew

I'm glad you do not believe the blood libel bullshit. Its ridiculous to suggest
that we make Matzah (Bread) from the blood of non-Jewish children. Kashrut
dictates there can be no worse crime than to eat human flesh.

Actually I do 'believe' in it. Belief really isn't the right word for a historical argument unless it is quite literally a religion (like the 'holocaust'): jewish ritual murder (the 'blood libel' is not an accurate description and is a nonsense term) is a valid event that can be reasonably be argued to take place/have taken place. It isn't true in all the allegations of this type, but then since when was every accusation of murder taken as a case of actual murder and used to suggest murder was in fact a fantasy?

It isn't 'ridiculous' to suggest that it occured. For example Trent is a case where it can be reasonably asserted that it took place. If you read Hsia's study, which is the standard one, of it carefully and with a knowledge of the primary accounts he is relying on then it becomes clear that Hsia's argument is essentially incorrect. Even worse: Hsia is simply inventing reasons to explain away certain issues (such as 'a thorn circumcised the boy's penis before he was swept into the Mikvah' [to paraphrase him] when Hsia has nothing at all to suggest that firstly a thorn could do such an injury and secondly any other evidence to suggest any other cause other than human agency). Hsia ends up accusing the Schweitzer of the crime and bends over backwards, rather than deducing from the evidence, to prevent the jews even being under suspicion.

In his other major work on this, 'The Myth of Ritual Murder' (Yale: 1988 [I think]), Hsia comes clean with his views on the subject a lot more while again not following the evidence that implicates jews, that he quite often mentions but does not think along that avenue at all [from having had a conversation with him it seems to be deliberate], while following to its logical conclusion any evidence that implicates gentile [read: local non-jewish] involvement. He makes quite the patchwork quilt of a theory as to why he thinks jews could not have been responsible and why they were blamed for the crimes [he also doesn't follow his theory through, which in fact points to the jews being largely responsible for the origins of the claim even if it was false].

It wasn't/isn't a widespread practice as has been wrongly claimed by most anti-Semitic authors on this [and nor is it an 'anti-Semitic/Christian/anti-Judaic fantasy' as most philo-Semitic authors have claimed] , but it is something that is wholly consistent with jewish acts of violence towards non-jews throughout the millennia of jew/gentile co-existence [that jews have tried to minimize and just write out of history]. The idea of the blood drinking being opposed to Kashrut is indeed true: however this does not disqualify jews having commited it for religious reasons.

Ironically von Leers offered an interesting, and certainly potentially valid, rationale for the crime in the kapparot committed to wipe away jewish sins (in that the hebrew word used to justify the sacrifice actually means both 'man' and 'rooster'). This is an underinvestigated angle to the issue of jewish ritual murder (and also includes the consumption aspect there-of as the kapparot rooster/hen is given to the jewish poor as a philanthropic donation. This would be consistent with the reports of the distribution of blood/matzoh to other jews, usually poor and not involved in the actual sacrifice itself, after the event.) and one that certainly deserves attention far more so than the irrational declarations that 'it is a lie' when little/no reasonable evidence/interpretation has been offered for why this might be the case (a lot of bluster though).

Motivation for such crimes was also suggested in Horowitz's excellent 'Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence' (Princeton: 2007) although he didn't quite take it to ritual murder he took it to the twin of it in standard literature: host desecration (see the Passau case for example). He hinted it could be taken further, but taking it to JRM would have been a step too far [in terms of it being considered 'acceptable criticism'] as proven later that year by Ariel Toaff (and the polemics and campaign launched against him by jewish organisations worldwide).

It is found in the concept of vengence in jewish culture and theology: in that if one takes the concept of Amalek and Agagite (who remember Rambam ruled still existed and hence it is still part of the jewish religious mission to hunt down and exterminate 'the seed of Amalek' and especially 'the seed of Agag'). Since in jewish literature the cultures, especially Christianity before the Lutheran Reformation, were identified as Amalek it is quite plausible that a group of jews performed jewish ritual murder on this basis.

It is true there were cases, such as Beilis (1913) and potentially Damascus (1840) [but that's still open for argument because the evidence swings either way depending on interpretation], where there were erroneous claims of this type, but then as jews are so fond of telling me, each case must be evaluated on its own merits and not those of an ulterior agenda.

However your argument can answered very succinctly with the following counter-question: have all jews historically and presently observed the (and/or precisely the) same mitzvot and commands of the Torah/Tanakh to keep Kashrut while professing to be observant jews?Do you see now why that argument you used is a complete nonsense?

Lies are not Facts: Benjamin Freedman's 'Facts are Facts' Debacle (Section II, Part I)

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:39:00 +0000

We have previously begun an analytical critique of Benjaim Freedman's critique of world jewry and its this in his �??Facts Are Facts�?? pamphlet where he, among other things, quotes various passages of the Talmud in his attempt to show his readers, and a given Dr Goldstein, how the Oral Torah is deplorable.

Instead of me hobknobbing about this man, as he has already been done in the another series of articles[1], let us begin with a quote of his choice in the formentioned publication:

�??Sanhedrin, 55b. "A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea)." (emphasis in original text of Soncino Edition, Ed.)�??

The above quotation is indeed a quote from the Soncino Edition of the Babylonian Talmud in English translation. It is one of the many quotes that has been frequently used as part of the argument that the Talmud teaches and sanctions paedophilia.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Freedman hasn't studied the Talmud has he professes, he has simply chosen the general arguments commonly derived from people like Pranaitis[2], Roehling[3] et al and were used by Elizabeth Dilling[4], Michael A. Hoffman II[5] and others.

With the argument that the Talmud teaches it is alright to have sexual intercourse with a three year old and that it sanctions it, there is a problem of interpretation. The problem is, namely, it does not include the necessary corroboration of halakah (jewish law) of the Mishna or of the Talmud were it specifically talks about whether such an act renders the offender completely exempt from legal consequences.

You see, the Talmud does not list an offence and then lists the relevant penalties thereof, rather it lists penalties and then discusses scenarios where guilt there-of is incurred or not, for example in the Sanhedrin tractate the penalty is death, in the tractate Keritoth the penalty is divine retribution and so forth.

A few clarifications are in order. The prohibitions given by the Torah are generally divided into two categories. The first category deals with crimes against God, for example they include blasphemy and adultery, and the other category deals with interpersonal crimes (i.e. crimes against man) such as theft, slander and basically any dead by a jew that would harm his fellow jew.

So, there are certain vile acts that were not punishable as sexual crimes (between man and God), because they were not legally categorised as such. However, this does not mean those instances weren't punishable as interpersonal crimes. The consequences are given elsewhere, in the Sanhedrin you have a very lengthy, diverse and elaborate discussion of what deed requires the implemention of capital punishment. This the key variable to understand the format of the Sanhedrin tractate.

The laws (on man) on marriage/betrothal are predominantely discussed in the Kiddushin tractate (laws of marriage, betrothal and tithing there-of), where the rabbis argue that marriage by coition (of any age) is not a valid way to aquire a woman. Marriage, or betrothal (with parental consent) had no defined age-limit, which allowed confusion, hence a man could betroth a girl of very young age, given that the parent agreed.

The Talmud is, partially, an ongoing stream of issued regulations and punishments against acts that were outside of crimes against God, i.e civil matters and interpersonal crimes. Hence what was on one hand not regulated, not rejected by the old laws, could be punishable instead as interpersonal offences. If I, as a clergly man in the 12th-14th century for example, reflected on how this was so, yet elsewhere stated how I'd punish it, would this mean I was in support of it occuring?

Let me, in turn, quote the Talmud on this matter from the tractate that deals with crimes and rulings related to betrothal and marriage (the Kiddushin Tractate):

�??A certain man betrothed [a woman] with a myrtle branch in a market place. Thereupon R. Aha b. Huna sent [a question] to R. Joseph: How is it in such a case? He sent back: Have him flagellated, in accordance with Rab; and demand a divorce, in accordance with Samuel. For Rab punished any man who betrothed [a woman] in a market place, or by intercourse, or without shiddukin�??[6]

Here it is explained how[7] betrothing a woman through intercourse, without shiddukin (a contract made between the girl's father, or legal guardian, and with the desired husband).

To bring further doubt to Freedman's take on the issue (it being allowed to marry a three year old after you've had sex with her) and myopic display of talmudic context, it is important to see that a girl that young, just three years old, would not be aquirable without shiddukin. You might ask what would happen if a girl's father had given his consent prior to another man having sex with his three year old daughter, well this was also negated in the same tractate.

�??A MAN MAY GIVE HIS DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL WHEN A NA'ARAH. Only when a na'arah, but not when a minor: this supports Rab. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One may not give his daughter in betrothal when a minor, [but must wait] until she grows up and says: �??I want So-and-so�??.�??

Hence, a man may not agree to a shiddukin before his daughter has reached �??narah�??[8], ergo another man can not aquire her by intercourse without shiddukin and a father can not enter into this contract prior to the girl having become of the age of na'rah. Add to this, Maimonides statements in the �??Laws of Forbidden Relationships�?? 1:14, in the commentary of Miggad Mishnah (Mishen Torah) that the punishment for sexually using a minor is �??serious�?? and �??prolonged flagellation�?? is due, meaning that this is a crime against man and it is is clearly forbidden in Jewish law.

�??The contract of marriage, like every other contract, requires the mutual consent of the parties. Without such a consent the marriage is void, though the pre-scribed forms have been complied with. A consent obtained by FORCE is no consent. Some authorities, however, make a difference between these two cases, viz., where the FEMALE or the MALE party had been forced to the marriage contract. In the former case the marriage is void.�??[9]

Again, no one was allowed by any talmudic decree to force oneself upon a girl in order to betroth her, nor with consent until the girl had reached the age of na'rah. One of the more notable rabbinical authorities, in the third century, stated:

�??It is a moral wrong for a father to contract a marriage on behalf of his daughter before she has attained the age of consent�??[10].

One simply has to cross-reference and corroborate the actual halaka laws on relationships with these passages in order to not misunderstand them, which clearly Freedman has not done, he just found a passage in the Talmud and assumed it to be an absolute and halakah decree, missing the context of what punishment category was under discussion.

As additional references on such matters (albeit vague), showing that by it being addressed there was a known problem revolving around it having occured, the halacha (jewish law) on this says:

"A young man shouldn't marry a woman many years older than himself. An older man shouldn't marry a woman many years younger than himself"[11].

Another, similar to the above excerpt from the Talmud:

�??Let youth and old age not be joined in marriage, lest the purity and peace of domestic life be disturbed."[12]

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the Talmud gives permission for sex with three year olds, cohabitation was without legal and religious sanction for a very long time throughout the civilized world, in these times. In Judaism, only with the added laws of the Talmud's progressing regulations, was this changed and finally put under a religious category. Also, with the later Schulchan Aruch (a more direct and down-to-basics codification of the laws enacted progressively through the Talmud) marriage became a wholly religious enterprise, weddings were officiated by rabbis and private contractual betrothals and such bonds became invalid by religious mandate (which, prior to the Talmud, was not a complete religious mandate).

Let us look at another quote that Freedman uses:

�??Kethuboth, 11a-11b. "Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7); but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood"

This is another common passage oft used in order to argue how the Talmud does not consider it an offence to have intecourse with a little girl. The discussions relates to the dowry for virgins and non-virgins. So, what's being debated is, effectively, whether such a deed could effect the dowry of the girl. The answer given is no, as far as the sanctity of virginity concerned what happened was just like getting poked with an inanimate object, since it didn't remove her ability to remain innocent (a virgin).

A footnote of this passage confirms this:

�??Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.�??[13]

Ergo, the statement in Ketuboth 11b: �??When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl, it is nothing�?? does not mean that it is permissible to rape her. Rather the Talmud is discussing whether or not she is considered a virgin later in life as I noted on in the previous post, meaning she would not be considered "damaged goods".

Let us examine two more talmudic quotes, for now, from Freedman's text;

�??Yebamoth, 60b. "As R. Joshua b. Levi related: "There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Ramanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day (14), and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest (15).�??

Clearly, this is another pick that is used to bolster the argument that humping three year olds, in this case a proselyte (convert) under the age of three, is valid and good.

The case in point is the opposite, as the same tractate folio demonstrates further on. Initially, it is importent to not that, as the quote says, this example is about a certain town of questionable proportions. The discussion in this folio mentiones the following:

�??A priest may not marry one who is adolescent or 'wounded', but if already married, he may continue to live with her.�??

It further states that, had the marrige not been sanctioned by a rabbi, it would have been annulled by default. Still, with the �??maskana�?? (again, the final prevailing judgement), the Talmud issues the rabbinical decision of nullifying this kind of thing from being valid by end segment of this debate and folio with the following:

�??A certain priest married a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: What [do you mean by] this? �?? The other replied: Because R. Jacob b. Idi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that the halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Yohai. 'Go', the first said, 'and arrange for her release, or else I will pull R. Jacob b. Idi out of your ear'.�??[14]

One of the rabbis tried to defend it as a sanction that found halachah agreement with the previous Rabbi Simeon Yohai, yet this was not valid as he was commanded to secure her release from this bond with a threat attached to it. It is not customary for a rabbi to physically threaten another rabbi with such measures, hence it can be deducted this unsaviour and fraudulent sanction was to be even moreso opposed. This rejection is ultimately ended with the footnote to this threat against the rabbi who was commanded to reverse Rabbi Jacob Idi's sanctioned bond:

�??He would place him under the ban and thus compel him to carry out his decision which is contrary to that of R. Jacob b. Idi.�??

The following quote is the last one discussed in this article, additional ones will be addressed further on:

�??Sanhedrin, 55b-55a: "What is meant by this? - Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2). What is the basis of their dispute?-Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).�??

The above passage is argued to state that it is permissible for a jew to have sodomy with a boy less than nine years. Again, we run into the debacle on when a crime can be categorised as a sexual act and crime against God and not. Let me just point out that it would be fundamentally incoherent and, well, quite silly with any jewish law if the reviled act of sodomy would be permissible if done to their jewish pre-pupertal members but not those above that.

The discussion in this Sanhedrin folio deals with the age issue and at which age a boy child is legally recognisable of having relations that have the full legal ramifications and judgements of sodomy. This whole discussion is closely related to an analysis on punishment for such action.

When the passage stated that intercourse with a child of nine and a day is not the same as that with a child of nine, it is made within the context of what penalty is to be applied, and whether it is of a capital nature or not, as the Sanhedrin tractate deals with what offenses are liable of guilt for capital punishment.

This quote used by Freedman involves two offenses of sodmony: active and passive. Now, the act of sodomy is by its definition prohibited, as seen for example in this footnote to Sanhedrin 54:

�??I Kings XIV, 24. Just as abomination applies to sodomy in the latter verse, so it applies to it in the former too: thus it is as though the former verse read, There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel: it is an abomination. And just as the abomination implicit here applies to both
parties, so the abomination explicitly stated in Lev. XIII, 22 refers to both.�??

The above explains first of all that sodomy is prohibited, secondly it refers to active and passive participants, as also seen here in the same text:

"From this we learn the formal prohibition for him who lies [with a male]: whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused?"

If the sodomite had committed the act with a consenting adult he would be guilty both of active sodomy in that he had sodomized another man and passive sodomy in allowing himself to be sodomized. Whereas, active sodomy would thus, of course, be to sodomize another person, from which the a adult who sodomizes a child is not exempt from (and which this Talmud passage does not contest his obvious guilt for active sodomy, though purporters of this material, like Michael A. Hoffman, are invited to prove me wrong). And so, passive sodomy would be to allow oneself to be sodomized by another, which is also the sin of sodomy, but it is PASSIVE sodomy rather than active sodomy you see. Now an adult who sodomizes a child is obviously guilty of active sodomy but he is not guilty of passive sodomy (allowing another person to sodomize him) since the child is not capable of actively sodomizing him.

Hence, it deals with passive vs active sodomy, what age a person must be for guilt to be incurred in the sense of crime against God (note this is not the same as crime against man).

Also, guilt is therefore not incureed on the boy, since by law he is by default innocent. The Talmud, in this case, defends the child, and does not condone the acts of the active participant. The adult is not exempt from charges of sodomy, it is just not considered passive or active sodomy on the behalf of the boy. So, the Rabbis in this folio clarify how they break this down into two basic kinds of sodomy: active sodomy vs passive sodomy. The former is to sodomize someone else, while the latter (passive sodomy) is to subject oneself to being sodomized.

The argument goes into some detail in order to point out that while he who sodomizes a child below the age of nine is not exempt from active sodomy, he cannot be guilty of passive sodomy since the child is not capable of actively sodomizing him. Therefore this issue is a technical issue of whether or not the adult is guilty of one sin or two as the formentioned passage simply specifies how the man who sodomizes a child under the age of nine is not guilty of passive sodomy (i.e. allowing the child to sodomize him).

In conclusion, none of the above given quotes provides a valid case that the Talmud adds legal sanction or support to acts of sodomy or intercourse with pre-pupertal children, on the contrary, in a time where there were few if any laws to regulate such encounters and deeds to officially non-sexual beings (i.e. children) the Talmud progressively added litigious measures to circumvent and end any occasional civil discrepencies on such matters as the Tanakh (Written Torah) dealt little if at all will laws pertaining to children. It is by this analysis that I sincerely doubt Freedman had, himself, studied the Talmud and jewish law or was even remotely aquainted with it, as opposed to just having regurgitated known anti-Talmud quotes in a seemingly automatic rejection and equally one dimensional quote-mining �??exposé�?? of it.

[1] This is available at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-jewish-traitors-benjamin-freedman.html.
[2] Iustinus Pranaitis, Trans: E. N. Sanctuary, 1939, [1892], �??The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians�??, 1st Edition, E. N. Sanctuary: New York.
[3] August Roehling, 1871, �??Der Talmudjude�??, 1st Edition, Verlag von Theodor Fritsch: Leipzig.
[4] Elizabeth Dilling, 1964, �??The Plot Against Christianity�??. This is available at the following address: http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/index.html.
[5] Michael Hoffman II, 2000, �??The Truth about the Talmud: A Documened Expose of Supremacist Rabbinic Hate Literature�??. This is available at the following address: http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html.
[6] Tractate Kiddushin, 12 b: Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Edition, english translation.
[7] Via the �??Maskana�?? (final prevailing judegment) delivered without being objected to, meaning the issue of who's authority ruling is to be followed.
[8] Na'aroth pl. of na'arah, technically, a girl between twelve years and twelve and a half years of age. (A footnote in the Soncino Talmud, Kethuboth 29a, defines Narah and Naaroth)
[9] Maim. H. Ishuth. IV. 1 ; Eben Ha-Ezer, XLII, 1.
[10] Tosafot to Kiddushin, page 41: K. ISSEBLBS' glossary to Eben Ha- Ezer XXXVII. 8.
[11] Eben Ha Ezer Siman "2" Se�??if 9
[12] Tractate Sanhedrin. 76 ; Yebamoth 101, Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Edition, english translation
[13] Tractate Kethuboth, 11b, Babylonian Talmud; Soncino Edition, english translation.
[14] Yebamoth, 60b. Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Edition, english translation.

Ashkenazim versus Sephardim: The Conflict Inside Jewry (Part I)

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:07:00 +0000

When we try to understand international jewry most of those who state their opposition to this entity do so in very broad terms without making an attempt to understand the internal dynamics of this jewish bloc. If we only look to the external dynamics, i.e. the actions and reactions, of this bloc rather than its internal dynamics then will naturally only receive roughly half of the picture. One such internal dynamic we need to take into account can be found in the conflict between the Ashkenazi and Sephardi jews, which is actualised within Israel�??s borders itself.

To begin our discussion we should look at what has been reported of the actualities concerning this phenomenon of conflict between the current and formerly dominant groups in world jewry.

In a news article, entitled �??Girl admitted to Haredi School under Court Order�?? and published on the 10th of September, Neta Sela brings our attention to this conflict between the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim. Sela�??s article focuses on a long-term focus of complaint among the Sephardim concerning their treatment by the Ashkenazim in Israel. This complaint is about anti-Sephardi discrimination in the Israeli school system, in particular relating to schools for ultra-orthodox jews, popularly known as haredi.

Sela is covering a long-standing dispute between the Beit Yaakov school in the Israeli city of Eldad and the Sephardim/Mizrahim community. Sela tells us that:

�??The child's parents asked for the court's intervention after their child was denied entry, apparently due to the family's "oriental descent."

During the court hearing, Judge Kobi Vardi said that "without delving into the question of discrimination that floats above the refusal to admit the child, the refusal itself is peculiar, to say the least." [�?�]

Besides the child in question, there are four other girls who were denied admittance by the same school.

Attorneys Shneor Tzoref and Ronen Milrad, representing the parents, told Ynet that "this is a historic and precedent decision obligating a school belonging to the haredi Ashkenazi stream to admit the child immediately.

"This girl was denied admittance as the result of a racial policy led by the leader of the Independent Education Center and the Beit Yaakov School." [�?�]

The appeal to the court was filled after the Beit Yaakov School denied the admittance of a 6-year-old girl, stating that the decision stems from her being "a Mizrahi."�??[1]

These remarks can be put in context by noting an earlier article written by Sela on this case where she informs of the intake rates for Ashkenazi and Sephardi jewish children at the Beit Yaakov school. Sela informs us that:

�??Last year, 221 pre-school girls, including Rachel, applied for the 1st grade at Beit Yaakov. Of the 93 Ashkenazi girls who applied, 90 were accepted (97 percent), while of the 130 Sephardic girls who applied, only 70 got in (54 percent).�??[2]

In the same article Sela makes a point of noting the Beit Yaakov�??s school method for effecting this discrimination between Sephardi and Ashkenazi jewish children without it seeming to contravene any official guidelines to the contrary. Sela states that:

�??The school�??s method for determining whether an applicant is from a Sephardic origin was simple. In her deposition to court, Rachel�??s mother described a questionnaire she was asked to fill out as part of the application process. It included questions such as, �??What is the mother�??s maiden name?�?? �??What is the grandparents�?? surname?�?? and �??In which synagogue does the father pray on Shabbat?�??�??[3]

This description by Sela of the Beit Yaakov schools method for filtering in as many Ashkenazi pupils as possible, while filtering out as many Sephardi pupils as possible is quite plausible. Since it allows the school to find out the background of the pupil concerning by finding out the mother�??s maiden name and the grandfathers name, which would indicate if the children was a descendent of Ashkenazi, Sephardi and/or Mizrahi lines, without having to formally ask the question.

Secondly the question of which Synagogue does the jewish father pray on Shabbat allows the second half of the genealogy to be filled in by finding out the synagogue used by the father of the jewish child. Hence allowing the Beit Yaakov School: to indirectly discover whether that father is Ashkenazi or Sephardi without officially asking the question of the jewish mother. Since synagogues, due to historical differences in the various rites in Judaism, usually either belong to the Ashkenazi or the Sephardi ritual tradition. Hence if the school knows the father�??s synagogue attendance they can infer the father�??s biological origin from the statement and choose according.

Thirdly we must also note the numbers cited by Sela in that the Beit Yaakov School in Eldad has near total Ashkenazi applicant acceptance (97%), but only approximately half Sephardi applicant acceptance (54%). If we note that the Beit Yaakov Schools as with most specialist schools in the developed world only have a set number of places per year to fill then we begin to see a more interesting picture develop. In that if only three Ashkenazi girls were rejected, but sixty Sephardi girls were rejected then there was likely some ulterior motive in the acceptance procedure.

This ulterior motive can be suggested, because of the respective numbers involved and that the question asked, which while defensible in the argument that the school wished to check the mitzvot observance of the family (i.e. whether it is really frum) or whether the family are descended from converts, allow the school as pointed above, to indirectly discover the specific origins of the jewish girl in question. This is important because there should be little need for asking for maiden name of the mother or the grandfather�??s name, but rather the focus should normally be on whether they were frum and which synagogue they used (to gain suitable confirmation from the rabbi or the records).

It could be argued that the Beit Yaakov school was merely looking at ability, but if that is indeed the case then without some kind of objective data as to the IQs and performance of the jewish girls in question it would be impossible to confirm this. If the school did not have this information to begin with, which would seem to be the case, then it is hard to see how the school could have been discriminating based on ability rather than the specific jewish origins of jewish girls involved.

We can thus reasonably suggest that the Beit Yaakov School in Eldad is engaging in anti-Sephardi discrimination, but trying to make it seem as if it was part of the standard school selection procedure. It is worth noting again on the figures in that the Beit Yaakov School seems to firstly take as many Ashkenazi girls as it can and then fill up the remaining places from among the Sephardi girls in order both to fill its intake quota for that year as well as seem to keep within the bounds of Israeli law.

This can be further suggested by the Beit Yaakov School�??s reaction to the successful appeal of one hysterical Sephardi jewess, whose jewish daughter was not accepted, to the Israeli court system. Neta Sela reports thus:

�??Last Friday, parents from both ultra-Orthodox Beit Yaakov schools in the central city of Elad caused the termination of first grade classes in light of the court order to allow the admission of a Sephardic girl.�??[4]

Why do the Beit Yaakov Schools, they are a large network of religious jewish schools which stretch across the world, in Eldad feel the need to react in this way? Shutting their doors to all the successful applicants, because one Sephardi girl was judged to have been unfairly discriminated against and the decision ordered revoked seems like an over-reaction in a fit of pique by the Beit Yaakov schools in Eldad.

This action by the Beit Yaakov Schools in Eldad, although by no means an admission of guilt, certainly is of interest in this case of apparent discrimination between Ashkenazi and Sephardi applicants. Since it begs the question in the jewish mentality: what are they hiding?

[1] Neta Sela, 10th September 2008, �??Girl admitted to Haredi School under Court Order�??, http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3594809,00.html [Accessed: 09/11/2008].
[2] Neta Sela, 4th April 2008, �??Discrimination from 1st Grade�??, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3393620,00.html [Accessed: 09/11/2008].
[3] Ibid.
[4] Neta Sela, 23rd September 2008, �??MK Ravitz: Positive discrimination needed in religious schools�??, http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3600390,00.html [Accessed: 09/11/2008].

A Note to Readers

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:59:00 +0000

Since we haven't published anything new on Semitic Controversies for over a week now. I thought it apt to write a note here to inform our readers that the reason for this has been a mixture of work commitments, the beginning of the new academic year and because we are preparing several long articles that cannot reasonably be published in segments.

We will be publishing one or two of these articles next week along with some 'In Brief' discussions, so please rest assured that we are still working hard on forming and publishing the intellectual basis and justification for the new anti-Semitism.

Thank you,

The Editor,

The Misleading Term �??ZOG�??

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:13:00 +0000

�??ZOG�?? or �??Zionist Occupied Government�?? was coined in 1976 by Eric Thomson and has been a widely used among those who adhere to a racialist, anti-jewish or pseudo-racialist ideology. Thomson writing in a 1999 repeat of his original 1976 terming of �??ZOG�??, �??Welcome to ZOG-World�??, tells us that:

�??Some claimed that The Enemy was the CFR, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateralists, the dreaded, but conveniently anonymous "Insiders". As a simple Nazi, I realized that what was lacking was a Feindbild or picture of the enemy. If one did not know who the enemy was, then one could never hope to combat him. Later, I learned that 'our side' had no definition of who or what it was, either. Without a Feindbild, the situation is serious, but not hopeless. Without a Selbstbild, a concept of who we are, then the situation is hopeless, but not serious. The blightwingers seem set in their ways, choosing to blunder and stumble along, on their treadmill to oblivion, because they choose not to identify themselves any more than they choose to identify their enemies.�??[1]

I agree with Thomson here that there was, and is, a lack of knowledge of who �??the enemy�??; if you want to put it that way, was and is, but the picture of the enemy that Thomson evokes, as he describes it in his article, is ludicrous and quite simply anti-government. It is not in any rational way anti-jewish. If anything it is arguably pro-jewish, and presents us with the dichotomy of Thomson�??s profession of being a �??simple Nazi�??. Since in order to be a National Socialist Thomson would have to be an uncompromising supporter of order and not disorder as well as the looser term: justice. Therefore to be a National Socialist Thomson would have to support the government on principle, but be opposed to the current powerful lobbying interests of the jews in the government, which is not the stance he ostensibly takes in his written work.

Thomson does not seem to support either, order and justice, and in most of his published work[2] spends most of his time attacking the �??jew-dominated government�?? rather than the jews[3], when he should, if he was a good National Socialist, pin-point his specific criticism and lampoons onto the actual jews in power, rather than the broader term suggesting that government in general is wholly rotten[4]. Not only is this a simplistic understanding of politics in general, and more specially lobby politics, it is also contrary to the organic worldview, which is the hallmark of the National Socialist weltanschauung.

Since if Thomson was abiding by this organic view he would, and indeed should, note that there are substantial anti-jewish forces in play in governments and that what we see are the results of the war between these two general forces who can be broken down into smaller camps but who have one of those two general allegiances. This explains, for example, the contrasting and varied political situation surrounding the jews and why for example they fail to implement things they wish, even when they are generally united. It also reconciles with the National Socialist view of the eternal eugenic struggle upwards to constantly evolve to build a better future for the folk.

Thomson�??s lack of clear thought and his insistence at playing the revolutionary are demonstrated admirably in his definition of �??ZOG�??. Which he defines as follows:

�??ZIONIST: a jew-supremacist or Israel-firster. Most Zionists are not jews, but jew-stooges who are bribed and/or bamboozled into serving their jewish masters. The previously-used term for such a critter was "useful idiot" or race-traitor.

OCCUPATION: the status of foreign troops or agents who rule a subject people against its own interests, on behalf of the alien occupiers.

GOVERNMENT: a minority of individuals who have the authority to shoot the majority and/or to levy taxes upon them.�??[5]

Firstly: this definition of the jewish problem targets �??Zionists�?? very particularly and does not note that the problem that is central to National Socialist ideology is the jew in all his or her manifestations. It is not as simple as saying, �??Zionists�?? are the problem, because they are a ruling camp within the jewish community at present and were more so at the time of Thomson�??s first writing in 1976. There were, and are, considerable amounts of jews, of varying political stripes from the haredi, or ultra-orthodox, community and the �??jewish radical�?? traditions, who are, and have been, quite publicly opposed to Zionism.

Not only this, but Thomson does not recognise that jews have nearly always split into opposing camps publicly over various issues and even if one issue seems to predominate it can often fade into obscurity just as quickly as it arose. An excellent example of this in history is the Messianic movement of Shabbatai Tzevi[6] (more popularly known as Sabbatai Zvi) when his proclamations that he was the long awaited jewish Messiah drew tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jews from all over Europe, the Near East and North Africa to his standard directly.

Even when Shabbatai Tzevi was assiduously led into a trap by the Ottoman Sultan, advised by a jewish convert to Islam no less who was according to some scholars working at the behest of the rabbinical authorities, and promptly converted to Islam to avoid being decapitated and having to rise from the dead to prove his divine origin. This promptly caused the general collapse of the Messianic movement around Shabbatai Tzevi. Although it as one might anticipate did not collapse completely with some Ashkenazi jews and their tzadiks as well as the remnants of his followers in Turkey, the Donmeh, kept alive his memory and constructed a new theology surrounding Shabbatai Tzevi. Never-the-less the movement, in spite of the ancestors of the Donmeh, around Shabbatai Tzevi collapsed and he was consigned to history as a 'false messiah'.

However: not all jews followed Shabbatai, even at the height of his influence, and if we are to believe Thomson�??s thinking we should have called the jewish problem of the 16th century the �??Shabbataian Occupied Government�??. The problem was of different aspect yes, but the issues at hand were very much the same with the proliferation of the hofjude, or court (and usually baptised/converted) jews, as well as the mercantile, [small and large scale] money-lending, tax farming and the international activities of the jews in this period.

So rather than sending their capital to and working on behalf of the Israeli government they at that time would have been working on behalf of Shabbatai Tzevi. But in the present, like Shabbatai Tzevi�??s time, there is a substantial number of jews who have held back from the all too alluring chalice that is the ideology of Zionism. This can be compared to the many rabbis who condemned Shabbatai Tzevi as a false Messiah, among other things, and successfully removed him as a significant threat to their power and goals. Will these jewish 'anti-Zionists' destroy Zionism or Israel as a country? It is too early to tell, but we have to when dealing with jews think ahead and describe the problem as it actually is and not as it is at the moment.

Shabbatai Tzevi�??s fall from grace in the world of jewry provides us with an example whereby if we were to judge and label �??the enemy�??, as Thomson refers to it, as �??Zionists�??, but the problem is not in fact �??Zionists�??, or Shabbatians to use my example of a previous fashionable jewish intellectual movement, rather jews then we cause a problem for ourselves by not underlining one of the root causes to the problems that face Europe, North America and Oceania today.

The jew does not champion a single cause such as Zionism, as I noted above, but rather he has many causes which he advocates. Sometimes the fashion is communism, sometimes the fashion is Zionism, sometimes the fashion is Hellenism and other times the fashion is to turn frum[7]. One cannot just ascribe to him the appellation, �??Zionist�??, and expect that to stick, because there are �??anti-Zionist�?? jews running around in significant numbers, which someone who sees 'Zionists' as his enemy will logically presume to get quite alright because they are not 'Zionists'. Even these �??anti-Zionist�?? jews vary in their ideas from a joint Israeli-Palestinian state[8] to the idea that Israel should not exist, because the Messiah has not come yet and therefore the jews by taking up residence in the land are violating Hashem�??s covenant with the jewish people[9].

�??Zionist�?? does not mean �??jew�??, and the problem is not simply Israel, but rather it is jews writ large. By using �??Zionist�?? Thomson is completely confusing the problem at hand, and allowing jews to escape the scorching spotlight of anti-Semitic critique (much as I suspect to his chagrin this can be compared to the baptismal font in that it allows the jew opposed to Zionism to escape much as conversion ostensibly formerly did in Europe), and not realising that by using it he is adversely affecting the cause he ostensibly advocates.

Secondly: Thomson as many have done, ignores a quintessential fact of jewish discourse that the senior powerbase of what one can term, international jewry, is not in fact located in Israel, but rather in North America with New York City being the unstated capital of this worldwide fraternity. Since the international jewish community is made up essentially of two geographic elements: those in Israel and those not in Israel. Most, and moreover the more politically and financially powerful, jews are outside of Israel and although most of these powerful jews support Israel that support is not unconditional.

The Israeli government has to placate the jewish Diaspora on a regular basis, because to paraphrase one recent article in an Israeli newspaper: �??the American jewish Diaspora does things for Israel and expects Israel to be very grateful to it�??. This is why you find that nearly every Israeli Prime Minister and President at some point in their term in office has talked of �??changing Israel�??s relationship with its Diaspora�??, because Israel is the junior not the senior partner in the relationship and is dependent on the Diaspora to rescue it from itself.

As I noted about the jewish Diaspora is not essentially Zionist either. Although the jewish Diaspora has historically been supportive since Zionism came into jewish intellectual fashion in and around the turn of the twentieth century. A lot of Israeli government money is in fact expended in convincing the jews of the Diaspora, especially those of New York City, that Israel is a cause worth supporting and putting their money towards. It is worth noting that jews have a very considerable tradition for philanthropy among their own kind and Israeli jews do have to compete for these considerable monies alongside other jewish philanthropic/educational organisations, which work on a more national basis.

Of course Israeli organisations within the Diaspora have been very successful in fundraising and garnering support. Primarily by hysteric predictions of �??another holocaust�?? and of atrocity propaganda currently relating to the rockets launched by the Hezbollah from southern Lebanon and by Hamas near the Gaza border (against Sderot for one prominent example). However the important issue here is who is the target for this propaganda for since Israel spends so much time and money on garnering support using this type of propaganda it is of importance to understand the target audience, which is in fact jews and not as is commonly presumed gentiles.

The average jew in the ghettos of Brooklyn, for example, is highly susceptible to jewish atrocity propaganda. Since he or she does not know better than to question what Israel says and if their Rabbi and community endorses it all the better. Since then the community pressure, that is a negative sanction in most groups, is brought to bear on jews to make them observant to Israel. This is addition to the fact that other openly jewish sources of information are often very pro-Zionist and your average jew in the ghettos of Brooklyn doesn't trust nor want to listen to the non-jewish news for it has no real relevance for him or her. In all essentials then this Israeli propaganda in the mainstream jewish organisations and media gives your average jew the impression that Israel is in the right and that any criticism from non-jewish (and occasionally jewish) sources of media that are anti-Israel are anti-Semitic or in the case of jewish criticism: 'self-hating'.[10].

Convincing the Diaspora jews of the necessity of supporting Israel financially, morally, physically and intellectually no matter what the cost has been part of Israeli strategy since Israel�??s foundation, which was made possible by the Diaspora�??s actions within government circles, fighting with the emergent IDF, smuggling arms and people to Israel and the financing of the war as well as the purchase of land. This reliance on the Diaspora is still as strong as it was in 1948. Although Israel can stand on her own: Israel is never-the-less is a state, which heavily relies upon its jewish origins to garner the necessary support in all spheres, both jewish and Judeo-Christian, to make its very controversial actions possible.

This is the ideology behind the Zionist rhetoric about requiring a self-sustaining jewish state, because the Zionists around the world, and especially within Israel itself, realise that Israel is not currently a self-sustaining state and in order to survive it needs help from the outside. This has been the function of Israeli propaganda within the jewish community and is often mistaken by opponents of jews and/or Israel, as Thomson has likely mistaken it, to be simply aimed at gentiles around the world. When in fact this propaganda�??s primary function is to garner jewish support for Israel and the secondary function there-of is to create �??righteous gentiles�??, to use the Noahide conception, who support the jewish people and specifically the efforts of Zionism to establish then support, sustain and advance the jewish state.

Thirdly: Thomson is probably correct to state that most Zionists are not jews since the majority of �??Zionists�?? would appear to be the so-called �??Christian-Zionists�??. Whom follow a theology where-by it becomes necessary for the jews to return to Palestine so that Jesus Christ can come again and the tribulation can begin. However much of �??Christian-Zionist�?? movement is supported and aided by (usually secular) jewish Zionists who blend �??Christian-Zionist�?? political, economic and social weight to their own on questions relating to Israel, United States policy towards the Middle East and jews in general.

Are the people who have been lead into believing such millennial ideas �??race traitors�?? (to the pseudo-racialist/racialist cause) and �??useful idiots�?? (to the jewish cause)? I certainly don�??t think so.

The idea that such people are �??race traitors�??, because they serve the Zionist cause is only applicable to those who knowingly promote jews despite knowledge that the cause of Zionism is not in the best interests of their folk, let alone their religion, or can be proved to have taken money to preach the cause of Zionism. �??Race traitor�?? is a term, which should be specifically applied to particular political criminals. Rather than one that can be applied to entire segments of the folk who have simply been mislead by the people whom they have trusted to be honest with them and look to their best interests.

The same implies to �??useful idiots�?? in that the folk are not idiots and nor are they inherently idiotic as this characterisation of them implies. Rather they are people who are simple in their beliefs[11] and do not have time to deeply research into things pertaining to politics or their situation. The folk often have more important things to do such as earning the bread for the family table and keeping the family home clean and tidy as well spending time with their families. These are far more important things than concerning themselves with the machinations behind the scenes in politics, diplomacy, academe and business. The folk trust the representatives of power to tell them the truth and when they do not do so it is up to the National Socialist to inform of this fact gently and without malice. This stems from the fact that the National Socialist loves the folk unconditionally and with all their heart and does not belittle or look down on them with scorn, because they may not follow the National Socialist weltanschauung at the current time.

If you treat the folk as Thomson treats them in his work, as ignorant cattle, then you are simply treating them as a communist would do in the Marxian [and general jewish] presumption that there are �??opiates of the masses�?? so to speak. Nobody but a masochistic pervert responds well to condescension and one must treat the folk as part of your extended family: care for, help and love them as if they were your father or mother, brother or sister, son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter. To assume that the folk are such creatures, as Thomson does, degrades them and puts the writer on an unearned pedestal as the paradigm of virtue, because he or she �??knows the truth�??, which is an excuse for feeling intellectually superior when there is absolutely no grounds for doing so.

How does Thomson, putting himself on the unearned pedestal, know that he knows �??the truth�?? of the matter? When he is ostensibly dealing with a sub-rosa ethnocentric network of individuals, informal groups and formal organisations: who do not share the same overt goals, such as Zionism or Communism, but share the same underlying one: what is good for jews.

Perceptions of what is in fact good for jews differ, which is why you get jews who argue for secular integration, others who argue for religious Zionism, others who argue for secular Zionism, others who argue for a return to the Diaspora without Israel etc. The same fundamental theme, even in the case of �??anti-Semitic�?? jews, is one of what is good for the jewish people. Jews cannot be viewed as a monolithic entity taking �??orders from the top�??, but must be view rather as a series of interconnecting ethnocentric individuals, informal groups and formal organisations who have a shifting pattern of alliances and output based on their own interpretation of what is best for jewry and what is best for their particular theory as to what is best for jewry at that given time.

Unless the writer acknowledges that what he or she is writing is a theory based on the presented facts of the matter. Then he or she is simply setting themselves up as easy prey to jewish intellectuals who can point out contrary examples and show with some ease that not all jewry is united. Therefore they can seem to prove to the folk that what �??anti-Semites�?? say is paranoid hogwash and that �??anti-Semites�?? really are the irrational beings they portray them as.

What Thomson fails to recognise is that there are few absolutes when it comes to jews and one must understand that the idea of Zionism being the root cause of the problem jewry poses in the present age is fallacious and more generally distorts the problem at hand and substitutes caring for the folk for looking down on them as intellectual inferiors.

�??The enemy�?? is not the �??Zionists�??: it is the jews.

[1] Eric Thomson, �??Welcome to ZOG-World�??, http://www.faem.com/eric/2000/et047.htm [Accessed: 23/10/2008].
[2] Available at the following address: http://www.faem.com/eric/.
[3] This is typified by Thomson�??s consistent casting of himself as a �??revolutionary�?? and also in such foul and discourteous terms as: �??ZOGWENCH: a female employee of the government�??, �??ZOGLING or ZOGDOG: any employee of the government�??, �??ZOGNERD: a government clerk�?? and �??ZOG-TURD: a taxpayer, i.e., that which is consumed and excreted by the ZOG�?? (Thomson, �??Welcome to ZOG-World�??, Op. Cit.), that he is responsible for. National Socialists are polite and courteous ladies and gentlemen: they don�??t engage in treating the folk as de facto scum, because they work for the state.
[4] Thomson does the same with Christianity as he does with government and treats it with a very broad brush claiming it is based on Judaism and therefore it is de facto bad and contrary to the interests of the Aryan race. This is just as inaccurate as his criticism against government in that Thomson fails to comprehend that working against the grain of human nature and the Aryan racial characteristic as the upholder of order and justice.
[5] Thomson, �??Welcome to ZOG-World�??, Op. Cit.
[6] For a brief description of Shabbatai Tzevi see Geoffrey Wigoder, 1991, �??Dictionary of Jewish Biography�??, 1st Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York, pp. 472-473
[7] Translated: pious. This is usually used to describe haredi, or ultra-orthodox jews, and they in turn describe non-haredi with some exceptions as frei (or free from the yoke of the mitzvot).
[8] One prominent group that holds to this is the Israeli �??human rights advocates�?? organisation: B'tselem.
[9] One prominent group that holds to this is the haredi: Neturei Karta.
[10] This doesn�??t mean the jew is stupid, but rather that because of their compact minority community. They feel in danger from the gentile world around them, for jews are perennially mentally insecure and feel inadequate (which is where Freudianism comes from), and thus can relate to atrocity propaganda coming from Israel about what the horrid, evil, ungrateful gentiles are cooking up to do to them (the �??poor, innocent and misunderstood�?? jew) again. It is also worth stating that jews feel their experiences generally justify whatever is done to the local Arabs, because they feel they deserve a homeland of their own and have historically refused to have anything other than Palestine.
[11] This isn�??t to belittle them, but rather is a statement of the natural order of the universe. In that there are people who are very bright and are highly critical, there are those who are very bright but not critical and there are those are not very bright and are highly critical (etc). Simplicity is a virtue not a vice in that only in simplicity can the true racial essence of the folk be seen.

Lies are not Facts: Benjamin Freedman�??s �??Facts are Facts�?? Debacle (Introduction)

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:50:00 +0000

Benjamin Freedman�??s pamphlet/booklet called �??Facts are Facts�??, is along with �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, his only substantial contribution to anti-jewish literature. Freedman claimed that during his life: he had been at the highest levels of organized jewish power and that he had met with, and presumably influenced figures of both international and American domestic importance. Freedman then had a change of heart he tells us and decided that he wanted to fight jewry, in the name of the fight of international communism and Zionist organised jewry. To this end he is alleged to have spent most of the capital he had made supporting anti-jewish anti-communist causes in particular the anti-Semitic periodical: �??Common Sense�??[1].

The fact that Freedman contributed so little in terms of written material does not accurately reflect the subjective importance placed on what he has written by anti-jewish individuals and groups. As I have covered in my essay, �??On Jewish �??Traitors�??: Benjamin Freedman�??, Freedman�??s importance lies not so much in the innovative nature of what he wrote, but rather in that what he wrote confirms and validates several positions held by anti-jewish individuals and groups, because of his claim to be a former high-ranking �??insider�?? in an organised jewish conspiracy. He may indeed be reasonably suggested to be the reason for the widely-held view in many anti-jewish groups that the Ashkenazim are somehow not the Biblical Israelites and that they are in fact primarily the descendents of a people who converted to Judaism in the late 8th or early 9th centuries. This alone would be mean that his pamphlet �??Fact are Facts�?? should be addressed.

However what makes 'Facts are Facts' worthy of notice and issuing a commentary on/rebuttal of. Is that it is an example of a pre-Koestler argument suggesting a Khazarian genesis for Ashkenazi jewry and hence brings a lot of potentially valid arguments to the table that need to be examined and addressed. Although: it is worth saying that most of these arguments have already been addressed in the specialist literature on the Khazars and the general literature on jewry in general. It remains for this to be brought together for the anti-Semitic audience and to rid them of the notion, however emotionally/intellectually convenient, that the Ashkenazim can be ascribed a Khazarian genesis. Hence intellectually freeing the path to the claim that the Israelites of the Bible are not the jews of today and hence the jews are �??false jews�?? or some similar appellation.

As well as writing about the Khazarian genesis of the Ashkenazim Freedman, in �??Facts are Facts�??, writes a lot, composing roughly half of �??Facts are Facts�??, concerning Judaism and especially focuses on favourites of anti-jewish critique of jews, such as the Kol Nidre prayer on Yom Kippur. Although these are generally almost verbatim repetitions of material from Pranaitis�?? �??The Talmud Unmasked�?? and Ford�??s �??The International Jew�??, which were and are common works consulted/cited by anti-Semitic individuals and groups. Since Freedman brings together many of the claims concerning Judaism in one well known text. It is valuable to examine them thoroughly as well as his claims about a Khazarian genesis for the Ashkenazim in order to bring a coherent critique of both of these common arguments to the anti-Semitic reader.

Hence in order to do this �??Lies are not Facts�?? will be split into two different chapters. The first chapter will address Freedman�??s Khazarian genesis thesis for the Ashkenazim and the second chapter will address Freedman�??s arguments concerning Judaism, which he has as we shall see copied from the standard anti-jewish critique rather than innovate them himself. Two different authors associated with Semitic Controversies will be undertaking this task. One covering each section as the ground that Freedman covers in a short space of time is large and the knowledge of two specialist areas, jewish theology and jewish history, is required.

[1] Without Freedman�??s personal accounts from 1945 until his death it is impossible to ascertain whether this is true or not. He did it seems donate money to Conde McGinley�??s organisation, but whether this was as it is claimed most of his fortune remains to be seen. However given Freedman�??s laxity with the truth that I have documented somewhat in �??On Jewish �??Traitors�??: Benjamin Freedman�?? it would be inexcusable and irrational to simply believe Freedman�??s word.

On Jewish 'Traitors': Benjamin Freedman

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:38:00 +0000

Benjamin Freedman is perhaps the archetypal example of the jewish �??traitor�?? in so far that he asserts that he spent most of his life working for the cause of international jewry so-called, and then all of sudden circa 1945, the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the occupation of Germany, he had a revelation. Whereby he jumped ship from being one of the most avid proponents of jewry to being one of its most avid of opponents for reasons that seem to escape us. Although the reason seems ostensibly to do with Christianity. This doesn�??t itself seem wholly satisfying for such a radical turn of allegiance if Freedman was being truthful. Since one simply does not �??jump ship�?? from an apparently very powerful conspiracy, which is willing to cause world wars, to its not very powerful opposition and hope to maintain one�??s own life in any meaningful form let alone one�??s wealth.

Now in this article as mentioned above we will focus on one of the two notable pieces of work[1] that Freedman has bequeathed to us. As well as look at Freedman as an individual to see what he claimed he had done on behalf of jewry, which is really the crux of his commentary. Since if Freedman is who he says he is. Then his words have some weight, which cannot simply be overlooked. Since if he is telling the truth about his connexions and work on behalf of jewry. It places him in an ideal position to give testimony about a conspiracy involving jews at the centre of the governing elite of the United States, but if Freedman is not telling us the truth then it places grave doubts as to anything involving his �??personal experience/knowledge �?? that he informs us of.

Freedman does, in fact, cover quite a few topics that are quite academic now, but his main claims in terms regarding jews themselves are in his �??Facts are Facts�?? pamphlet[2], which Semitic Controversies will be authoring a commentary on/rebuttal to, because there is very little �??fact�?? involved, in our opinion, in the pamphlet. Some of these claims first brought up in �??Facts are Facts�?? were reproduced in the last third of �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, with a brief summation of Freedman�??s claims that the jews are in fact descended from the Khazars. This theme also dominates the question and answer session after the speech, which is reproduced in the transcript. Any additional claims or evidence presented will be examined in our rebuttal mentioned above. We will focus on Freedman�??s claims as to who he was and the conspiratorial element to his claims here: since that is the most relevant part to his jewish �??traitor�?? status.

Freedman, rather than dealing in �??facts�?? as he claims he is doing, seems to have been simply repeating a lot of then current anti-jewish material, especially notorious being Rev. Pranaitis�?? �??The Talmud Unmasked�??[3], which Freedman reproduces almost verbatim[4], but being a jew and having lived for quite a few years as an apparently observant, presumably Orthodox, jew. Freedman should have known a lot more about some of the debates, and specialist material, that most anti-Semites wouldn�??t want to spend the time looking through, because much effort is involved for rewards, which may not come and may not be what is wished for. He should also have known better than to reproduce Pranaitis�?? work as explained briefly in n. 4 even if simply an observant jew.

It is also worth observing that Freedman doesn�??t split jewry into sects and specific religious groups, noting here that when Freedman uses jew he is talking in terms of religion not in terms of race[5], despite having ostensibly been an observant jew and as said above talking in terms of a jew being a follower of Judaism and not a biological creature[6]. This means Freedman should at the very least know that the authority of certain texts, such as the Zohar, is only accepted by some and not other parts of Judaism.

The Talmud is indeed largely accepted by jews, except Karaite jews, but what Freedman notably again doesn�??t cite, which having been an observant jew of some rank he should be well aware of, is the more recent debates as to the interpretation of the Talmud�??s interpretation of the Torah/Tanakh.

This isn�??t applying an unrealistic standard to Freedman. In that as an observant jew, much like as an observant Catholic, one is expected to keep up a little with the current issues surrounding theology even if only in very general terms. Freedman hasn�??t seemed to have done so, since he hasn�??t for example talked of the new vogue in Reform Judaism enacted by Isaac Mayer Wise and its drastic contrast to Orthodox Judaism. Let alone the prominence of Hasidic Judaism, which was and is a common feature of modern Diaspora jewish communities.

This brings into question Freedman�??s ipso facto claim to having been a loyal jew and presumably, using Freedman�??s definition of jew as being a follower of the Judaic religion rather than a definition in terms of race, that he was an observant jew of what we may presume was Orthodox Judaism. Since Freedman exhibits little understanding of Judaism as a religion in his �??Facts are Facts�?? and �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�?? as well as his critique of it being one common to anti-jewish literature. Rather than a critique based on Freedman�??s own reading of the jewish literature. It is reasonable for us presume that Freedman was not the loyal jew he asserts he was, but rather that this a pose he has adopted for the sake of the authority of the character he is playing to his intended audience and his own argument that jews are a religion alone.

This latter part of Freedman�??s argument, i.e. that jews are a religion and not a race and/or biological group, is something we will come back to, because it is very important in beginning to form a realistic interpretation of Freedman. Since it points firstly to what Freedman argues against and secondly, it fits with what we may reasonably expect ethnocentric jewish behaviour to be when facing an anti-Semitic audience or seeking personal, and hence racial, survival by joining the enemies apparent of jewry.

This however brings us back to a very important point to repeat. This point, that often gets lost in anti-jewish discussion of and unfortunate genuflection before, Freedman is that he was a jew: first, last and always. We cannot as discussed above[7] simply dismiss this fact, because the sword works both ways and if we did so. We would simply repeat the mistake of assuming a baptism, of sorts, washes away ones race and natural racial inclinations, which are the basis for all rational study of humanity and in particular so unique a race as the jews.

If Freedman�??s evidence is to be admitted as plausible: he must be admitted to be a jew, not a �??former jew�??[8], as he is introduced in �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??. For he was a jew, but as stated if he is a jew then we must treat him, because he was a jew in terms of race, as a jew and not as simply trustworthy, because he has something to say, and a claim of �??insider�?? authority, that supports some popular, especially at the time, anti-jewish positions and theories. Therefore we must treat Freedman�??s work as we would that of Alan Dershowitz by suspending belief and looking at it with a highly critical eye in the light of what can be said to be known, possible and unknown about jewry.

Freedman�??s �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�?? starts off with Freedman asserting a series of facts largely about the course of events surrounding America�??s entry into World War One, where-by there does seem to be a case to answer about the events surrounding the Zimmerman telegram and the sinking of the United States �??passenger�?? ship the Lusitania[9].

As well as issues surrounding the Paris peace conference and the accords of Versailles, for in Freedman�??s account of the behind the scenes proceedings. He (Freedman) seems to rely heavily on Dillon�??s widely-read 1919-1920 account[10] and subsequent anti-jewish interpretation of it. This is itself is noteworthy, because it would either indicate that Dillon was very accurate in what he asserted to be the case or as would seem to be more likely as we shall see is that Freedman is merely copying these themes and incorporating them into his �??inside knowledge�??.

Freedman asserts that the conference was largely in the thrall of jews, when Dillon comments on the jewish presence there-of, but this was and has subsequently been taken in anti-jewish literature to transliterate as: jewry controlled it[11]. This is the interpretation Freedman is using when he states as follows:

�??[�?�] when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.�??[12]

This reads remarkably like Dillon�??s oft-cited statement:

�??Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia....but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States.�??[13]

If we look at this further we note that Freedman claims a specific number of 117 jews having been present at the Conference, which he asserts were part of a jewish delegation. Freedman means this in the literal, rather than a metaphorical, sense, because of the logic of his assertions concerning this and other matters where-by there is an organised jewish conspiracy at work (and this is a well known fact to �??insiders�??) and not simply a series of jews working together. This specific interpretation is also alluded to by Freedman�??s statement that said delegation was �??headed by Bernard Baruch�??. Since if this is a metaphor then a statement that there was a head of the delegation would be redundant, but if it is not and Freedman is asserting that there was a specific jewish delegation at the Versailles peace conference then it would be logical to state whom it was headed by: in this case Bernard Baruch.

If we notice further that Freedman�??s statement of a jewish delegation headed by Baruch has likely been directly derived from Dillon�??s statement that �??the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States�??. This has been taken literally by Freedman: who has placed at the contingents head a jew who is well known in popular �??conspiracy�?? literature, both in Freedman�??s time and at the present, as a leading �??conspirator�??. Baruch was also identified quite strongly, and not unreasonably, as being a high ranking international financier and hence part of what, then as now, is termed jewish high finance[14]. Hence Baruch would be a natural jew to place in charge of such a delegation considering that he was influential and was well known to have attended the Versailles peace conference.

The above quoted statement is where we can suggest Freedman is deriving his jewish delegation from in that the contingent mentioned by Dillon has become a delegation as Dillon directly suggests that the contingent from the United States has the most jews and therefore is significantly jewish. Therefore, because the jews are part of an organised jewish conspiracy in Freedman�??s mind, they must be representing their own interests primarily and hence logically be part of a separate delegation (even if presumably unofficially).

This is a simple inference we can make from the direction of Freedman�??s assertions. In that he is arguing there is a jewish, specifically a Zionist, conspiracy at work, which in his alleged experience has its powerbase in the United States. Therefore if jews, specifically those influential jews of a Zionist persuasion, indeed forced the United States into the First World War for their objective of attaining agreement for a jewish homeland in Palestine[15]. Then it would logical for them to be at the Versailles peace treaty in force in order to enforce that agreement with the victorious and defeated powers. This is logical position that Freedman is asserting as we are told he, and the other jews, were there to do just that. It also what Dillon inferred occurred when he states that jews were the most resourceful and influential exponents of their collective cause[16].

It is worth noting that the Zionist jews that Freedman is discussing were not in fact as wildly successful as he seems to imply, but rather even with significant jewish representation at the Versailles peace conference. All that had been achieved is a promise to fulfil the British part of the bargain, but little to no action and almost a backward step had occurred in the enactment of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, rather than the terms of the Balfour declaration of 1917.

Freedman�??s narrative suggests the benefit of hindsight in that it presumes that all the goals of the Zionist jews, who attended the Versailles peace conference, were ipso facto achieved, because Israel was created in 1948[17]. When in fact as I have just stated the Zionist jewish goals were not ostensibly achieved as they did not manage to force the implementation of the Balfour agreement, which presumably they should have been able to do had they wielded the kind of power and been part of a highly-organised jewish bloc that Freedman asserts was the case[18].

This is further evidenced by that in 1948 when it took a vicious multi-pronged and co-ordinated jewish terrorist, public relations and media assault to get the jewish homeland that the Zionist jews dreamed of[19]. Had what Freedman stated been in the case then it should simply have not required any kind of assault, on the powers that were, to achieve, but rather been a case of behind doors enforcing of agreements made to the jews by the powers concerned and that this enforcing of the agreement should have occurred in 1919 rather than twenty-nine years later and only then by butchering and libelling any non-jew who opposed them they could possibly lay their hands on.

Freedman also asserts that there 117 jews present at the Versailles Peace Conference, but I have been unable to confirm or explode this assertion per se, but jews were certainly present in significant numbers but whether it was 117 jews and whether Bernard Baruch, who was present but ostensibly as part of the Versailles economic council rather than a jewish delegation, was at their head cannot be reasonably, if ever, confirmed, because we are unsure as to whom Freedman is including and not including in said count of 117 jews present.

It is also worth asking the question of how Freedman �??knew�?? there were 117 jews at the Versailles peace conference. Since surely Freedman did not count them all? It seems a rather arbitrary number to be using, unless one presumes Freedman had access to a list where the number of jews present was mentioned or he counted them all on said list himself. If there was a list then we come back to Freedman�??s assertion that he was a member of an organised jewish conspiracy: since no such list to my knowledge exists or been referred to either in Dillon or elsewhere. This doesn�??t make it impossible, but it seems very unlikely that such an official list would not be referred to at some stage or come up in direct reference in any historic or modern work on the matter. It is far more likely that Freedman�??s number of 117 jews was derived from an anti-jewish speculation, which I have been unable to find[20], or a rough estimate on his own part[21].

This brings us again on to a key point in Freedman�??s string of assertions. This point being that he is supposedly a �??former insider�?? in the organised jewish conspiracy, which we have already somewhat discussed above. Freedman�??s assertions about the Versailles peace conference are predicated on his having been there and presumably part of the �??jewish delegation�?? he talks of.

Therefore the logic follows that, because he was there: he �??ought to know�??. That then raises an important question in our minds: was Freedman there? We have has written assertion that he was, but in order to go any further with his authority we need to establish if he was in fact present. Since if there is no evidence of him having been present then how can we presume he was present?

Since in order to presume this we would need to presume that Freedman is what he says he is: no longer a jew[22]. However, because a jew, in this sense, is a biological group and not simply a follower of the religion of Judaism as Freedman attempts to argue. We have to treat Freedman with the same scepticism as we would treat the work of Alan Dershowitz or Israel Shamir[23], because he is a jew, as I have covered in above[24].

However, perhaps predictably, there is no evidence of Freedman attending the Versailles peace conference and it would seem unlikely that he did so given that we have no evidence of him holding significant position in, or even being a member of, either jewish organisations, which presumably would be a requisite to being in such a jewish delegation, or a significant, or any, position in the United States government, which would be likely be requisite to being in a diplomatic delegation of such importance. Freedman never provided proof of this and nor did he prove or show evidence of his claimed connexions to such high-ranking members of the United States government as President Woodrow Wilson, Bernard Baruch, Edward House[25] and/or Henry Morgenthau, Sr[26].

Hence although it is impossible to discount the possibility that Freedman did in fact attend the Versailles peace conference: it seems on the basis of what evidence we have rather unlikely. Since had Freedman been in attendance it should have been noted and should appear somewhere in the literature on the conference confirming that in fact he had attended preferably with some direct evidence of this being the case.

Since this is not the case it throws Freedman�??s assertions into extreme doubt. If combined with the fact that Freedman seems to be adapting Dillon�??s work on the Versailles peace conference in the manner that anti-jewish individuals and groups had been doing for many years and that Freedman narrates as if from hindsight making the mistake of alleging the organised jewish conspiracy was successful in achieving its objective at Versailles and that this objective was the creation of jewish state, Israel, in 1948.

Since if Freedman was taking his account from his own knowledge/experiences and made such elementary mistakes concerning the timeline of this organised jewish conspiracy then it is rather unlikely he in fact attended the Versailles peace conference let alone as part of a jewish delegation. Since if he had done so he should have known better and explained accordingly. This would seem to indicate he is drawing his account from secondary sources since that is where such mistakes would be likely to creep in and since we know he has read much anti-jewish literature it seems probable that this is the source of his account as we have outlined above.

Since Freedman had not been part of any jewish delegation: he used what literature was available and was current in the social group, presumably that surrounding Conde McGinley�??s �??Common Sense�??, in which he was most active. Since that would have given him the kind of picture of a organised jewish conspiracy and what it had achieved when that he in fact describes in his �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??. In essence we can say that Freedman�??s comments only makes sense if we see them as a jew spouting what he has read about jews in anti-jewish literature with a few personal opinions added in for variety and personal benefit.

It is pertinent to add to this discussion that Freedman when notes on the murder of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris by the jew Herschel Grynszpan in his �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, indirectly condemns himself as lacking �??insider knowledge�??, when he says:

�??That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.�??[27]

This might not seem obvious at first: however what Freedman has done here is to believe hook, line and sinker the official story of the night of broken glass, commonly known in the German as Kristallnacht, in 1938 without noting on the involvement of a Revisionist Zionist[28] organisation known as LICA[29]. LICA was heavily bound up with the murderer of vom Rath, Grynszpan, as well as with the killing of Wilhelm Gustloff by the jew, David Frankfurter, in 1936. Now even without the �??inside knowledge�?? of a conspiracy, Ingrid Weckert[30], has placed a lot of facts and a potential interpretation of them in the public area, which point quite literally to a conspiracy against Germany and secondly, perhaps more importantly for Freedman, to provoke retribution from the German authorities and/or start a riot by using fake orders/uniforms[31] that would force the remaining jews to emigrate to Palestine[32].

Yet Freedman simply glides over this potentially large well of evidence for his case and accepts the standard line of events as told both my foreign media and a very embarrassed German government[33]. Yet if he had been an insider in any kind of organised jewish Zionist conspiracy then he should have known of at least the possibility of this and given his use of loose �??facts�?? through �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??[34], it should have been mentioned at least in passing. However it was not, and notably the night of broken glass was discussed by Freedman in the manner common to non-Revisionist anti-jewish literature. In that Freedman takes the position that the jews had provoked the Germans so much, especially by way of Samuel Untermeyer�??s declaration of war against Germany on behalf of world jewry in 1933, that the political murder of vom Rath sparked spontaneous anti-jewish outrage leading to a �??pogrom�??.

So why didn�??t Freedman know about LICA�??s potential involvement and use such a valuable piece of evidence for his assertions?

The simple answer must be because Freedman was not part of an �??organised jewish conspiracy�?? and that his assertions in this regard. Freedman seems to have got from reading anti-jewish and general conspiracy literature, whilst adding some new twists to make the material seem new, yet confirm common anti-jewish theories at the time when he wrote and lectured (which would create maximum laurels and acceptance for him and what he claimed). Freedman hasn�??t, and no one else to my knowledge has, produced a scrap of reasonable evidence to suggest Freedman is who he claimed to be beyond a jewish millionaire soap manufacturer who late in life became a baptised jew and tried to �??fight jewry�??, allegedly spending most of his fortune to do so.

Freedman as a proof of a jewish conspiracy thus must be abandoned, because although apparently being a jewish �??traitor�?? he was still remained very much a stereotypical jew to the last: a born liar.[35] The target for his lies? Anti-Semites.

[1] Benjamin Freedman, 1961, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??. This is available at the following address: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm.
[2] Benjamin Freedman, 1954, �??Facts are Facts: The Truth about the Khazars�??. This is available at the following address: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/factindx.htm.
[3] Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, Trans: E. Sanctuary, 1939, [1892], �??The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians�??, 1st Edition, E. N. Sanctuary: New York. This is available at the following address: http://www.talmudunmasked.com/.
[4] Freedman, �??Facts are Facts�??, Op. Cit. Freedman should have known if he was indeed part of such a conspiracy that Pranaitis�?? arguments on the Talmud had been addressed and categorically rebutted by the very famous Talmudist Louis Ginzberg several decades before he made his speech when as he claims he was part of a conspiracy. Hence Freedman should known either that Pranaitis�?? arguments were unsound or he should have addressed Ginzberg�??s argument. He did neither and simply repeated Pranaitis�?? argument verbatim, which indicates he is either dishonest or he somehow missed a quite famous publicly reprinted responsa by a very famous contemporary Talmudist and apparent high ranking jewish fellow denizen of New York City.
[5] Since Freedman in both �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�?? and �??Facts are Facts�?? assumes both in his language and his thesis that jews by en-large equal Khazars that jews are not a biological group. Freedman also repeatedly refers to himself as a Christian/Catholic and does not refer to himself as a jew only in allusions/terms like �??former jew�?? much like those in which he was introduced to the audience before he gives his speech in �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??.
[6] This would suggest he should certainly split jews into religious sub-divisions for if his definition of jews is based on religion, which it is, then he should know and recognise the importance of the splits and differences between the various sects and cults in Judaism in his critique. Otherwise it is a bit like critiquing Christianity by quoting Calvin and then quoting Loyola without making distinction of their widely differing theological beliefs and that they were opposed to each other.
[7] This was discussed in the first part of this article. This is available at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-jewish-traitors.html.
[8] Freedman, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, Op. Cit.
[9] Some brief, but highly interesting, notes in this regard can be found in Revilo Oliver, 2006, �??America�??s Decline: The Education of a Conservative�??, 1st Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield, pp. 37-42.
[10] Emile Joseph Dillon, 1920, �??The Inside Story of the Peace Conference�??, 1st Edition, Harper & Brothers: New York. This can be read the following address: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14477.
[11] This was a common theme in anti-Semitic propaganda around this time and it was picked up across the globe, particularly in Germany and Austria. It also enjoyed some prominence in France and increasingly so in the Middle East. It only really came to real prominence as an anti-Semitic point of view in North America after the Second World War and the creation of Israel as a �??homeland for the jews�??. One oft-cited example of this can be found in Douglas Reed, 1985, �??The Controversy of Zion�??, 2nd Edition, Veritas: Bullsbrook, pp. 283-290. Notably Reed doesn�??t cite many sources specifically and although most of his sources seem to be comments in the official minutes of the Houses of Parliament and the United States Congress/Senate. This hardly can be said to qualify for evidence for what Reed is asserting.
[12] Freedman, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, Op. Cit.
[13] Dillon, Op. Cit., p. 10.
[14] This inference in Freedman�??s thought is made obvious when he talks about his own alleged past service and states as follows: �??So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.�?? Freedman, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, Op. Cit. Here Freedman is talking directly about high finance and its relationship with the Federal Reserve, which often figures in discussion on high finance since it allows the public debt on the United States to be run as a profitable business in effect and jews are often suggested, not unjustly, to have been involved in the scheme to create this institution. Hence in Freedman, as it does in much North America anti-Semitic literature, this becomes part of the organised jewish conspiracy.
[15] Presumably in order to achieve something like the Balfour declaration of 1917, which Freedman confuses with the Sykes-Picot agreement when he states that it was agreed in 1916.
[16] Dillon�??s precise statement is as follows: �??Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents.�?? Dillon, Op. Cit., p. 10.
[17] For example Freedman states: �??Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: �??Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.�?? Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.�?? Freedman, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, Op. Cit. Notably this indicates that jewish power was able to get an agreement yet even with a jewish delegation they were unable to achieve any kind of leeway over the Sykes-Picot agreement, which according to Freedman would have been agreed after the Balfour declaration although not �??officially�??, which we may infer from his wording.
[18] Freedman styles this as follows: �??The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parcelling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, �??How about Palestine for us?�??�?? Freedman, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, Op. Cit. The question remains unanswered is why did these jewish power-brokers who Freedman tells us were acting as an organised conspiratorial bloc wait till 1948 to achieve their ambition when they had this apparent opportunity in 1919.
[19] For a standard pro-jewish account of this please see: Martin Gilbert, 1998, �??Israel: A History�??, 1st Edition, Doubleday: London.
[20] It may have come from Conde McGinley�??s anti-jewish publication, �??Common Sense�??, which Freedman supported financially and who in return sponsored his speech, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??. This would be very much in keeping with the line of anti-Semitic argument used by McGinley as well as the interests of one of his main writers: Eustace Mullins. Since I have not had time to research the issues of �??Common Sense�?? as of yet: I have been unable to confirm my theory that many anti-jewish canards and false statements originate from this publication and the writers associated with it: including Benjamin Freedman.
[21] Both of which would explain why no actual list has been offered.
[22] In Freedman, �??Facts are Facts�??, Op. Cit.
[23] Who incidentally bears far more than a passing resemblance to Freedman in that he has converted to Christianity, treats jews as a religion, is a vocal opponent of Zionism, is oft-cited by anti-jewish individuals and groups and endorses an organised jewish conspiracy thesis.
[24] This was covered in the first part of the article. This is available at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-jewish-traitors.html.
[25] Edward House is better known as Colonel House.
[26] Freedman states as follows: �??Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Others knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer.�?? Freedman, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, Op. Cit.
[27] Freedman, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, Op. Cit.
[28] This is the name given to the followers of the ideas of Ze�??ev Jabotinsky. This is one of the most violent and vicious of all Zionist sub-divisions, which ultimately lead to the massacres, torture and genocides conducted by the jewish Stern gang and the Irgun.
[29] This stands for Ligue Internationale Contra l�??Anti-Semitisme, which in English translates as the International League against Anti-Semitism.
[30] Ingrid Weckert, Trans: Carl Hottelet, 1991, �??Flashpoint: Kristallnacht 1938: Instigators, Victims and Beneficiaries�??, 1st Edition, Institute for Historical Review: California.
[31] Which let it be noted would have been easy enough to procure or convincingly imitate, especially for a reasonably well-moneyed organisation like LICA.
[32] Palestine was the favoured destination for German deportation at this point in time.
[33] Who would have been arguably far more damaged in terms of propaganda by letting it be known that the jews had managed to start anti-Semitic riots in Germany, by pretending to be SA and SS men and relaying false orders.
[34] Such as the following statement: �??Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.�?? Freedman, �??A Jewish Defector Warns America�??, Op. Cit.
[35] Freedman is an excellent example of the apparent use of the �??Big Lie�?? propaganda technique that was first noted and pointed out as a key aspect in the understanding of jewish propaganda techniques by Adolf Hitler in his �??Mein Kampf�??.

In Brief: The Selenkov Quotation

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:01:00 +0000

It was recently drawn to my attention that there is a quotation from a supposed Bolshevik leader called Selenkov in 1922 that is often reproduced on Nationalist forums and in some Nationalist literature[1]. It is relevant to the jewish question, because it is often used in connexion with the �??Judeo-Bolshevism�?? thesis to further prove the [conspiratorial] hostility of jews to non-jewish Nationalism.

The quotation runs as follows:

�??We must create a climate of anti-nationalism and anti-racialism amongst Whites. We must reduce patriotism and pride of race to meaningless abstractions and make racialism a dirty word.�??

This is in an �??In Brief�??, because this quote seems to have come from no-where in terms of the literature in so far that it is not apparently not referred to or re-produced in Wilton�??s �??The Last Days of the Romanovs�??[2] or any other Nationalist/anti-Communist literature I can find[3]. I have largely been checking the indexes for the name rather than re-reading the many works involved, but I am yet to find either the name or the quote being used. I have also checked several standard works on the Bolshevik revolution and the USSR: I am yet to find a Bolshevik leader called Selenkov, or even Zelenkov, in 1922[4]. I have also used several search engines to look for a communist/Marxist/Bolshevik leader named Selenkov/Zelenkov, but have come away empty-handed apart from uses of this quotation none of which have been found with attribution to an originating source for the quote although Birdwood�??s use of quotes seems to suggest that the origin may be Eustace Mullins once again.

The fact that in Birdwood�??s work the quotation is reproduced after quotations from Eustace Mullins�?? book, �??A History of the Jews�??, and after the unproven quotation from Israel Cohen�??s, �??A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century�??[5], would potentially seem to suggest that this is another quotation that we cannot find an origin for that may or may not have been first referenced by Eustace Mullins. It isn�??t in the index of George Knupffer�??s, �??The Struggle for World Power�??[6] and nor can I find it in a brief scan of Admiral Barry Domville�??s, �??From Admiral to Cabin Boy�??[7], which are all often cited by Birdwood. There is the possibility it is in Guy Carr�??s �??Pawns in the Game�??, which I do not have immediate access to a copy of, but I am doubtful of it given the tenor of Carr�??s remarks on these subjects. I haven�??t read and do not have access to a copy of Mullin�??s, �??A History of the Jews�??, but on balance I may reasonably expect to find it there with potentially an assertion about Selenkov being a jew. If it is not there then its origins must truly remain a mystery.

The reason for this is relatively simple in that it is a quote, which is structured on the same lines as the Israel Cohen quotation, isn�??t likely to have been written or spoken by a Marxist who would have put in some reference to nationalism as being of �??bourgeoisie�?? origins and how race was a tool of the �??ruling class�?? to keep the �??proletariat�?? divided and hence able to be exploited. The wording that the Bolsheviks must �??reduce�?? race to �??meaningless abstractions�?? directly infers that this Selenkov knows, and importantly believes, that race is meaningful and this is deliberately trying to cover it up. No Bolshevik would have done this for to them race was non existent and the differences between races were merely superficial and without real meaning. I think we may presume that had this Selenkov actually said the above passage he would have been denounced to the Cheka in short order and sentenced for �??politically incorrect/counter-revolutionary activities�??, especially since we are told, and I presume this Selenkov is male, he is a �??Bolshevik leader�??.

Its also worth mentioning that �??Whites�?? in the quotation means the �??White race�??[8] and not the anti-Communist, and usually Monarchist, forces for there is no use of �??counter-revolutionary�??, or its plural �??counter-revolutionaries�??, in the two sentences, which would almost always prefix any reference to �??Whites�??, if the term �??Whites�?? was even mentioned for in Marxist thinking they would just merely be �??counter-revolutionaries�?? or �??reactionaries�?? rather than anything more colloquial. There was no real concept of the �??White race�?? in Russia in this period since racialism had only just begun to compete for adherence among Imperial Russia�??s intellectuals and nobility and most thinking about jews, in particular, was in religious terms with perhaps little strains of racialism here and there. Also what ideas of Racialism there were: were pan-Slavic (i.e. based on sub-race) in nature rather than about �??Whites�?? (i.e. based on a colloquial term for Caucasoid), the latter being of more recent origins.

The �??White race�?? is also a colloquial term for referring to ostensive difference in colour between the racial groups, which doesn�??t take into account sub-racial groups, and since the Slavs and Aryans[9] residing in Russia were part of the �??White race�?? if we define it in the terms the quotation presumably means then the revolution can�??t be �??anti-White�?? unless it is jewish or made up of those of Mongoloid and/or Turkic racial stock. Therefore: we also find our argument comes back to where it start in that here we find the assumption behind the quotation i.e. that the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was in the clear majority jewish in character and what �??Bolshevik leader�?? would make this kind of assumption let alone couch it in such terms, which presume the �??reactionaries�??, such as the �??Black Hundreds�??, are essentially right?

It is safe to say that this quotation is likely a fraudulent one for it lacks first Marxist terminology, uses assumptions which are not communist and were not current in Russia at that time, (i.e. the �??White race�?? rather than pan-Slavic racialism), there appears to be no Bolshevik leader named Selenkov and there is no originating source cited for the quote. We may tentatively suggest that this is Eustace Mullins, but we can�??t be entirely sure of this without finding an early use of the quotation or the original publication where it was used. If any reader has any information about this quotation or knows where it has been used then we would be most pleased to hear about it or revise our opinion in light of more definite information (which we will of course publish).

Unless the origins of this quote can be traced satisfactorily then it simply should not be used as evidence at all. Since there doesn�??t appear on a review of the literature and general commentary to be any trace of the quote or the individual who supposedly uttered it. That in itself makes the quote suspect especially as it further does not fit the phraseology of Marxism and seems in itself to suggest an anti-communist Racialist origin.

[1] Such as Inter-City Researchers [likely Lady Jane Birdwood], 1991, �??The Longest Hatred: An Examination of Anti-Gentilism�??, 1st Edition, Inter-City Research Centre: London, p. 22. This is available at the following address: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres8/TheLongestHatred.pdf. Note that no source is cited for the comment.
[2] Robert Wilton, 1920, �??The Last Days of the Romanovs�??, 1st Edition, Thornton Butterworth: London.
[3] Including such works where a quotation such as this would be extremely relevant, such as R. M. Whitney, 1924, �??Reds in America�??, 1st Edition, The Beckwith Press: New York.
[4] For example George Katkov, 1967, �??Russia 1917: The February Revolution�??, 1st Edition, Longmans: London and Marcel Liebman, Trans: Arnold Pomerans, 1970, �??The Russian Revolution: The Origins, Phases and Meaning of the Bolshevik Victory�??, 1st Edition, History Book Club: London contain no mention of a Selenkov and presumably this Selenkov often described as a �??Bolshevik leader�?? should be there at least in notation.
[5] Our comments about this quotation can be found at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-brief-notes-on-eustace-mullins.html.
[6] George Knupffer, 1986, �??The Struggle for World Power: Revolution and Counter-Revolution�??, 4th Edition, Noontide Press: California.
[7] Barry Domville, 2008, [1947], �??From Admiral to Cabin Boy�??, 1st Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield.
[8] I�??ll point out here again there is no such thing in terms of racial science: there are the �??White races�?? (plural not singular), which are some of the sub-races of the Caucasoid race, but no �??White race�??.
[9] An example of such a group would be the Volga Germans.

A Worthy Set of Principles: Theodor Fritsch's Decalogue

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:01:00 +0000

We reprint the following to show the reader a glimpse of the worthy thought of Theodor Fritsch as a 19th century German perspective on how one should begin to apply the philosophy of being jew-free. This of course applies if you are not a student of the jewish question, which would require you to act contrary to the principles outlined below, but can be stuck to in spirit rather than in letter, if you are such a student of the jewish question, by separating one's research from one's personal life as to not infect yourself, your family and your home. It is worth noting the difference in what Fritsch states plainly and simply with the mealy-mouthed and quasi-hysterical criticism of jews that is forthcoming from most so-called anti-Semites today. Fritsch says what he means so if you are easily offended please do not read further: if you do so then you risk being rather offended if you are of a philo-Semitic disposition.

�??1. Be proud of being a German and strive earnestly and steadily to practice the inherited virtues of our people, courage, faithfulness and veracity, and to inspire and develop these in thy children.

2. Thou shall know that thou with all thy fellow Germans, regardless of faith or creed, hast a common implacable foe. His name is the jew.

3. Thou shall keep thy blood pure. Consider it a crime to soil the noble Aryan breed of thy people by mingling it with the jewish breed. For thou must know that jewish blood is everlasting, putting the jewish stamp on body and soul lasting until the farthest generations.

4. Thou shall be helpful to thy fellow German and further him in all matters not counter to the German conscience, the more so if he be pressed by the jew. Thou shall at once take into court any offense or crime committed by the jew in deed, word or letter, that comes to thy knowledge, lest the jew abuse the laws of our country with impunity.

5. Thou shall have no social intercourse with the jew. Avoid all contact and community with the jew and keep him away from thyself and thy family, especially thy daughters, lest they suffer injury of body and soul.

6. Thou shall have no business relations with the jews. Never choose a jew as a business partner, nor borrow nor buy from him, and keep your wife, too, from doing so. Thou shall sell nothing to him, nor use him as an agent in thy transactions, that thou may remain free and not become a slave unto the jew nor help to increase his money, which is the power by which he enslaves our people.

7. Thou shall drive the jew from thy own breast and take no example from jewish tricks and jewish wiles, for thou shall never match the jew in trickery but forfeit thy honour and earn the contempt of thy fellow Germans and the punishment of the courts.

8. Thou shall not entrust thy rights to a jewish lawyer, nor thy body to a jewish physician, nor thy children to a jewish teacher lest thy honour, body and soul suffer harm.

9. Thou shall not listen nor give credence to the jew. Keep all jewish writings away from thy German home and hearth lest their lingering poison may unnerve and corrupt thyself and thy family.

10. Thou shall not use violence against the jews because it is unworthy of thee and against the law. But if a jew attacks thee, ward off his Semitic insolence with German wrath.�??[1]

Let Fritsch's words serve as the ideological basis from which we must begin to study jewry as it is, and not lower ourselves to the level of jews, and other Semites, by deliberate misdirection and misrepresentation of sources. The new anti-Semitism must ground itself in fact and make itself intellectually viable by standing on calm and careful scholarship, while being purported and distributed among the folk by incisive propaganda, which bases itself on what can be reasonably argued and inferred from the facts. Anti-Semites must address and fight the jew as he is and not some fantasy that he or she maintains is in fact the jew. The jew is not a monster in a fantasy novel, but a biological creature who in order to fight you have to be able to understand, while adhering in spirit to the principles, outlined by Fritsch above, in order to keep yourself from becoming unduly affected by that which you fight.

[1] Translated from the German of Thomas Frey [Theodor Fritsch], 1893, �??Antisemiten-Katechismus: Eine Zusammenstellung des wichtigsten zum Verstaendnis der Judenfrage�??, 1st Edition, H. Beyer: Leipzig, p. 858. Alternative and slightly different translations to mine are available in Paul Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz, 1980, 'The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History', 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York: pp. 287-288; and Paul Massing, 1967, 'Rehearsal for Destruction: A Study of Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial Germany', 2nd Edition, H. Fertig: New York, pp. 306-307.

On Jewish 'Traitors': Marcus Eli Ravage

noreply@blogger.com (Semitic Controversies) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:41:00 +0000

Marcus Eli Ravage wrote two articles of much interest to anti-jewish individuals and groups: �??A Real Case against the Jews�??[1] and �??Commissary to the Gentiles�??[2], both of which appeared in �??The Century Magazine�??. Both his articles do not make very pleasant reading in that they are written in a haughty and condescending tone, which is claimed as satire by pro-jewish individuals and groups and as boasting by anti-jewish individuals and groups.

Ravage is unusual among jews who are asserted to claim openly that jews do in fact run/control the world. Since his two articles are often read and used by anti-jewish individuals, especially during debates and �??information threads�?? on anti-jewish forums, but are rarely cited within the anti-jewish literature, even that of their contemporary time, beyond simple asserting that they support such-and-such a conclusion (and even that is rare). It would seem the articles have been kept in the anti-jewish eyes, because of their being periodically reprinted by anti-jewish groups to furnish hostile testimony as to what in fact the jews are up to.

On the other side of the fence, in the world of pro-jewish individuals and groups Ravage's two articles have attracted even less attention perhaps, because they have been summarily dismissed as satire by said individuals and groups.

It is important to examine Ravage�??s two articles, because of their use on anti-jewish forums as supporting hostile testimony to a jewish conspiracy being in operation. Also, rather importantly, despite the generalities of Ravage�??s assertions and claims, they can in fact be somewhat investigated being as they relate to general history and specifically Christianity. This makes them rather unusual in terms of �??jewish traitor�?? testimony, because the majority of this testimony/evidence is from apparently friendly witnesses who write quite disarmingly about what they suggest the jewish conspiracy is but whom often write about their own �??special knowledge�?? as having been an insider within the conspiracy itself and have �??seen the light�??.

Ravage on the other hand writes in an abrasive, often quite sarcastic manner and is obviously trying to write against anti-Semitism by declaring how �??irrational�?? it is using Christianity as the medium to declare that jews have dominated the world through Christianity and that if there is, and indeed was, a jewish conspiracy in operation then that is the conspiracy at work, because he claims it is much more fundamental to civilisation than whether a jewish magnate controls this newspaper, that radio station or the bank over the street.

Ravage�??s articles on anti-Semitism should not be surprising since he wrote from what I can discover a great many articles on jews as they related to the United States and especially on recent jewish immigrants to the United States[3]. They are written in the spirit of defence of the community, which jews are rather well known. We can only presume from this that the two articles in Century Magazine are a continuation of this mindset and raison d'être rather than something written out of the blue as so many anti-jewish individuals and groups seem to. The reasoning behind their being written is indirectly given to us in the text of �??A Real Case against the Jews�?? when Ravage states as follows:

�??We shirk our patriotic duty in wartime because we are pacifists by nature and tradition, and we are the arch-plotters of universal wars and the chief beneficiaries of those wars (see the late Dearborn Independent, passim, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion)�??.[4]

What Ravage is indirectly saying here is that he is writing to defend his people against the charges laid against them in �??The Dearborn Independent�?? and in �??The Protocols of the Elders of Zion�??, but what Ravage fears hear is not really anti-Semitism per se, but rather that anti-Semitism is being purported by captains of American industry in particular Henry Ford. Whose book, �??The International Jew: The World�??s Foremost Problem�??[5] is both made up of articles taken from his newspaper, �??The Dearborn Independent�??[6], and that both �??The Dearborn Independent�?? and �??The International Jew�?? take their description of the jewish question largely from �??The Protocols of the Elders of Zion�??. This allusion to these two specific publications combined with his use of Christianity as a medium for his attack on anti-Semitism, suggest that these articles are in response to Henry Ford�??s, �??The International Jew�??. For in Vol. IV of �??The International Jew�?? Henry Ford includes a very particular appeal to gentiles[7], by which he means of course Christians[8], as well as a direct appeal to the jews[9], which may or may not, but in my opinion it is likely, have served as basis for Ravage�??s two articles.

We may further see this in Ravage�??s anti-jewish themes that he maintains throughout both articles in so far as we find all of them prominently included in �??The International Jew�?? and although they are all staples of anti-jewish thought at the time �??The International Jew�?? is the only work where all these accusations are brought together at the time (and was also the object of recent nationwide controversy in the United States at the time). Hence we can conclude that, �??The International Jew�??, was likely what Ravage was using as the representative work of the anti-jewish thought he uses in his two articles.

In essence Ravage can be said to be in fear of exactly the �??top�?? and �??bottom�?? social combination against the jews that Benjamin Ginsberg described in his theory of why anti-Semitism was acted upon in some countries/nations and not in the case of others[10]. Ironically Ginsberg�??s use of an archetypal country where this has not been the case is the United States[11], but certainly such a combination would be familiar to Ashkenazi jews, particularly those formerly of the Russian Empire, where open and sometimes violent anti-jewish activity was the province of both the nobility and the peasantry[12]. This is best illustrated in the quasi-hysterical, but at the same time snide, tone of the articles, which although obviously written to try and give a satirical counter to anti-jewish accusations, are written in an emotionally disturbed state as when one writes about something that one feels potentially threatens ones own well being.

Ravage being very strongly committed to the preservation and furtherance of his race, as evidenced by his other articles, such as those published in Harper�??s Magazine, would likely view such a combination of captains of industry, such as Henry Ford, with the working men and the peasantry[13] as a direct threat to both his race�??s well being and his own. He would also likely have seen such a combination as a barrier to further progress for them in acquiring what jews have historically presumed to be theirs: a controlling interest in society both to protect themselves from such �??top�?? and �??bottom�?? combinations, but also in order to suit their Freudian egoistic needs for recognition of their superior status (and the necessary acquisition of wealth to make this a general reality).

This discussion thus sheds some very necessary light on the context of Ravage�??s two articles, which if viewed without context would seem to be far more malevolent then they in fact are. However they are not what philo-Semitic authors would wish them to be as in an innocent and courageous attempt at a satire of anti-Semitic views in the early part of the twentieth century. This is because regardless of supposed satire, which is appears more as glaze rather than as anything more substantial within the work, the message that Ravage seems to want to deliver is that jews are central to Western civilisation, because the Christianity of today, as it was in Ravage�??s day, is derived in part from Judaism[14] and thus from jews.

Ravage�??s thesis regardless of satire is directed very pointedly at Aryan, i.e. Western, civilisation and seeks to prove that, because Western Europe has grown up in the arms of the Church in all her guises. It thus should be grateful to the jews for creating it, because in Ravage�??s estimation, as to many other jews who in times of trouble always extend appeals to gentiles, usually Aryans, declaring in various degrees of politeness that because Christianity is jewish in origin then they should look favourably upon its creators.

This, of course, is the logic used by many Christians today in their support of Israel, because it has been impressed upon them, largely by jews, that Jesus was a jew and thus they must support jews no matter the cost. There is a whole body of theological speculation, largely concerning the Book of Revelations cross-referenced with books of the Old Testament such as Ezekiel, acting as support to this position, but it is enough to say here that this was no less true in Ravage�??s day than it is at present. All that has changed is the dimensions of the problem with it having been magnified astounding in last eighty years since Ravage�??s day[15].

If we look to the context of what I have argued is Ravage�??s motivation behind the writing of these two articles then we realise that Ravage�??s assertion that Christianity is the path through which the jews have operated is three things: it is a factual assertion, a satirical weapon and a plea for clemency for his race. Since when Ravage asserts, indirectly, that Christianity is jewish he is making these three weapons it is necessary to point out that they follow a logical sequence each dependent on the other.

This sequence is as follows: if Christianity is jewish (and therefore we may presume Aryan, i.e. Western European, civilisation is predicated on jewish ideas) then this fact because a satirical weapon because the anti-Semites from whose work Ravage is taking as representative, i.e. Henry Ford as argued above, are suggesting that the jews are corrupting Aryan civilisation but yet the basis of this civilisation, Christianity, is jewish. This thus makes the anti-Semitic argument absurd and hypocritical by declaring that the very thing that they are seeking to protect is jewish at its core and therefore it thus becomes a plea for clemency. This becomes a plea for clemency in so far that Ravage is asserting again indirectly, since remember he is covering what he writes with satirical gloss, that if the anti-Semites want to stop the rot in Western civilisation then they should embrace rather than attack the jews. He is indirectly telling his reader that the world should endorse the jews and put them in charge of their countries for the simple reason that the jews have created Christianity and therefore on his premises created Aryan civilisation.

This a sympathetic argument that is made to appeal to the reader who would like to think of themselves as a liberally-minded man or woman and to subtly place certain germs of presumptions and ideas into the readers head, which can at the same time seemingly disgust the reader with the supposedly intellectually crude and illiberal manner of anti-Semitism and inspire interest in the well-being of the jews.

This first effect, and indeed apparently the main intent of the articles, is affected by the satirical weapon, which is where the harsh and haughty language is used to really emphasize the satirical weapon to such a degree as to be quite vicious and overwrought, it is almost seemingly boastful[16]. This would seem to be calculated to make the reader guffaw at the �??idiocy�?? of the anti-Semites and consider that they are superior, because he/she has the liberal turn of mind to read and accept such stinging and apparently educated criticism of the anti-Semitic position.

If one comprehends the liberal mind then one realises that those that are politically liberal tend to be lovers of types of political discourse, which give the supposition of education, such as political satire, but which in reality contain little real critical substance. The appeal to a liberal mind is obvious if we also acknowledge that many of those of such turns of mind were then, although far less so now, devoutly Christian, usually of the Protestant variety, and their liberalism was predicated on their Christianity. This first effect then allows the discarding of the anti-Semitic theory by the reader who presumes him or herself liberally-minded.

The second effect, and the additional intent, of the article are affected by the plea for clemency, which is where the precise rather than the general arguments used come into play. The specific line of reasoning that Ravage uses, as we have stated above, is that Christianity is a jewish creation and by playing off the then widespread religious devotion �??proves�?? to his reader that, because Christianity was at the heart of Aryan civilisation that the jews were, and are, a force for progression in Western Europe.

I have termed this element the �??plea for clemency�??, because it comes off to the reader that what Ravage is subtly appealing for is aid from the, presumably gentile Christian, reader in fighting the anti-Semites and their arguments. The plea is brought about by the appeal to charitable instincts by Ravage arguing that the contributions of the jews should be acknowledged and that if they should be blamed for anything it should for their great service to Aryan civilisation and forbearance of their �??persecution�??. Hence allowing Ravage�??s argument to be heard since it subtly appeals to charitable sentiments on the part of the reader as well as allowing his two effects to be realised upon the liberally-minded contemporary reader.

So when we acknowledge the context in which Ravage wrote and the methodology that he has appeared to follow in writing the article. It becomes apparent that both the anti-jewish and pro-jewish thesis seems on the face of it to be called into question.

Since Ravage is not confirming the anti-jewish argument so much as using it to attack itself with a thesis of his own, i.e. that Christianity is a jewish creation, so any comment Ravage is in fact making is not a confirmation of the anti-jewish thesis argued in the �??The International Jew�?? and �??The Protocols of the Elders of Zion�?? and if it is taken as such then the individual or group using it like so only plays into Ravage�??s hands by allowing him to suggest that they are in fact stupid and don�??t know what they are talking about. Which as I believe I have covered is essentially the result of his argument in that if the anti-Semites don�??t know that Christianity is jewish, according to Ravage, then they really are quite unlearned, irrational and probably stupid. Therefore Ravage cannot be considered evidence for the validity of the assertions about jewish control of finance, media, culture etc, because he is writing it to tear it down with his suppositions about Christianity and nor can he be consider a traitor to jewry or to even be boasting.

On the pro-jewish side, however, the argument that Ravage is merely being satirical is also quite vapid, but it has a kernel of truth to it[17]. In that Ravage is indeed using satire as his medium, but he is not doing it simply to defend the jews, but rather the context in which writes and what he writes. Indicates that Ravage is in fact trying to gain advantage for his race, the jews, rather than simply defend them. His argument relies on more than trying to poke fun at anti-Semites, but rather as we have briefly argued it includes an obvious logical element whereby the jews must be the centre of civilisation, since if Aryan, i.e. Western, civilisation is based on Christianity and Christianity, according to Ravage, is jewish then jews are the basis of civilisation. Hence thus indirectly putting forward the idea that because jews are the basis of civilisation that they should be given absolute reign to do what they will, i.e. to be allowed to rule the cultural, intellectual, economic, social and political life of any nation in which they reside. So Ravage�??s words are hardly simply satire, but rather have both a defensive but also offensive purpose that needs to be recognised in order to realise their importance is in the stereotypical jewish nature.

The real meaning of Ravage is in the nature of his writing and getting beneath the surface of it to find out what Ravage is actually thinking and how that logic flows from his other writings and progresses in the ones under consideration. Ravage, in essence, provides us, if we look at his writing carefully, a window to the jewish mind and soul. A study of which a student of the jewish question will find highly rewarding. In essence: it is necessary to treat Ravage as what he was rather than trying to make him, and his writing, into something it isn�??t. It is unfortunate that Ravage wasn�??t a toady to the Rothschild family and that his words aren�??t boasting, but we have to deal with jews and their words as they are, rather than how we would like them to be. That is the key to fighting and defeating the jewish enemy.

[1] Marcus Eli Ravage, 1928, �??A Real Case against the Jews: One of Them Points Out the Full Depth of Their Guilt�??, The Century Magazine, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 346-351. This is available at the following address: http://www.ety.com/HRP/leaflts/ravage/ravage1.htm.
[2] Marcus Eli Ravage, 1928, �??Commissary To The Gentiles: The First to See the Possibilities of War by Propaganda�??, The Century Magazine, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 476-483. This is available at the following address: http://www.ety.com/HRP/leaflts/ravage/ravage2.htm.
[3] For example he wrote several articles in Harper�??s Magazine in early 1917 on the subject of jews, specifically recent jewish immigrants to the United States from eastern Europe, defending them from accusations made against them and seeming to be writing to �??dispel stereotypes�??. These can be found at the following address: http://harpers.org/subjects/MERavage.
[4] Ravage, �??A Real Case against the Jews�??, Op. Cit.
[5] Henry Ford, 1920-22, �??The International Jew: The World�??s Foremost Problem�??, 4 Vols., 1st Edition, Dearborn Publishing Company: Dearborn.
[6] The Dearborn Independent was the Ford Company�??s paper that Henry Ford marketed to his employees and hence was widely read due to Ford�??s status as both a friend to the honest working man (he treated and paid his workers well but he would not abide communist agitation within their ranks) and because it was officially encouraged within the Ford company for one to read the official paper.
[7] Henry Ford, 1922, �??An Address to �??Gentiles�?? on the Jewish Problem�?? in Henry Ford, 1922, �??The International Jew: The World�??s Foremost Problem�??, Vol. IV, 1st Edition, Dearborn Publishing Company: Dearborn. This article was originally published in �??The Dearborn Independent�?? of the 14th January, 1922. It can be found at the following address: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Intl_Jew_full_version/ij80.htm.
[8] The article starts off with references to gentiles in general, but in the 9th paragraph we see the beginning of mention of Christians and Christianity in place of talking about the gentiles so it is correct to infer that what Ford was transliterating gentiles for Christians in his own mind. See Ibid.
[9] Henry Ford, 1922, �??Candid Address to Jews on the Jewish Problem�??, in Henry Ford, 1922, �??The International Jew: The World�??s Foremost Problem�??, Vol. IV, 1st Edition, Dearborn Publishing Company: Dearborn. This article was originally published in �??The Dearborn Independent�??, of the 7th January, 1922. It can be found at the following address: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Intl_Jew_full_version/ij79.htm.
[10] Benjamin Ginsberg, 1993, �??The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State�??, 1st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
[11] Ibid, pp. 97-144
[12] Ibid. pp. 56-57
[13] These two groups are called, the Folk, in the National Socialist weltanschauung.
[14] The influence of Judaism upon Christianity is often fantastically over-stated, largely by jews and protestant branches of Christianity, for both innocent and malicious reasons. The link between the two is often used to claim Jesus Christ was a jew, when was patently not, and thus to force as many as the Folk as possible into supporting the jews, and in particular Israel, on the reasoning that �??Jesus was also a jew�??. In fact Judaism is the interpretation by jews of other religions in the Middle East at the time and relation between early Judaism and the religions that surround it is largely one of jews absorbing and making sense of these ideas within their own racial perceptions of them thus creating Judaism.
[15] Some most vocal opponents of anti-Semitism at this time were Protestant Christians, especially of the Calvinist persuasion (or influenced by Calvin�??s thought), who argued that the jews as a people selected by God, and of whom they claimed Jesus Christ sprang, that jews could not possibly be evil and the �??jewish entrepreneurial spirit�?? was not something to be concerned about but was rather to be admired. For example see: Rev. D. McDougall, 1938?, �??The Story of Jew-Baiting�??, 1st Edition, The Jewish Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland: Edinburgh.
[16] This is where anti-Semites seem to get their position on the matter from as well as the accusation that Ravage was a lackey or devotee of the Rothschild family. Since I can find little to no connexion between the various branches of the Rothschild family and Ravage I must provisionally conclude that this is a later addition to provide some context to the article and to enhance its contents by suggesting, like Benjamin Freedman has about himself, that Ravage was in on the conspiracy and for some unknown reason decided to pen two articles boasting about it. An example of the Rothschild allegation can be found in Anon., 1990, �??The Project Newsletter�??, Vol. 7, No. 4. This is available at the following address: http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Fringe/Conspiry/proj-7.4 [Accessed: 03/10/2008]. The exact wording is as follows: �??Marcus Eli Ravage, a Jewish writer from the 1920's who worshiped at the feet of the Rothschilds, wrote A Real Case Against the Jews to prove that Christianity was created by Jews to destroy the Roman Empire and the robust Pagan spirit that prevented Jewish control of Pagan society. Only with the Pagans transformed under Jesus "meek and mild" could the Jews rise to covert world imperium! There is some chance this was written as a satire, but who knows?�??
[17] As most modern anti-Semites are yet to realise the key to much jewish writing is that it is contains a lot of factual material, but the trick is spotting the manipulative twist and what is left out in that writing.