Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 22nd, 2010 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default The 'Semitic Controversies' Thread

Rather than post a new topic for each essay or article that I write on the jewish question (and I am trying to write a new one each day). I thought to create a general thread for essays and articles that do not; in my opinion, really merit their own stand-alone thread so that those who wish to do so can easily follow my writing on VNN. It also serves to collect them in one place so that if anything untoward happens they are preserved in an easy to use format.

This thread will be updated regularly and preferably daily with new material.

If you have any comments, questions, responsa or anything like that then please send me an email at: [email protected].
__________________
 
Old June 22nd, 2010 #2
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Hypocrisy 2.0

A Book Review of Denis MacShane’s, 2008, ‘Globalising Hatred: The New Anti-Semitism’, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London

Denis MacShane is a person that if you don’t follow British politics with a particular interest in anti-Semitism and the jews you wouldn’t even know existed. MacShane is currently the Labour Member of Parliament for Rotherham and something of a philo-Semite par extraordinaire. He chaired the 2006 ‘All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism’, which produced a report that might as well have come from Tel Aviv as it showed little to no critical understanding of jewish claims and reports regarding ‘anti-Semitic incidents’ and in fact showed an extreme bias in simply accepting whatever it was told by jews. (1)

It was due to his sterling service to the jews; and particularly to the British ‘Israel Lobby’ (so-called), that the jews gave MacShane the chairmanship of a favourite jewish mouthpiece on the subject of anti-Semitism: ‘the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism’, which predictably conflates anything that could be considered as detrimental towards jews (such as somebody chucking a bucket of water over a jew by mistake causing the jew to be late to Shul) and actual anti-Semitism (i.e. actual opposition to jews). MacShane is also an advisory board member for the adjunct Israeli organisation ‘Just Journalism’, which ‘monitors’ the British media and howls with rage whenever anything remotely critical; or even neutral, about Israel is written by a British journalist.

MacShane’s personal character is rather shady as well as since the 2009 Expenses scandal he is alleged, by ‘The Daily Mail’, to have claimed £125,000 over 7 years for his garage, which he claims he uses as an office. An expensive office indeed! MacShane was also caught lying outright on British television when he claimed to not have described Gordon Brown’s ‘five economic tests’ as a ‘red herring’, but was actually recorded on a Dictaphone doing so (which was played back to him to his great embarrassment). MacShane then amusingly publicly wondered why on earth he had been removed from the top post as ‘he hadn’t done anything wrong’. It is also worth noting that MacShane’s father; Jan Matyjaszek, was supposedly Polish, but given MacShane’s almost inexplicable unconditional love for Israel and the jews (despite being on the political left who are normally critical of Israel and the jews) we are forced to wonder if there isn’t a jew or two hiding in his father’s family tree.

MacShane’s 2008 book is really just a statement of his own personal convictions and is only interesting because of the prominence of the author rather than because of its actual intellectual content (or rather lack of it). Although that said we should note that MacShane seems to have deliberately made it semi-impossible to look up the sourcing for his claims as either he or his; jewish, publisher; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, have decided to not use footnotes or a conventional sourcing system, but rather have put their notes at the back of the book with only references to page numbers beside each without elaborating on what specific point they are supposed to evidence. This makes it rather difficult to expose what I suspect MacShane has been up to this work: systematically misrepresenting the literature to make it seem to be much more supportive of his general thesis than it is. As it is MacShane almost exclusively uses popular pro-Israeli and pro-jewish sources and cites basically no academic literature. Rather MacShane prefers to lose himself in making the most pointless remarks about his opponents or creating the rather novel thesis that there is an anti-Semitic conspiracy against the jews. That said this thesis isn’t exactly new as it is has other notable advocates who are often just as silly and absurd as MacShane such as the corpulent John Loftus and Mark Aarons. (2)

Perhaps the reader may think I am being overly harsh and it is probably true that in some respects I am, but my reason for being so is rather simply that MacShane should firstly know better than to make the dozens of breathtakingly stupid claims and arguments and secondly that MacShane as an individual sheds a foul light upon his distortions, half-truths and outright fabrications in ‘Globalising Hatred’. In so far as he is not some bamboozled stuffed shirt with about as much common sense as your average wooden plank, but rather a slimy little toad who dresses his self-importance and outright egocentrism up as some sort of original and thought-provoking treatise.

MacShane begins his ‘book’ with the following statement of his ‘intellectual’ position, which amounts to little more than philo-Semitic filibustering and blathering:

‘Organised neo-antisemitism is like a rat in our entrails preventing just and equitable solutions to key world problems and replacing hope with hate. Combating neo-antisemitism should now be a major political priority for progressive politics. I am neither Jewish nor does the politics of ‘Israel, right or wrong’ make any sense to me. But I have spent my political life fighting racism, intolerance, hate and denial of a people’s or a state’s right to exist. I am intolerant of intolerance.’ (3)

This is obviously a piece of absurd rhetoric as opposed to the statement of an intellectually valid position on MacShane’s part. As firstly his politics are ‘Israel, right or wrong’, which can be shown by pointing to his uncontested involvement in adjunct Israeli organisations like ‘Just Journalism’, his quoting ‘right-wing’ Israeli sources; such as MEMRI, (4) without even the pretence of any criticism or filibustering about ‘taking a critical view’ and his extremely lavish praise upon Phyllis Chesler’s rather absurd and poorly received book: ‘The New Anti-Semitism’. (5) One is left wondering just how much of the substantial literature on the subject of anti-Semitism that MacShane has actually read and what he seems to have read is only what one can only class as ‘hard-line Zionist’ material of which Chesler can be considered a second tier proponent. (6)

We are thus within reason to meet MacShane’s assertion that the intellectual left; which is predictably undefined by MacShane (being the rather deceitful character that he seems to be), with outright laughter in regards to its sheer absurdity. I quote:

‘Many French intellectuals and political activists on the left suspend critical judgement when it comes to the Middle East.’ (7)

Here MacShane shows his utter hypocrisy by accusing French ‘left wing’ intellectuals and political activists of ‘suspending critical judgement’ on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but yet we find MacShane obviously suspending his own critical judgement; assuming that he has the ability to do so, when it comes to pro-jewish and pro-Israeli sources, but being overly critical of anti-jewish and anti-Israeli sources. One would be within reason to ask MacShane on what basis he has ‘taken a side’ and why on earth he is pretending to be ‘objective’ on the conflict when it is painfully obvious to any reader from either side of the debate that he is not and belongs to the ‘hard-line Zionist’; if you will, camp.

This can be illustrated simply by pointing out that MacShane does not even mention the jewish terrorism that was the foundation of the state of Israel or that these terrorist attacks were specifically targeted against British soldiers and civilians (whose descendents he supposedly represents in the British parliament). Instead MacShane simply makes the standard vapid claim; which is made by just about every Zionist and professional or amateur apologist for Israel in world, that Israel is justified in existing, because the Arabs already have plenty of land for themselves. (8) So therefore would MacShane support a policy of say Londoners from Britain re-colonising New York State, because there is plenty of space in the rest of the United States for the Americans from New York to go live? I think not, but then this simple logical problem with his argument doesn’t even seem to enter MacShane’s head and he is much too busy copying the argument; without obvious attribution I might add (which as they say constitutes plagiarism as it occupies intellectual ground that is already occupied [ironic: isn’t it?]), to give any critical consideration to his own; often wild and obviously untrue, statements.

One prominent example of where MacShane’s ‘hard-line Zionist’ nature comes to the fore is on the subject of Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer’s famous 2008 book: ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’, which MacShane dismisses in a few paragraphs that could well be out of an Alan Dershowitz book or Israeli Foreign Policy brief. I quote the most pertinent passage of MacShane’s claimed ‘demolition’ of Walt and Mearsheimer’s work:

‘The article and the book made allegations that American Jews decided US foreign policy on Iran, Iraq and Syria, and both the article and subsequent book were entirely solipsistic. There is not a single reference to any of the European policy discussions on the Middle East or a book published in a European language.’ (9)

This is truly rather pathetic as I am sure even someone as apparently incapable of rational cognition as MacShane; in spite of his academic doctorate, would realise as MacShane is criticising a book about United States Foreign Policy (i.e. focusing on the Anglophone world not any other bits of this planet) for not including reference to European policy discussions or having included non-English language literature. This is obviously absurd. We can realise this by simply giving an alternative example: if you wrote a book about say modern English social history and you only used English language sources then MacShane is asserting that your work would simply be an ‘invention of your own mind’ (the meaning of ‘solipsism’) and that it would simply be intellectually invalid, because it didn’t include German language reference materials regarding German social history.

MacShane is hardly making sense intellectually let alone logically now is he?

As we have discussed MacShane shows his deceitful side in the passage just quoted in so far as he presents an obviously ludicrous argument to his reader as ‘the truth’ knowing full well that it completely false, but yet because he doesn’t want to break his argument down into a convincing case he hides his meaning in ‘big, scary intellectual-sounding words’ (if you will). If MacShane had a real intellectual case: I would imagine (or rather I’d like to; as otherwise MacShane’s mindset beggars belief) he would make it openly and simply without plagiarising Israeli propaganda or profusely blustering amateurish rhetoric in place of a sound detailed intellectual argument.

We further see MacShane malicious and deceitful side in another; this time veiled but obviously partisan, reference to Walt and Mearsheimer’s work:

‘I go to a bookshop in Paris and there is a French translation of a book by two American professors claiming to reveal that American foreign policy is controlled by Jews.’ (10)

This obviously refers to Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer as there were no two other American professors who had just authored a book in 2008 that would have got quick translation and also argued that jews had a significant (as opposed to complete) say in American foreign policy. Of course MacShane knows he is lying by deliberately distorting Walt and Mearsheimer’s thesis given that they make it explicitly clear on numerous occasions that their use of the term ‘Israel Lobby’ includes both jews and non-jews as well as that the latter have a significant role to play in said lobby.

MacShane’s lying takes on a whole new dimension in other places since he isn’t just sneering at people he doesn’t like, but actually outright making up insane claims that have no basis in historical fact what-so-ever. For example on page sixty-six MacShane claims that jews have never had any legal rights in the gentile world. This is simply absurd as of course they have had legal rights as that was the very basis of the contract between the jews and the state and is covered in detail by any good history of the jews.

Two prominent examples of well-known scholarly works that directly address this topic in detail are Benjamin Ginsberg’s ‘The Fatal Embrace’ (which deals with jewish legal status in relation to the state generally) (11) and Guido Kisch’s ‘The Jews in Medieval Germany’ (which deals specifically and in great detail with the legal status of jews within medieval Germany). (12) Both are standard works written by jewish academics on this subject, but yet MacShane simply ignores them and lies through his teeth to his reader in asserting that the jew has always; by implication, been mistreated and is really just a misunderstood poor darling of a creature.

Yes: I think we have gathered now that MacShane’s projection of what the jew is really what is solipsistic here, but then one doubts whether MacShane really understands the actual application of all the ‘big words’ he likes to throw into the mix to distract the reader from his lack of intellectual rigour.

We could go further into the huge number of factual and intellectual errors, which veritably howl from the pages of ‘Globalising Hatred’, but to prevent the reader becoming bored: we shall stop our amusing gander at the diseased mind of an ‘intellectual’ philo-Semite there.

What is Denis MacShane? Is he a liar, cheat and a sophist? Yes: he is all of those things and more, but the most damning thing we can note about Denis MacShane is that he advocates complete and utter subservience to jews as the supreme arbiters of truth and to that affect we quote MacShane:

‘The right wing Jew-baiter, the Islamist Jew-hater or all those liberal-leftists who proclaim they are not antisemitic but who deny Jews their Jewishness in the full sense of being Jewish, including their affection for the one state in the world where by definition antisemitism cannot exist, now have to come to terms with antisemitism being what Jews feel and say it is.’

That about sums up the extreme intellectually-absurd philo-Semitism of Denis MacShane: don’t you think?

I do.

References


(1) All the information that I present by way of biographical detail can be easily found as uncontested facts on Denis MacShane’s Wikipedia page, which can be found at the following address:
Denis_MacShane Denis_MacShane
.
(2) Mark Aarons, John Loftus, 1994, ‘The Secret War against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People’, 1st Edition, St. Martin’s Press: New York
(3) Denis MacShane’s, 2008, ‘Globalising Hatred: The New Anti-Semitism’, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London, pp. viii-ix
(4) Ibid, p. 90
(5) Ibid, p. 63. The full reference for Chesler’s ‘book’ is as follows: Phyllis Chesler, 2005, ‘The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It’, 2nd Edition, Jossey-Bass: New York
(6) Chesler can be simply evidenced to be ‘hard-line Zionist’ in the fact she collaborates and works closely with Alan Dershowitz (who incidentally endorsed ‘The New Anti-Semitism’) despite the two being as disparate in political and intellectual ideology as it is possible to be (Chesler is a radical leftist and feminist and Dershowitz is a hawkish conservative). One would also get this impression by reading Chesler’s ‘book’ and ascertaining for one’s self the scale of her ‘intellectual’ depravity.
(7) MacShane, Op. Cit., p. 46
(8) Ibid, p. 66
(9) Ibid, p. 128
(10) Ibid, p. 3
(11) Benjamin Ginsberg, 1993, ‘The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State’, 1st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago
(12) Guido Kisch, 1949, ‘The Jews in Medieval Germany: A Study of their Legal and Social Status’, 1st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago
(13) MacShane, Op. Cit., p. 5

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ocrisy-20.html
__________________
 
Old June 23rd, 2010 #3
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

In Brief: The ‘An Anti-Semite is someone who is hated by Jews’ Argument

Over the last few years I have observed that an increasing number of self-described critics of jews have begun to use the rhetorical phrase to the effect that an anti-Semite is someone who is hated by jews as an explanation of and non-rhetorical argument for anti-Semitism. To simplify this slightly: rather than using this rhetorical phrase which aptly characterises jewish accusations of anti-Semitism some anti-Semites have begun to use this phrase to explain anti-Semitism as a point of ideology. This is both dangerous and absurd and we may reasonably assert that those wielding such ideas are probably not the best and brightest anti-Semitism has to offer, but in fact are co-opting a piece of rhetoric to give them an excuse to not seek a greater understanding of what they profess to believe. We must now consider the logic behind this new idea within anti-Semitism and briefly discuss just how problematic it is.

The idea that an ‘anti-Semite is somebody who jews don’t like’ (or a variant to that effect) is a good rhetorical position as it intellectually counter-weaponizes the cat-calls and character assassination that jews and their lackeys tend to use, but at the same time it is a fundamental denial of what we are. I mean; it is lovely rhetoric and all that, but it isn’t doing anything about the problem of the fact that we are anti-Semites and that anti-Semitism is seen as a ‘bad thing’ by most of our folk. That said this isn’t set in stone as so many seem to assume: just look at the word ‘fag’ as a derogatory term for homosexual. Homosexuals have now appropriated and turned it into something good and less harmful to their interests. It is possible and it is very do-able with anti-Semitism as well as faggotry, but it is going to take anti-Semites to deal with reality and use their collective and individual abilities to push forward a new highly rational form of anti-Semitism based on the principles of Jacques Ellul’s theory of propaganda, intellectual rigour and the use of strong emotive and cause celebre themes to achieve its ends.

Using the rhetorical phrase an ‘anti-Semite is somebody who jews don’t like’ (or a variant to that effect) is essentially an anti-Semite or merely someone who is critical of jews trying to run away from his or her responsibility as an anti-Semite or critic of the jews. If you want to carry on the failures that anti-Semitism has suffered over the last three to four decades then you can just can keep on going as you are, but if you want to change and to create a new rational anti-Semitism; an anti-Semitism 2.0 if I was to be a touch cliché, then you have to take responsibility to use your knowledge and abilities in anti-Semitism’s best interests not whatever you feel like doing or not doing. For that latter kind of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place and it certainly won’t get us out of the huge hole that two generations of anti-Semites have managed to dig for themselves. We need change in anti-Semitism and we need it badly.

Now to come back to my original point again: if we were to argue ‘anti-Semitism is merely a charge jews make against people they don’t like’ (or a variant of that position) as the anti-Semitic answer to the standard jewish argument that anti-Semitism and anti-jewish sentiment is everywhere and is ipso facto irrational. Then we simply concede that anti-Semitism is just as the jews say; i.e. irrational, and that the only rational position is philo-Semitic sentiment. This is obviously rather dangerous as it leaves anti-Semites utterly exposed intellectually to attack and confirms to our potential friends all across the board that what we have to say about the jew is irrational and completely unfounded.

Obviously we have to challenge these assumptions and seek to recruit out potential friends into actively helping our cause and/or passively supporting it by not condemning or taking any demanded action against active anti-Semites otherwise we may as well pack our bags and go home. Can any proponent of this view give any cogent argument of its intellectual or strategic veracity? I doubt it, but many will no doubt whine that it has value; to which we must reply that it does indeed have some value rhetorically but as with any rhetoric that rhetorical value must not deceive us of a rhetorical argument factual and intellectual veracity. Otherwise we can only ever end up arguing absurdities within absurdities, which is about as useful to the anti-Semitic cause as a plot of land on the surface of the sun.

In summary then if you use the ‘anti-Semitism is merely a charge jews make against people they don’t like’ argument as anything more than a useful rhetorical tool; which is limited not universal in its useful application, then you merely argue by implication that anti-Semitism and criticism of the jews is simply irrational and that therefore your own criticisms of jews; however strong or mild, are also irrational and intellectually and evidentially unfounded.

So please, please stop using this argument, because against most opponents capable of rational cognition you will become a cropper when they point out the logical implications of your own arguments to you in a reduction to absurdity.

This was originally posted at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...meone-who.html
__________________
 
Old June 23rd, 2010 #4
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

A Pleasant Surprise: John Beaty's 'The Iron Curtain over America'


John Beaty’s ‘The Iron Curtain over America’, which was published in 1951 and which has been reissued in new editions at least five times and had been reprinted eleven times between 1951 and 1954 according to the undated 5th edition that I have acquired in PDF (hence the lack of a full reference), is unusual in English-language anti-Semitic literature and especially so in that genre after the conclusion of the Second World War. What makes it unusual is firstly the obvious erudition of the author, in that Beaty himself had acquired a PhD before the outbreak of said war and the amount of research that went into and is evident in ‘The Iron Curtain over America’ is considerable. Most post-Second World War anti-Semitic treatises are largely unreferenced and obviously lack any serious research into their subject matter in that they make use of commonly known anti-Semitic charges and the evidence to support them without trying to innovate or check their case only contributing at maximum a few newspaper references or reproductions in an attempt to appeal to the contemporary reader.

Beaty is decidedly different thoughout ‘The Iron Curtain over America’. I was surprised, and rather pleased, to find that Beaty had used excellent sources for his case in so far as he quotes standard works such as the jewish Encyclopedias, authoritative books on everything from the history of Russia and the Ukraine to the Haskalah movement and he doesn’t make any charges that he does not substantiate with some evidence. It is also of note that Beaty does not simply drag out old accusations, but rather creates a new thesis using parts of old evidence combined with new evidence. Whether we believe those charges nearly sixty years on is quite another matter, but Beaty has shown himself truly worthy of some attention because he bucks the trend for post-war English language anti-Semitic literature.

The key to Beaty’s thesis is simple in that he believes and offers evidence for the theory that firstly the Ashkenazi jews are not really Semites at all, but rather descendents of the Khazar Khanate (what we generally call Kharazia) which in Beaty’s opinion means that Zionism’s case for the creation of Israel boiled down to a historical fabrication at best and an outright lie at worst. Secondly Beaty asserts, using Robert Wilton (as cited by Denis Fahey) and Nesta Webster [who may have also relied partly on Wilton and who certainly relied on sources similar to Wilton], that the Bolshevik revolution was almost entirely dominated by Ashkenazi jews and therefore can be considered a jewish revolution. Then Beaty moves onto the third part of his thesis and offers evidence, if at times somewhat thin, that Ashkenazi jews are heavily involved in working for the Soviet Union in the United States and are therefore a subversive threat to the United States and need to be dealt with accordingly where he concludes his thesis not taking it any further. Beaty also asserts, as an ancillary point, that US involvement in the Second World War was contrived and forced upon the country by Franklin D. Roosevelt and his cronies to support which he uses several published memories by senior members of Roosevelt’s administration, such as those by James Forrestal, as well as several works by leading historians of the time such as Charles Beard and Harry Elmer Barnes.

When Beaty wrote ‘The Iron Curtain over America’ the Khazar thesis was a somewhat esoteric idea among scholars of the jewish question and had been debated for many years in both the philo-Semitic and the anti-Semitic literature (at both the popular and academic levels). The Khazar thesis at the time that Beaty wrote was not a mainstay of anti-Semitic literature precisely (although it was part of the strongly Christian sub-genre), because it was viewed as rather irrelevant and it also suggested, in an age when intellectuals in general didn’t ignore the direct implications of evolution on humanity, that the [Ashkenazi] jews were just a bunch of either Slavs, Turks or Tartars. The Khazar thesis began to gain popularity from the formation of Israel in 1948 to provide anti-Semites with a way of attacking the jewish right to colonise Palestine and change it from an Arab country to a jewish country.

In effect anti-Semites realised that the basis of all Zionist ideology was the link between their Semitic heritage and the territory of Palestine so in order to attack this anti-Semites began switching to the Khazaria thesis for the origins of the Ashkenazim. It should also be noted that since before the Second World War anti-Semites had begun to largely ignore the two other major parts of the jewish community: the Sephardim and the Mizrahim.

This habit of focusing, to the exclusion of other jewish groups, on the Ashkenazim is of uncertain origin (as no author I have read or heard of has commented on this particular point), but is very likely the result of the reports of the jewish origin of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia combined with the large emigration of Ashkenazim from the Russian Empire from 1881 to 1914, which placed the Ashkenazim both at the centre of a shocking event [communist revolution and the destruction of the old order as well as a challenge to Western destiny] and also as an alien and often subversive mass at home (i.e. the habit of jews of confining themselves in self-created ghettos as well as providing considerable numbers of communist and left-wing activists and supporters). This combined with the lack of Mizrahim in Europe and the highly assimilated nature of the Sephardim lead to the focus being distorted and wholly aimed at the Ashkenazim who, although the largest of the jewish groups, were only part of the problem.

Once this focus became established in anti-Semitic thought the path was laid for anti-Semites to be able to adopt the Khazaria thesis without compromising their logic or focus (since the Sephardim and Mizrahim are of uncontested Semitic origin) to attack Israel. It is quite probable that with the lucid presentation of the Khazaria thesis, the link with communism (at a time when strong anti-Communism was expected among the ‘right wing’ in general and there was a strong belief in the conspiratorial nature of communism) and the large circulation of ‘The Iron Curtain over America’ that Beaty played a significant, perhaps key, part in spreading the Khazaria thesis among English-speaking anti-Semites. This is suggested by the fact that non-English language post Second World War anti-Semitic literature has far less of a focus on the Khazaria thesis and often doesn’t mention it at all. Like English language anti-Semitic literature before the Second World War there is a sub-genre of Christian anti-Semitic literature where mentions are more frequent (i.e. because the Khazaria thesis can be used to attack the notion that the [Ashkenazi] jews are ‘the Chosen people’ of YHWH/Hashem). As I have encountered (or have heard of) no major anti-Semitic treatises, let alone popular ones, that were purporting the Khazaria thesis: I am forced to conclude that Beaty must have had a significant role in popularising this argument among anti-Semites particularly in relation to their arguments regarding the Ashkenazim and Israel.

The Khazar thesis continues to this day to be a standard anti-Semitic argument used particularly against the Ashkenazim and Israel, but unfortunately the Khazaria thesis for the origin of the Ashkenazim after a period of scholarly controversy from the 1960s to the 1980s has largely been discarded on the basis that genetic studies of Ashkenazim show little or no trace of potential Khazar genetic material, but rather a clear majority of Semitic genetic material (to the extent that some have asserted that the Ashkenazim are the genetic cousins of the Arabs of Palestine, which is a fairly logical position). This has all been neatly and ably summarised by the lay authority on the Khazars; Kevin Alan Brook, who concludes, in his authoritative summary work on Khazaria (1), that there is very little real evidence for this thesis beyond the original cause of its creation: i.e. scholarly conjecture concerning the historical documents, which the genetic evidence has discredited (as well as fresh scholarly analysis which has, persuasively, argued that the Khazar conversion to Judaism only affected the elite and that the population in general maintained their beliefs, which were largely pagan but Islam and Nestorian Christianity were also strongly represented). Brook states this in spite of his overt sympathy for the Khazaria thesis for the origin of the Ashkenazim and as any good scholar: he refuses to let his personal feelings get in the way of his scholarship (an all too common occurrence among the slums of academia).

Unfortunately modern anti-Semites in general are not as intellectually rigorous as Beaty was in his time, we after all cannot blame him for using the Khazaria thesis since it was a valid intellectual position that could be supported by the academic research of the time, and have not investigated what they purport as thoroughly as Beaty looked into his arguments before he made them. Had they done so then they would look to evolve their arguments in the face of the literature that had discredited the Khazaria thesis and sought instead to deal with the scholarly reality rather than try to use Arthur Koestler’s ‘The Thirteenth Tribe’ (which Brook often addresses in his ‘The Jews of Khazaria’) and the jew Benjamin Freedman’s ‘Facts are Facts’, which is largely just a rehash of the Khazaria thesis that predates Beaty by four years but was not as popular or as mainstream [i.e. Freedman’s work at this time was largely circulated around Conde McGinley’s ‘Common Sense’ milieu of which he was a financial supporter as a so-called ‘former jew’], as evidence. Freedman’s work in particular relies not on the presentation of evidence, but rather on his habit of claiming that as a jew and ‘insider in the jewish conspiracy’ he had a particular authority to comment on such matters (without evidence and often strangely [yes I am being sarcastic] rehashing and giving credence to old, often incorrect, anti-Semitic arguments against the Babylonian Talmud).

I am tempted to think that modern anti-Semites are just incredibly lazy and don’t want to do serious research into the jewish question. As if they weren’t lazy then they wouldn’t still be producing the same old arguments with the same evidence as was innovated in some cases as long ago as the early 18th century [I am specifically thinking of the old anti-Babylonian Talmud arguments here, which were originally made by the learned Johann Andreas Eisenmenger in his ‘Entdectkes Judenthum’ and then popularised over a century later by August Roehling in his ‘Der Talmudjude’]! However then I remember that even in earlier epochs when serious research was more common among anti-Semites: the majority of anti-Semitic works simply repeated old charges, particularly those deriving from Christianity, such as deicide [not that I am unsympathetic to the charge, but it isn’t exactly a useful argument in this day and age], and did not innovate new ones. The ones that innovated were the ones we tend to remember and that receive prominence in the discussions of anti-Semitic literature that are so common today in academia: what do not receive prominence at those works that simply repeated old arguments that were so common in Germany and France in the 19th century. It therefore seems that anti-Semites throughout the ages rely on a relative few to do the research, while they bawl out their old arguments and a few new ones at the top of their lungs.

We have a similar issue when we come to the second part of Beaty’s thesis in that much of his argument, although sourced, is dubious in the light of modern research. The ‘jewish bolshevik’ lists of Wilton have been addressed by Semitic Controversies at an earlier date (2): hence there is a need to go back over them in detail with the exception of saying that prior to previous assertions Lenin does indeed appear to have been part jewish on his mother’s side (his maternal grandfather to be precise). They are however completely unreliable as they bring together large amounts of individuals from different time periods between 1917-1921 without putting them in the context of their individual administration, invent ministries and individuals and misstate the activity, position and/or importance of many of the individuals that did in fact exist.

This doesn’t stop these lists of being a normal anti-Semitic argument and being used as ‘proof’ of the ‘jewish nature’ of bolshevism. This rather obscures the intellectually valid that jews were significantly overrepresented in the both the Russian revolutions of 1917 and has allowed numerous jewish academics writing on the subject in detail or in passing to assert that jewish involvement was minimal, which has been put down rather generously by Erich Haberer to be a reaction to ‘anti-Semitic demagoguery’ (3). Where-as on a personal level I would ascribe it in part to this, but more to the conscious need to reduce the role of the jews in such a controversial event to prevent harm from coming to the jewish academics themselves as well as the additional consideration of providing a way to promote their work as being ‘anti-anti-Semitic’ (and hence being cited, lauded and purchased by those seeking to discredit the anti-Semitic arguments and evidence on this point).

Beaty here is simply repeating what had been argued for over thirty years before the publication of ‘The Iron Curtain over America’ and was then still regarded as quite probably true given that the information was from eyewitnesses who had been there at the time (4) and the Soviet Union of Joseph Stalin wasn’t exactly forthcoming about the role of jews in the Bolshevik revolution. It also worth noting that Beaty’s book was published just before the beginning of the ‘purge’ trials of 1952-53, which were directly towards ‘rootless cosmopolitans’, which included a significant proportion of communist jews. Therefore we cannot blame Beaty for giving credence to these assertions as the sources he cites were good quality at the time (as both Denis Fahey and Nesta Webster were amongst the minority of anti-Semitic authors who spent a considerable amount of time meticulously researching their work [and hence should be respected for doing so]), but their evidence has only been called into question and debunked in the decades after Beaty published ‘The Iron Curtain over America’ in 1951.

Therefore although we can’t fault Beaty for his assertion: we can fault those who would use Beaty or his sources, Fahey and Webster (both of whom are regularly read and cited by anti-Semites), as ‘proof’ of the ‘jewish bolshevik’ thesis. Perhaps it is easier to cite such lists than to have to sit down and read around the area and come up with a water-tight case? Whatever the reasons for their use: these lists should not be used in any way, shape or form to make an anti-Semitic argument: the result will only be to discredit anti-Semitism as an intellectually valid position and open yourself up to attack.

The third part of Beaty’s thesis that large numbers of jews were involved in working for the Soviet Union against the United States is on far safer ground as we need only recall the espionage trials of the 1940s and 50s to realise that numerous jews did indeed work for the Soviet Union as spies in the United States. Names such as Judith Coplon, Morris and Lona Cohen, David and Ruth Greenglass, Harry Gold, George Koval, Morton and Helen Sobell, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg etc are not uncommon (and all of whom were jewish by-the-way), but we also note that this thesis is slightly overstated by Beaty in so far as yes a significant number of those spying for the Soviet Union in the United States were jews, but there were also numerous spies who were not jewish or had any connection to jews such as Alan Nunn May, Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald McClean etc (all four of whom were British, but served the Soviet Union in part in the United States).

It is also undeniable that many non-jewish spies did have close contact with jews as for example Whittaker Chambers’ wife, Esther Shemitz, was jewish and Klaus Fuchs’ (who was German not jewish as often alleged) Soviet handler, Ruth Kuczynski, was also jewish. It is also worth noting that Kim Philby’s first wife, Alice ‘Litzi’ Friedman, was jewish (as well as a Soviet agent), but she and Philby split up when Philby buried his past to allow himself to become part of British Intelligence although they didn’t officially divorce till 1946 and were friends for years afterwards (hence why I have included Philby as not having any important connection with jews in regards to his espionage activities in the United States). However this does not concur wholly with Beaty’s position that jews were necessarily a threat as Soviet spies since there were many prominent anti-Communist jews at this time of which Roy Cohn, the famous associate of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the probable cause of McCarthy’s attack on the army and his ultimate downfall, and Isaac Don Levine (the editor of ‘Plain Talk’, which claimed among other dubious things that Karl Marx was an anti-Semite (5)) are perhaps the best known along with former jewish communists turned strong anti-communists such as the previously mentioned Arthur Koestler.

In essence Beaty’s argument is that because many of the communists who came to the United States from the 1880s to the 1940s were jewish: therefore we must see the jewish community as being a threat because it has provided a disproportionate amount of these recruits. This however is not cogent in so far as many of the spies were also of Russian or German origin, if one is determining origin by country of birth, and that therefore Beaty’s pro-German hymn, which forms Chapter I of ‘The Iron Curtain over America’, is hypocritical for one could easily label many of Soviet agents as German and/or jewish. So should the United States have taken special action against the German-American or Russian-American community accordingly? The answer is of course no, but what is cogent about Beaty’s thesis on this point is that it assumes that jews are biologically different to Europeans and therefore think differently.

Therefore Beaty implies that we cannot consider them to be of the same mental processes as say a German or a Russian (although Beaty believes, for unknown reasons, that the Rus and the Slavs were both Aryan peoples [the Rus are debatable, but the Slavs are agreed not to be by everyone but Slavs]). Beaty never goes into this in detail, but if he had done so then his thesis would have been far more cogent (if perhaps less popular) in so far as it would have offered a rationale as to why the jews should receive special attention from the intelligence and security services and for why the German or Russian communities should not receive the same. That said however one cannot tar the jews with all being communists or all communists being jews (as Nesta Webster herself rightly pointed out), but rather one can notice that a significantly disproportionate amount of Soviet agents were jewish and that communism, or rather marxism in general, was one of the two most important political movements inside the jewish community, along with Zionism and various points in-between, in both the United States and abroad. However Beaty did not argue this in detail so to go into it beyond what has been said would be beyond the scope of this discussion. It should not be said I am not sympathetic to this thesis, because I am, but I find it to be intellectually incorrect, which is why it requires criticism.

So although we can say that jews were significantly and disproportionally involved in sabotage and espionage for the Soviet Union: we cannot hold the equation that Beaty tries to make, i.e. of communism and bolshevism being jewish phenomena, as being valid. That said however we can reasonably argue that jews have historically formed a ‘fifth column’ in their host society and that the significant and disproportionate amount of Soviet agents of jewish origin can be held to be an extension of this.

In summary then Beaty’s ‘The Iron Curtain over America’ is an excellent example of what anti-Semitic literature should be: it is well-researched and well thought out. It is written in a clear and concise style that makes it very readable and it doesn’t sacrifice much content to maintain its flow. That is what anti-Semitic literature should be like and I can well imagine that in 1951, when it was first published, ‘The Iron Curtain over America’ would have made very convincing reading and that is as it should be (this is indicated by the fact that it went through eleven printings in three years, which is without doubt close to a best seller). However in 2010 we cannot hold Beaty’s thesis to be cogent any longer, because much of its facts and arguments have been discredited by scholarly research that Beaty himself could not have possibly predicted and Beaty thesis itself is rather overstretched in terms of the evidence he presents to support. However when all is said and done: Beaty’s ‘The Iron Curtain over America’ is truly an admirable bit of work that we cannot help but admire the author, John Beaty, for producing and doing so well out of.

References


(1) Kevin Alan Brook, 2006, ‘The Jews of Khazaria’, 2nd Edition, Rowman & Littlefield: New York
(2) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...k-debacle.html
(3) Erich Haberer, 2004, ‘Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth Century Russia’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. xi
(4) I have provided numerous quotations to this effect in my ongoing ‘Sources on Jews and Communism’ series on Semitic Controversies.
(5) Zygmund Dobbs, 1949, ‘Karl Marx: Father of Modern Anti-Semitism’ in Isaac Don Levine (Ed.), 1976, ‘Plain Talk: An Anthology from the Leading Anti-Communist Magazine of the 40s’, 1st Edition, Arlington House: New York, pp. 400-404

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...atys-iron.html
__________________
 
Old June 24th, 2010 #5
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Challenging Rabbi David Eidensohn to a Debate


I wrote the below letter to Rabbi David Eidensohn (alternatively Dovid Eidensohn, which he prefers) of ‘jewhaters’ (http://www.jewhaters.com/) several months ago challenging him to a frank and open debate that would be published on Semitic Controversies and ‘jewhaters’. I thought it apt to publish it to serve a specimen letter to jews if one wishes to challenge them to debate. As in it I qualify what I specifically know about and what I can and cannot reasonably discuss, which is an important part of the beginning of any anti-Semitic debate.

Unfortunately Rabbi Eidensohn; although initially accepted my invitation, he refused to get into specific issues despite my best efforts to do so and was far more interested in learning more about me than he was in the ‘frank debate’ his website promised. Eventually Rabbi Eidensohn claimed; in effect, that I was so evil that he wouldn’t debate me (an extremely bad cop-out to be sure) and made death threats against me. I have already written about my encounter with Eidensohn in some detail (this can be found at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ith-rabbi.html), but I thought that my open letter would help the anti-Semitic community construct their own such letters of challenge if that is their wish.

If any other jew wishes to debate me in Rabbi Eidensohn's absense then they are more than welcome and an email to [email protected] will do the trick to begin such an exchange.

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

Rabbi Eidensohn,

After a short correspondence on this subject with my good friend; Lionaxe (a sometime correspondent of yours), I thought it apt to write you a note to the effect that I would like to propose a duologue on the subject on jewish history and the role of the jew in history. My friend informs me that you are open to debate and having read ‘jewhaters’ I thought it might be an idea to write to you.

I write to you as what would be characterised as an ‘anti-Semite’ in the strongest sense of that word as it is usually applied; disregarding the intellectual worth or preciseness of the term here, with the view to understanding the subject of my research; the jewish question, from a new angle (i.e. discussing ideas with a learned jew rather than the rabid and overly-paranoid zealots [secular or religious] found in the general jewish Diaspora). However; I would distinguish my own thoughts and cognitive frameworks as regards the jewish question from those commonly labelled as ‘anti-Semites’ since; as you might appreciate, that label stretches out a long way over various schools of thought in regards to jewry. It also; as you are I am sure aware, is always being distorted and many (unsuccessful) attempts have been made to extend this term to encompass critical positions on Israel and any discussion of what can only be described as jewish ethnocentrism, but what would be more accurately described as the jewish racial consciousness. In this I consider myself; and am considered by many others of my acquaintance, as an informed; but rational, critic of jews and jewry.

However I should like to make it clear that my interest and area of knowledge is heavily based in the historical arena and does not overlap very much beyond a general; and in some cases specific, understanding of Judaism, the Torah commentaries, religious notables and jewish mysticism. What I mean by this is that I comprehend Talmudic discussion but have not devoted myself to a minute study of (the immense) literature there-of and nor do I intend to, but I am very aware of the historical details surrounding specific religious figures. For example Sabbatai Zvi and the sect of loyal followers; known as the Donmeh as well as the Sabbatians who returned to what was to become the Pale (and who ultimately Bakan argues became the precursors of Sigmund Freud and ‘psychoanalysis’).

If you would like to discuss anti-Semitism in terms of common myths then I would also be happy to oblige since in order to come to a rational criticism of jews and jewry: I insist that a study of all anti-jewish arguments made throughout the considerable literature on the subject be studied and either accepted, partially accepted, tentatively accepted or rejected.

I would like to discuss; as before stated, jewish history and the role of the jew in history: in so far that history can only be properly be understood my understanding the material upon which actions in time are based. Since I consider jewry to be one of the major forces in history it would be folly not to undertake a through and critical examination of them. I don’t promise that you will like my conclusions or my arguments, but I do promise an educated duologue where we will both learn something even if that is just that we have confirmed both of our positions since we can never be a-like since we are opposites on that most important level: race.

Perhaps an apt place to begin such a discussion would be to ask: how do you as a learned jew account for the persecution you have received throughout history regardless of where you have gone? Do you subscribe to the thesis that anti-Semitism is economically motivated which would seem based on the assumption that the jewish people must therefore have some kind of superior business acumen?

Or do you perhaps take a broader view of the subject matter. As in do you account that in some cases jews were themselves responsible for their own persecution (for example in the infamous Reuchlinist/anti-Reuchlinist debates just before the beginning of the Lutheran Reformation caused by a jewish man named Pfefferkorn denouncing the Talmuds)? Do you consider anti-Semitism (and ergo by current Israel/jewish definition anti-Zionism) as inherently irrational; as many of your kinsfolk have maintained, or do you perhaps again take a broader view and maintain that ‘anti-Semitism’ is rational in some instances and irrational in others?

You are; of course, free to decline this invitation: if you would like to do so please communicate this as soon as is convenient. I would; of course, be happy to accommodate your schedule (having looked into you a little bit) since I also have periods when I am extremely busy and others when I have less required of me.

Yours respectfully,

Karl Radl,


This was originally posted at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ensohn-to.html
__________________
 
Old June 30th, 2010 #6
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

In Brief: Socialism before Jews?


Unfortunately this evening I don't have time enough to write anything particularly substantive for Semitic Controversies, but I thought what I would present to you is an indicative quote from an old pro-jewish history of socialism in Britain. It indicates that socialism as an intellectual and political position was not always based on the ravings of the diseased minds of its jewish ‘prophets’. I quote:

‘Quite different from the attitude of the rebellious aristocrat was that of the fighting democrat, William Cobbett. Though in his cheap weekly edition of the Register, begun in the autumn, 1816, he represented Labour as the creator of all wealth and the foundation of the State (Political Register, November 2, 1816), he soon appealed to the Luddites to desist from destroying machinery, and to join, instead, the movement for Parliamentary reform. Not machinery, but oligarchic rule, the debased state of currency, the heavy load of taxation consequent upon the enormous expenditure for war, pensions and sinecures, borough mongering and Jewish Stock Exchange jobbery, were at the bottom of the misery of the working classes.’ (1)

This suggests to us that at least some socialists were aware of the problem posed by the jews and their habit of exploiting the nations, which give them shelter from the last nation they exploited. This suggests that pursing further research in the nature of this early anti-Semitic socialism would be of interest to the anti-Semites of today and tomorrow. I will be undertaking such research in the near future, but I cannot promise a series of articles upon the subject until I have gained an understanding of what the scale of this anti-Semitic feeling in socialism was.

References


(1) Max Beer, 1929, [1919], ‘A History of British Socialism’, Vol. I, 2nd Edition, G. Bell and Sons: London, p. 135

This was originally posted at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...fore-jews.html
__________________
 
Old July 1st, 2010 #7
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Is Yuri Ivanov’s ‘Caution: Zionism!’ anti-Semitic?


‘Caution: Zionism’ (1) is one of the oddest books I have ever read on the subject of the jews, because although it is a staunchly anti-Zionist work written from a Marxist-Leninist perspective (of Soviet Union post-Stalinist orthodoxy): it has also been credited with being an important example of ‘Soviet anti-Semitism’ by prominent jewish authors on ‘neo-Nazism’ and anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe such as Semyon Reznik. (2) As you; as my reader, might be aware I have long doubted the veracity of this claim in so far as it tries to equate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, which are two very different intellectual stances as one can be anti-Semitic and not anti-Zionist as well as vice versa. It however must be confessed that most often anti-Semites are also anti-Zionists, but in addition that most anti-Zionists are not anti-Semites.

The separation of these different intellectual stances; although debatably linked, is difficult in practice. I will discuss this in detail elsewhere, but as it is related to Ivanov’s ‘Caution: Zionism’ I will briefly discuss this and offer my thoughts on how we can separate these two; often deliberately confused, positions.

One of the first rules of interpreting the evidence that you are taught in higher education is to ‘keep it simple’ and not to attach meaning that is not implicit in an argument or statement (for example reading anti-Semitism into a liberal’s criticism of Israel). The fact is that anti-Zionism is simply ‘opposition to Zionism’ or perhaps more specifically in the current context ‘opposition to the formation and/or the expansion of the jewish state of Israel’. While anti-Semitism is not the ‘irrational hatred of or opposition to the jewish people’, but rather simply ‘the view that jews are generally a negative part of a society’ (if we define it any other way, e.g. as ‘opposition to the jewish people’, we simply attach emotional points to our understanding of anti-Semitism leading to the conclusion that any criticism of jews is anti-Semitic).

We could get into a detailed discussion in support of my definitions and my criticism of the many other attempts to define the difference between the two intellectual stances in addition to a discussion of the almost habitual attempts to equate the two as being the same thing. However I will avoid the first part and briefly focus on the second to explain as simply as I can why it is such awful logic.

To explain the Zionist position let us use an example: a Marxist-Leninist jew could try to argue that anti-Semitism is anti-Communism because Karl Marx was; and a significantly disproportionate number of European and American communists were, of jewish origin, which we wouldn’t consider any more cogent, but that is the essence of the Zionist argument. In so far as they ‘reason’ that Israel is a jewish state and anti-Zionism is therefore opposing (and viewing) jews as being a negative part of society and is therefore anti-Semitic. The problem with that logic is that although Israel is officially a jewish state not all its citizens are jews: many of them are; for example, Muslims and Christians. Therefore for the Zionist logic to be true anybody who criticised say the United Kingdom would have to be not only anti-British, but anti-Christian as well since the United Kingdom is officially a Christian country and therefore one could not help but equate the two if the Zionist logic was to hold true.

It is obvious then that the Zionist attempts to conflate the two stances are largely based on absurd premises that if applied to other like situations would cause all kinds of uncomfortable intellectual repercussions; such as Christians who criticise say British foreign policy of close alliance, the so-called ‘special relationship’, with the United States logically being anti-Christian. Bizarre: isn’t it? However that is what the Zionist conflation of the two terms, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, is essentially doing.

Perhaps the worst and most damning point of all about this Zionist habit is the fact that it is selectively applied so that it is only Israel which cannot be critiqued therefore implying in the logic that because Israel is jewish it is somehow special and above criticism (i.e. that further implies that jews are special and above criticism, which is also easily equated with the concept of the jews being ‘Chosen of Hashem’ and therefore are the ‘teachers and priests of the world’ etc). Of course Zionist authors; like the infamous Alan Dershowitz, claim that they ‘criticise’ and ‘disagree’ with Israel (as well as endorse other ‘reasonable’ ‘criticism’ and ‘disagreement’) and it is a ‘question of degree’. The obvious and damning response to that is: from whence is this ‘question of degree’ objectively; relatively speaking, determined? After all if it cannot be determined with a relatively decent amount of objectivity then how is it anything other than a sophistic way of asserting: ‘I determine who is an anti-Semite and who is not!’ With that we can dispense with the debate over what is anti-Zionism and what is anti-Semitism and return to our original focus: Yuri Ivanov’s ‘Caution: Zionism!’ and whether it is anti-Semitic or not.

In regard to Ivanov’s ‘Caution: Zionism!’ we must address the assertion made by authors such as Reznik that it is ‘anti-Semitic’ and this is fortunately relatively easy to do. The idea that ‘Caution: Zionism!’ is anti-Semitic is rather absurd and is based on the above discussed equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism without the necessary recognition of the considerable distance between the two intellectual stances. It could be argued that Ivanov uses ‘anti-Semitic charges’, but this would be placing Ivanov’s argument well out of its context. The ‘anti-Semitic charge’ that you can most easily associate with Ivanov’s work is the ‘jewish conspiracy’ (and the often congruent position, that is also endorsed in a different expression by marxists, international finance) as Ivanov often discusses ‘Zionist control’ (which is not the same thing as ‘jewish control’ in the same way criticism of the ‘Israel Lobby’ is not the same as criticism of the ‘jewish lobby’), but at the same time Ivanov makes it often implicitly and explicitly clear that when he is talking about Zionism and its relation to jews: it does not include jews who are anti-Zionist and particularly those who are anti-Zionist and of a Marxist-Leninist persuasion.

It is no fault of Ivanov’s that those authors who are pro-Zionism or pro-Zionist explicitly and implicitly identify Zionism with the specific interests of the jewish people as a whole and that Zionism as an ideology is exclusive to the jewish people. The idea that Ivanov is anti-Semitic, because he rejects Zionism and therefore the jewish people is obviously absurd. If it was true that the rejection of Zionism was anti-Semitic then anti-Semitism itself wouldn’t have historically and currently have factions that are for and against Zionism: now would it?

Ivanov’s criticism of the jews is limited to their history, their religion (i.e. Judaism), their capitalistic practices throughout history and the strong jewish nationalist currents throughout jewish history. Ivanov doesn’t criticise Marxist-Leninist jews; which he would have to if he was anti-Semitic, but rather he only criticises Zionism and Ivanov rightly recognises that because Zionism is based on the assumption of a unique nationalist and racialistic identity of the jewish people that he has to criticise the aspects of jewish history which he believes have informed Zionist ideology. These are specifically: early jewish history, Judaism and jewish capitalists, which Ivanov implicitly and explicitly argues are deluding the ‘jewish masses’ with false promises and distracting; as well as dissuading, them from looking at the ‘objective economic conditions’, which would force ‘class struggle’ and ‘class war’ to occur leading the ‘jewish masses’ to support the Marxist-Leninist position and the Soviet Union.

It is really as simple as that, but yet Reznik; among others, makes a mountain out of a molehill and declares that Ivanov’s ‘Caution: Zionism’ is a ‘classic example’ of ‘Soviet anti-Semitism’. If Reznik and his fellow jewish ‘thinkers’ would simply step back for a moment and look at ‘Caution: Zionism’ rationally and dispassionately: they would see the book does not attack jews as a whole, but rather criticises general jewish behaviour at various points in history as being conducive to nationalism and Zionism: therefore leading; in Ivanov’s eyes, to a negative spiral necessarily contributing to the misery of the working class, which incidentally; according to Ivanov, the jews are a part in the Marxist-Leninist world.

How on earth is that anti-Semitic?

It is merely criticism of jews from a Marxist-Leninist perspective! It isn’t describing the jews as being a negative part of society: it is describing some jews and some gentiles as a negative part of society because they are capitalists or ‘delude the masses’.

For heaven’s sake: that is standard left-wing fare. What are we to do, but condemn the entire intellectual left for being ‘anti-Semitic’, because they criticise an action or two of Yahweh’s little darlings? Of course not, but this is; in effect, what Reznik et al’s argument is!

After all the one piece of Marxist-Leninist doctrine that Reznik et al have conveniently ‘forgotten’ is that nationalism in any form is; supposedly, a tool of the capitalist to divide the international working class and that there are no significant differences within the working class except those created and exploited by capitalists to keep labour from uniting against them. This realisation completely neutralises Reznik’s logic, but yet Reznik seems completely unaware of the implications of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy and rather prefers to see anti-Semitism being masked in Marxist-Leninism. What is Reznik going to tell us next? That he has seen Moses Maimonides in his gefilte fish? Reznik is but one of many jewish ‘thinkers’ who prefer to construct massive conspiracy theories about anti-Semites rather than deal with the cold, hard facts of our age, but yet when have jews not loved self-delusion and basking in their own falsely-created light?

My challenge to Reznik and his fellow ‘Soviet anti-Semitism’ theorists is to provide a systematic evidential basis for their claims rather than going off half-cock about a book that I severely doubt they have read let alone taken the trouble to try and understand.

Go on Reznik: I dare you…

References


(1) Yuri Ivanov, 1970, ‘Caution: Zionism!: Essays on the Ideology, Organisation and Practice of Zionism’, 1st Edition, Progress Publishers: Moscow. The edition is unstated in the PDF that I have acquired and in addition Jim Saleam and Alec Saunders who digitized it did not include the pagination.
(2) I am told by a friend who has had some correspondence with Reznik that he now lives in the United States although he is all but unknown to English-speaking audiences as he writes prolifically in Russian. Although some of his books have now been, or have begun to be, translated into English and have received typical laudatory reviews in parts of the mass media: he is still barely known to the Anglophone reading public.


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...nism-anti.html
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; July 1st, 2010 at 04:36 PM.
 
Old July 2nd, 2010 #8
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Study the Jew!


A Book Review of Alan Steinweis, 2008, 'Studying the Jew: Scholarly Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany', 2nd Edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge

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.

References


[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.

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...weis-2008.html
__________________
 
Old July 22nd, 2010 #9
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

In Brief: The Meaning of ‘Righteous among the Nations’


With the Associated Press running a news story regarding yet another fanciful tale of ‘holocaust survivor’ love: I thought it apt to briefly remark on an aspect of the story that might have passed many by. (1) That aspect; to be precise, is the idea of the ‘Righteous among the Nations’. This idea; of course, stems from the fundamental assumptions of Judaism, but we can quickly show that it is not quite as innocent as it might at first seem.

When one see’s the term; ‘Righteous among the Nations’, one assumes that it is a fairly quirky and innocuous label, but the logic of the term is what is suggestive to us. By awarding people this title the awarders; in this case broadly the jews as a people and Yad Vashem in particular, are stating by implication that the nations (i.e. non-Israel/gentiles and therefore non-jews) are not as a rule ‘righteous’. Therefore gentiles are inherently unrighteous and by that logic: ‘evil’ or prone to ‘evil deeds’.

This is implicitly directly contrasted with Israel (meaning the biological community of the jews in this case: as it does in Judaism) who are; by implication, inherently righteous and therefore ‘good’ or prone to ‘good deeds’.

This is; of course, rather less complementary than it at first seemed. As the award of being ‘Righteous among the Nations’ merely means you are no longer assumed to be inherently ‘evil’, but rather have some semblance of ‘good’ in you. What Yad Vashem; and the jews in general, are saying is in effect: you have aided the jews therefore you are good, because we; as the people of G-d say you are. However if you merely aided other gentiles then you would still be inherently ‘evil’ or prone to ‘evil deeds’, because you didn’t aid the Chosen of Yahweh/Hashem (who alone can award this status and will do for their own benefit not because of a humanitarian or humanist ideology).

If we follow this line of thought for a second we can see that it becomes even more ominous in its implications in so far as by awarding the status of being ‘righteous’ to one assumed to be ‘evil’ or prone to ‘evil deeds’. Yad Vashem; and the jews in general, are assuming the mantle explicitly given to them in Judaism whereby they become the priests of the world and world’s intermediaries with Yahweh/Hashem. Thereby they; as a biological group of Messiahs, and only they can deign to lift a non-jew out of their status of being inherently ‘evil’ or prone to ‘evil deeds’ and inform Yahweh/Hashem that this non-jew is really a ‘good servant’ of the jews and thus is to be rewarded.

Is this not assuming the mantle of Godhood falls upon the jews? After all who is determining what is ‘evil’ and what is ‘good’ in this case? The jews of course and the basis for this arbitrary determination is rooted in the jewish self-proclaimed status as the ‘Chosen People’ of Yahweh/Hashem. This seems silly and absurd to us, but that is what the individual jew and the sum of jews think they are: G-d or rather the divine representative(s) of G-d (and therefore gifted in knowing G-d’s mind). So the question we must logically answer is: whether you are interested in appeasing Yahweh/Hashem as your God? If not then why must you appease and kneel before the jews?

Ask yourself that and follow that thought-experiment to its ultimate conclusion and you will realise that where reason takes you is into the realm of rational opposition to the jews as a people or as we should call it: anti-Semitism.

References


(1) Monika Scislowska, ‘Former inmate recalls daring escape from Auschwitz’, 20th of July 2010, Associated Press. This is available at the following address: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100720/...om_auschwitz_1

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


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ous-among.html
__________________
 
Old August 4th, 2010 #10
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default In Brief: Kim Philby and the Jews

In Brief: Kim Philby and the Jews


Kim Philby is a name well-known in the world of espionage and spy thrillers as the best known member of the ‘Cambridge Spies’; who were five Soviet spies who worked their way into the British intelligence, diplomatic and royal establishment, and who is/are the subject of a considerable body of literature. (1)

What is less well-known and commented on is Philby’s relationship with the jews. Unfortunately there is a dearth of material in this area, (2) but from what we do know: we get a tantalizing suggestion that this would be an area that would benefit from careful research and intellectual exploration.

Philby’s relationship with the jews seems to have begun while he was at Cambridge when he began to actively self-identify first as a socialist and then as a communist. Philby probably began to sympathise with jews as a result of pro-jewish communist propaganda of this time and the assertion; oft made in communist literature up till the present day, that the jews are simply ‘scapegoats’ for ‘economic problems’. (3) Contributing to this was Philby’s deep emotional antipathy towards National Socialism; which he maligned as ‘fascism’, (4) and with the jew being perceived as the chief ‘victim’ and ‘scapegoat’ of ‘fascism’; regarded as they and are by leftists as ‘evil pseudo-capitalists’. It is thus understandable; if somewhat intellectually abhorrent, that Philby became something of a philo-Semite: to the extent of breaking off contact with the NKVD when the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939 was announced. (5)

When Philby left England in 1934 to perform some communist underground work in Austria: he; according to Phillip Knightley, ‘helped smuggle Jews and Communists out of Vienna’. (6) We should note in passing that Knightley rightly implies; although he probably did mean to do so, that many jews in Austria; notably in Vienna, were communists. (7) In the course of this smuggling out of communists and their jewish allies and co-conspirators: Philby met a jewess by the name of Litzi Friedmann (nee Alice Kohlmann) with whom he fell in love and promptly married. It is notable that both Philby and Friedmann were; by then, working directly for Soviet intelligence. Perhaps predictably their unnatural union did not last too long and the two split up in the mid to late 1930s: no source seems to have a precise idea of exactly when or why the couple split.

Having experienced the bitter taste of jewish skirt Philby decided that it perhaps really wasn’t for him; well at least not in the bedroom department and having to put up with a jewess as your wife, and proceeded to seduce and marry two non-jewish women: both of whom were blissfully unaware that their husband was a communist and an agent of the NKVD. It is interesting to note that the NKVD agent who probably recruited both Philby and Friedmann to work for Soviet intelligence was Edith Suschitzky: who was incidentally also a jewish communist.

Philby’s early flirtation with jewish skirt however may have caused his eventual downfall as a jewess; Flora Solomon, who Philby had felt the urge in 1934 to try to seduce (whether he was successful has not been ascertained) and then try to recruit as a Soviet intelligence agent in Western Europe. Solomon promptly informed MI5 in 1962; when it was most advantageous to do so, that Philby had tried to do this and this new information served as the immediate cause of the events that lead to Philby’s flight from Turkey to Moscow in 1963. (8)

Philby’s lack of recognition that jews were and are a problem; even in dialectical materialism, can be found in the fact that it has been reasonably conjectured that Philby was instrumental in getting several communist jews; such as Morris and Lona Cohen who has been spying on the United States for the Soviet Union, out before they were unmasked and brought to book for their crimes. (9)

We can summarise from this brief account of Philby’s relations with the jews that he was rather clueless about them and naively believed that they were ‘misunderstood’, ‘just like everyone else’ and the ‘scapegoats’ of horrid anti-Semitic capitalists. What Philby doesn’t seem to have figured out; even on his death bed, was that he had been used and abused by jews his whole life and that the great unhappiness he experienced as a result of his 1963 flight to Moscow and his subsequent cold treatment by the NKVD was significantly caused by the jewish skirt that he chased; as well as the secular halakhah of Karl Marx that he had so ardently espoused, in his particularly deluded youth.


References


(1) An excellent literature review of the many works published on Kim Philby and the ‘Cambridge Spies’ can be found in Mikhail Lyubimov, Hayden Peake and Rufina Philby, 2003, ‘The Private Life of Kim Philby: The Moscow Years’, 2nd Edition, St. Ermin’s Press: London, pp. 297-363
(2) Perhaps the only works to discuss this at any length are Mark Aarons, John Loftus, 1991, ‘Ratlines: How the Vatican’s Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets’, 1st Edition, Heinemann: London and Mark Aarons, John Loftus, 1994, ‘The Secret War against the Jews: How Western Intelligence Betrayed the Jewish People’, 1st Edition, St. Martin’s Press: New York. Both these theses on this point are rebutted in summary by Lyubimov, Peake and Philby, Op. Cit., pp. 365-366. It is worth noting that John Loftus has been caught lying on television several times and even managed to cause a hate campaign against a family by telling the world at large that they were Islamic terrorists (when they weren’t even Muslims): his work in general makes spicy; and even salacious, reading, but is utterly improbable and absurd in its various theses usually relating to ‘Catholic-Nazi-Muslim conspiracies’.
(3) On this point see the jewish communist Daniel de Leon’s, 1921, ‘Anti-Semitism: Its Cause and Cure’, 1st Edition, Socialist Labor Party: New York. This is available online at the following address: http://www.marxists.org/archive/dele...ct/antisem.pdf. De Leon’s little booklet is still considered to be the premier marxist statement on anti-Semitism and ‘de Leonist’ analyses of the jewish question (predictably blaming everyone and everything, but the jews) as such are common.
(4) For an example of the; then as now, idiotic contemporary comparisons of this kind see Robert Brady, 1937, ‘The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism’, 1st Edition, Victor Gollancz: London.
(5) S. J. Hamrick, 2004, ‘Deceiving the Deceivers: Kim Philby, Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 19-21
(6) Kim Philby, 2002, [1968], ‘My Silent War: The Autobiography of a Spy’, 1st Edition, Random House: New York, p. x
(7) For two accounts of this please see Harriet Pass Freidenreich, 1991, ‘Jewish Politics in Vienna, 1918-1938’, 1st Edition, Indiana University Press: Indianapolis, pp. 84-114 and Jerry Muller, 2010, ‘Capitalism and the Jews’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 144-172. For the causes and extent of this relationship please see Lionel Kochan (Ed.), 1970, ‘The Jews in Soviet Russia since 1917’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York; Gisela Lebzelter, 1978, ‘Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918-1939’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: London, pp. 155-169; Erich Haberer, 2004, ‘Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia’, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York and Benjamin Pinkus, 1988, ‘The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York.
(8) Hamrick, Op. Cit., p. 7
(9) Ibid, p. 22

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

This was originally posted at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-and-jews.html
__________________
 
Old September 22nd, 2010 #11
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Today’s Jews

(22nd September 2010)


It was reported yesterday; by JWire, (1) that one Isabelle Shapiro has been ‘elected’ by Woollahra’s councillors; not doubt feeling guilty for their positive lack of genuflection before Yahweh’s little darlings, for one year. While this would not have been worth mentioning if Woollahra was a municipal area of little importance: Woollahra just happens to encompass some of the wealthiest and most prestigious neighbourhoods in Australia’s most famous city: Sydney.

The JWire article is largely reportage of little interest, but the author; Henry Benjamin, does let slip two points of particular interest to us in that he firstly points out that Shapiro does not originate from Australia but is in fact a wandering jew from South Africa. If we consider this: then two likely historical eventualities occur. These are as follows:

Firstly that Shapiro; and/or her jewish parents, left South Africa, because they were associated with the far left; a significant proportion of whose leaders were jewish in origin, (2) and the Afrikaaner government was so ungrateful as to suggest that justifying or actively participating in terrorist attacks and/or subversive activities was not conducive to the Shapiro family’s capability to be productive citizens of South Africa.

Secondly that Shapiro; and/or her jewish parents, left South Africa, because they felt that their opportunities for sustained ego fulfilment were limited by the brutal and indiscriminate negro violence that the advent of a venomously anti-Boer government; that was created and is still maintained in large part by her fellow members of the tribe, heralded.

Either possibility does not reflect well upon Shapiro and in fact indicates that Shapiro would not be a good mayor to have as she is only out for herself and couldn’t care a jot about anyone else: although she will; in time honoured political tradition, pretend to care deeply about everything from Mrs Webster’s issues with her neighbour’s hedge to Mr Porter’s habit of riding the local bus service all day and never getting off.

After all such concerns are put forth by those who are not of Israel and are therefore of no value to Shapiro who; as we are told she is an observant jewess, believes that the jews are the Chosen of Yahweh/Hashem and are biologically; not just religiously, entitled and even are specifically destined to rule the world and do what they wilt (and everyone else has to treat it as proverbial manna from heaven).

The second point of interest to us; relating to the biological origin of the Israel/non-Israel distinction in Judaism, is Benjamin’s deliberate implication that although the last observant jew who served as mayor of Woollahra was Leon Snider in 1944: there have been others. As to quote Benjamin:

‘The last identifying Jewish mayor in Woollahra was Leon Snider in 1944.’

What Benjamin means here; just to help those who are sceptical, is that the last mayor of Woollahra who practised Judaism was Leon Snider, but that there have been other jewish mayors of Woollahra who have not practised Judaism and therefore have not identified as such. In essence ‘identifying’ to Benjamin is jewish group slang for an observant; as opposed to an apostate or unobservant, jew. The sceptical can confirm this easily by reading a popular; i.e. written for gentiles, guide to Judaism of which there are a great many.

I would suggest that the residents of Woollahra do something about their new mayor (who lets not forget was not elected by them but their ‘councillors’ who supposedly represent them); who necessarily believes herself to be some form of god-like being, before she runs away with her constituent’s proverbial savings.

Down with Shapiro!

References


(1) http://www.jwire.com.au/news/isabell...oollahra/11772 (Accessed: 22/09/2010)
(2) See the following Semitic Controversies article for a summary: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...apartheid.html

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

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...mber-2010.html
__________________
 
Old September 22nd, 2010 #12
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Tikkun globally, Olem locally!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old November 24th, 2010 #13
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default The Socialist History Society does Auschwitz

The Socialist History Society does Auschwitz


I have written several articles pointing out firstly the significant over-representation of jews in the Socialist History Society and secondly the fact that jews regularly get a mention (and a sob story or two) in the ‘Socialist History Society Newsletter’. In the issue for October 2010 we find yet another mention in the article on pages 8 to 10 entitled ‘Searching for Albert!’ by the jew David Horsley. Horsley reveals himself to be a member of the bandit tribe by boldly declaring on page 8 that his mother; Judith Salinger, was jewish. Horsley does not mention whether his father also happened to blessed with Yahweh’s holy ichor, but in halakhah Horsley would be indisputably considered to be a full member of Israel (i.e. biologically jewish and therefore an Israelite) irrespective of his father’s origins.

This is of interest to us in that it confirms previous suggestions I have made that the tribe is also heavily overrepresented in the membership of the SHS as well as in its officers if we are to judge by the last several issues of the Socialist History Society Newsletter, which have revealed at least one different jew (and often more) to be a prominent member; or supporter, of the SHS per issue.

The article itself is largely a personal narrative of Horsley’s search for his grandfather’s; one Albert Salinger, grave and the ‘truth’ about how Albert spent his last years in the Third Reich (he died on the 8th of December 1941 in Berlin and was buried in the jewish cemetery there [and no the gravestones weren’t made into a road a-la ‘Schindler’s List’]). Horsley is rather puzzled when he comes across something of a contradiction to the established account in that he does not understand why a jew should have been allowed to have been buried in a jewish graveyard without harassment and that graveyard to have survived the alleged attempt by the Third Reich; with the SS as the supposed executors, to wipe out jewry.

Horsley also notes an interesting fact that he discovered in his research on page 9 in so far as: ‘the Nazis kept that cemetery and a Jewish hospital open all through the war years’. This seems to have caused some discomfort to Horsley who had previously believed that the jews had just been hauled off en-masse to Auschwitz and gassed without much ceremony. After all why on earth would you keep two such institutions going; which would inevitably consume large amounts of precious scarce resources, in the war years if there weren’t substantial numbers of jews in Berlin to use the facilities?

Horsley solves this intellectual mid-life crisis by simply pretending it doesn’t exist and implies that it was all a conspiracy on the part of the nasty Nazis to deceive the jews so they could gas them and goes on to compare the policies of the Third Reich to that more common marxist bête-noire: Apartheid. In an attempt to nod to the established orthodox rigmarole of ‘survivor accounts’ Horsley declares that his mother; Judith, didn’t want to talk about the ‘holocaust’ because her mother; who remains nameless throughout, was ‘gassed’ at Auschwitz. How Horsley knows this is uncertain, but we may assume it is just assumption based on popular perceptions of the ‘holocaust’. However this nod to orthodoxy doesn’t stop Horsley’s underlying surprise and apparent doubts at having been effectively lied to about the fate of Berlin jewry by his teachers coming across to the reader.

We cannot help but left wondering if Horsley is going to say the Kaddish ahar Hakk’vura (the mourning/burial prayer) over his grandfather’s grave or whether he is going to declare that Alfred was an example of Kiddush Hashem (a jewish martyr)…

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

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...iety-does.html
__________________
 
Old January 4th, 2011 #14
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default Moshe Katsav the Rapist

Moshe Katsav the Rapist


As you may have read recently ex-Israeli President Moshe Katsav has just been convicted of being a [serial] rapist by an Israeli court in Tel Aviv. The rapes and general sexual harassment took place during Katsav’s term in office between 2000 and 2007, which indicates to us the sheer scale of Katsav’s criminal activities. What is particularly interesting to us is an article written by the Jewish Telegraphic Association (or JTA for short) writer Dina Kraft entitled ‘Katsav rape conviction hailed as watershed moment’, which has been published in several major jewish media organs in the United States. (1)

First of all Kraft points out that Katsav’s Freudian habits were not limited to one particular jewess but rather span numerous victims who no doubt are going to be demanding compensation from just about anyone they can vaguely link to Katsav. Kraft even goes as far as to suggest that this sexual abuse was widely known about by Israeli politicians and the media in general: she implies; of course, that a massive cover-up took place but also tries to excuse this typically immoral behaviour by claiming that male jews see it as part of the perks of their government positions to sexually harass and even rape the jewish (no word about the non-jewish) females employed there.

Kraft even claims; by way of indirect apology for Katsav’s actions, that Israel is a ‘nation in arms’ with a ‘machismo’ bent, but this is a little much given that Israel maybe a country with a lot of ostensive military power but as has often been remarked by military analysts the performance of its troops on the ground leaves quite a lot to be desired in spite of the image projected by its propagandists at home and abroad. That said as Shahak and Mezvinsky have observed Israelis have engaged in more than their fair share of atrocities against civilians and then proceeded to try and claim that jews are special and therefore don’t have to abide by the same code as mere mortals. (2) This is also the essence of much of Finkelstein’s critique of Israel’s use of the ‘holocaust’ as a shield and a weapon to silence its enemies. (3)

Secondly Kraft argues that the conviction of Katsav is a landmark in Israeli society, because this is essentially the first time that one of the inevitably corrupt Israeli high officials has actually been successfully prosecuted for even the most basic of crimes. Corruption is; of course, an epidemic in Israel even more so than in the People’s Republic of China as unlike the Chinese the jews are almost completely egocentric and have little to no conception of the good of the group and tend to only pay lip service to their stated principles. Another example of this is the ongoing case against the former; and supposedly moderate, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who is currently in the process of being tried for multiple white collar crimes revolving around his personal finances, corporate connections and abuse of public funds.

Is there any other country in the world where corruption is endemic but yet we are told so little about it in the West? While of course the so-called ‘Israel Lobby’ drones on about how wonderful Israel and how much it is contributing to the world in general (anyone think about the implications of that argument so often used by Zionists and its context in Judaism).

If Kraft is correct and this does mark a watershed in Israeli society then we can expect to see a raft of cases brought against Israeli public figures for everything from rape to various white collar crimes or worse. However I think we can reasonably remark that this isn’t exactly likely to occur if what Kraft suggests is true: since the political and media powers that kept silent about Katsav until formal allegations began to be made aren’t going to go out of their way to open their closets for all their skeletons to be exposed.

The only thing about this whole case that does seem to remarkable to me is the fact that Katsav didn’t try to use either the ‘holocaust’ or ‘anti-Semitism’ as a defence for raping and sexually harassing the female members of the tribe…

References


(1) http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/...ment_20110103/ [Last Accessed: 04/01/2011]
(2) Israel Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky, 1999, ‘Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel’, 1st Edition, Pluto: London
(3) Norman Finkelstein, 2001, ‘The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’, 2nd Edition, Verso: New York


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

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...av-rapist.html
__________________
 
Old April 30th, 2011 #15
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default In Brief: The Trotsky Quote

In Brief: The Trotsky Quote


Recently there has been an upsurge in the use of a particular quote that has been attributed to the leading jewish Bolshevik Leon Trotsky. (1) This quote is as follows:

‘We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny, not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one.

We mean the word 'red' literally, because we shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars quake and pale by comparison. The biggest bankers across the ocean will work in the closest possible contact with us. If we win the revolution, we shall establish the power of Zionism upon the wreckage of the revolution's funeral, and we shall became a power before which the whole world will sink to its knees. We shall show what real power is. By means of terror and bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence... At the moment, our young men in their leather jackets, who are the sons of watchmakers from Odessa, Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, know how to hate everything Russian! What pleasure they take in physically destroying the Russian intelligentsia - officers, academics and writers!’
(2)

We should first remark that this quote is obviously very similar to what I have termed the Selenkov quotation; which I have previously discussed, that 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.’ (3)

In my discussion of the Selenkov quotation I pointed out that there was no reason to regard it as genuine as the wording makes no sense from an avowedly Marxist-Leninist perspective and to claim a Bolshevik leader would talk in a fashion more akin to the radical right than their own radical left language was nonsensical unless the quotation could be substantiated evidentially. We can see that this supposed Trotsky quotation suffers from the same basic problem in that it uses the language of the radical right rather than the radical left, which stems from the apparent inability of the originator(s) to use Marxist-Leninist phraseology and replacing this way of thinking and arguing with how their own ideology (in this case something to do with the Russian far right) interprets what Marxism-Leninism is really saying.

For example the Trotsky quotation makes the considerable mistake of claiming; in effect, that Trotsky was a Zionist when Marxism-Leninism and Zionism were (often violently) competing ideologies among the jews in Russia and the early Soviet Union; in which Trotsky played a not inconsiderable role, went so far as to provide a counter to the Zionist tendency by assigning jews their own oblast or autonomous region. Indeed Trotsky spent a considerable portion of his early career fighting and speaking against Zionism as a competing self-solution to the jewish question!

The Trotsky quotation also makes the mistake of asserting that Trotsky knew that the Bolshevik revolution would fail and that in its wake he would somehow create a new; and largely undefined, Zionist state, which by implication rule the Russian people as cattle. This is utterly undermined by Trotsky’s own behaviour after his removal from power and exile from the Soviet Union under Stalin’s auspices. After all if Trotsky had been planning something along these lines then he should have immediately repudiated some of his professed beliefs and then go on to join the flourishing Zionist movement rather than founding his own breakaway Bolshevik faction: the Fourth International. Indeed Trotsky spent the remainder of his life until his assassination writing and arguing for another Bolshevik revolution in what he perceived to be the spirit of Lenin rather than that of Stalin (i.e. the doctrine of ‘permanent revolution’ as opposed to ‘socialism in one country’). (4)

We should also note that the Trotsky quotation gives us a quite obvious clue to the fact that it is probably entirely made-up in so far as it asserts that its young acolytes should ‘know how to hate everything Russian’. This is not something that a Marxist-Leninist would say: given that although national identity is technically irrelevant in Marxism-Leninism it is however of importance to the infant revolution not to preach such doctrines as they would work directly against the feelings of the Russian people as maybe simply demonstrated by pointing out that in 1941: Stalin was able and had to call; after 24 years of Bolshevism, on nationalist and religious sentiment in order to get the recruits he needed for the Red Army.

Now if Trotsky was so absurdly silly as to argue that such sentiment was irrelevant at some undefined; but likely very early, point during the Soviet Union then he would not have succeeded in convincing those around him to fight as they did. After all the single most important component of Marxist-Leninist cadre is to ‘do anything to further the interests of the revolution’ and causing massive opposition is hardly furthering the interests of the revolution!

However to a Russian nationalist then it would be a point of ideology that both Bolsheviks and jews hated everything Russian; a-la the Protocols of Zion, (5) and sought to destroy it as a matter of priority with the implication that everything Russian is the be all and end all of importance.

We can confirm this probable authorship by pointing out that according to Stepin the quotation came from the first edition of ‘Russkoye Slovo’ (a copy of which I have been unable to locate) although a similar publication; ‘Novoye Russkoye Slovo’, was an American anti-Bolshevik Russian émigré periodical that began life in 1910. (6)

We can deduce from this that ‘Russkoye Slovo’ was either an émigré or indigenous Russian periodical with strong anti-revolutionary and anti-jewish tendencies; as to whether it was anti-Judaism or anti-Semitic we have no clue but the former is the more likely, that was probably in operation before 1910. However that presents us with a considerable problem in that Trotsky was not of any particular prominence in the revolutionary movement in Russia before 1917 and if we are to believe the quotation’s accuracy and the necessary deductions we have made about the originating publication then the publication itself was either very lucky or had considerable knowledge of how things would turn out. When we consider how secure the Tsarist regime seemed before the strain of war told on its population from 1916 to 1917 facilitating the February and October revolutions then we can only suggest that either the periodical had prophetical ability or the periodical did not exist.

Perhaps the best reason we can argue that the periodical did not exist is the more likely of the two situations is that with Trotsky being an obscure figure in the revolutionary movement and the Tsarist government seeming very secure: the periodical; which remember was likely published before 1910, would not have known that Trotsky was to become a major figure and that therefore any utterances he would have made would have been those of an obscure and rather marginal jewish revolutionary who had been effectively neutralised by the Tsarist secret police. So why on earth would the ‘Russkoye Slovo’ given such space to utterances from a marginal jewish revolutionary that are not even confirmable and would be surpassed by the claims and arguments of the readily available revolutionary émigré publications such as the ‘Iskra’.

So why give a revolutionary nobody such prominence in the first issue?

The answer is obvious: because it did not exist in the first place and the quote was manufactured after Trotsky had risen to prominence by his opponents.

Interestingly; by way of an addendum, a 1937 American anti-Semitic publication; ‘Trotsky and the Jews behind the Russian Revolution’, allegedly cryptically authored by ‘a former Russian Commissar’ tries to do something similar when it asserts; contrary to the biographers of Trotsky and Lenin, that Lenin ‘fronted’ from Trotsky who was the éminence grise of the Bolshevik movement. (7) The author of this occasionally clever diatribe against the overrepresentation of jews in the Russian Socialist movement in general makes a similar mistake to the author of Trotsky quotation when he talks about his supposed ‘insider knowledge’ of Trotsky in that he never once makes anything like a statement that one would attribute to someone who had had strong Marxist beliefs; which to be a Commissar one would have to have been, and often speaks with a strongly Orthodox Christian tone (8) more common to the Russian radical right (9) than to a repentant ex-Marxist. (10) This informs that this kind of writing; i.e. ascribing things to Trotsky which were patently not anything to do with, were common among the radical right at this time and the reason they ascribed them for Trotksy was that he was the most prominent of the jewish Bolsheviki; although later Lenin’s jewish origins were discovered he was generally considered a Russian at the time, much as German anti-Communists and anti-Semites focused on the activities of Karl Radek in connection with the jewish-dominated nascent KPD. (11)

References


(1) There are numerous biographies of Trotsky but perhaps the best of the pack are Isaac Deutscher, Ronald Segal and Robert Service’s offerings as each offers a different and somewhat credible perspective on him.
(2) As cited in Vladimir Stepin, 1993, ‘The Nature of Zionism’, which has been made available in English translation at the following address: http://radioislam.org/zionism/.
(3) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...quotation.html
(4) The ideological differences between Trotsky and Stalin have been rather overplayed in the literature on Marxism-Leninism as it has been conclusively shown that Stalin did believe in the doctrine of permanent revolution, but rather was more realistic about it than Trotsky was in that he wanted to build up the ‘forces of revolution’ rather than simply expect the ‘proletariat’ to join the masses of the Red Army when the latter invaded as both Lenin and Trotsky did. On this point please see Ernst Topitsch, A. Taylor (Trans.), 1987, ‘Stalin’s War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War’, 1st Edition, St. Martin’s Press: New York, pp. 11-62 and John Mosier, 2010, ‘Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945’, 1st Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York, pp. 57-115.
(5) To quote part of Protocol 15 with a similar message: ‘The principle guarantee of stability of rule is to confirm the aureole of power, and this aureole is attained only by such a majestic inflexibility of might as shall carry on its face the emblems of inviolability from mystical causes from the choice of God. Such was, until recent times, the Russian aristocracy, the one and only serious foe we had in the world, without counting the Papacy.’ (p. 193 in the 1934 ‘Defender’ expanded edition of the Marsden translation). This obviously also assigns a similar role to Russia as the ‘main bulwark’ and ‘intellectual centre’ of the world against Bolshevism and the jews in much the same way as the Trotsky quotation does.
(6) http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/05/13/n...100_years.html [Last Accessed: 09/01/2011]
(7) Anon., 1997, [1937], ‘Trotsky and the Jews behind the Russian Revolution’, 1st Edition, CPA Book Publisher: Boring, pp. 8-9
(8) Ibid, p. 13
(9) See for example Michael Kellogg, 2005, ‘The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Emigres and the Making of National Socialism 1917-1945’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 30-46
(10) For example compare to Freda Utley, 1940, ‘The Dream We Lost: Soviet Russia Then and Now’, 1st Edition, John Day: New York.
(11) For example see Nigel Jones, 2004, ‘A Brief History of the Birth of the Nazis’, 2nd Edition, Robinson: London, p. 61

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

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...sky-quote.html
__________________
 
Old April 30th, 2011 #16
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

*Bump* As I don't think the code updated properly.
__________________
 
Old May 1st, 2011 #17
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default Is Jan Irvin on Mushrooms?

Is Jan Irvin on Mushrooms?


I have recently acquired the ‘book’; I somewhat object to calling it that as it contains lots of white space and almost 30 pages of pure pictures which seem to be there for no reason other than to be filler, by Jan Irvin called ‘The Holy Mushroom’. (1) It purports to be a ‘critical re-evaluation’ of the Wasson and Allegro controversy over the use and role of hallucinogenic mushrooms; particularly amanita muscaria (or fly-agaric), in ‘Judeo-Christianity’. In reality the book is a somewhat enlightening source reader; with not particularly stimulating or even critical commentary, (2) on that contentious and obviously deeply personal debate over the origins of Christianity. (3)

It unfortunately has little to do with Judaism other than a number of brief mentions of the theory that the (jewish) author of Genesis was out of his mind on; proverbial, magic mushrooms at the time that he dreamt up that weird book which; at the best of times, makes very little sense even in Christian theology which has tried; at least, to rationally explain it, while jews; particularly of a Kabbalistic persuasion, seek to mystify it yet further by punning and allusion, which is something Allegro himself mentions in his path-breaking ‘The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross’. (4)

The book itself is rather unfortunately put together with a rather difficult to read format, which relies heavily on quotation without enough detailed and on-point analysis. Rather Irvin has a nasty habit of not really explaining his points in detail as well as not referring to necessary sources when making counter-assertions.

For example: Irvin tells us that Allegro was of Anglo-French origin (5) and certainly not the Italian jew that Wasson alleges him to have been (one suspects his source is Judith Anne Brown’s brilliant biography of Allegro [she is Allegro’s much loved daughter]), but neglects to tell us on what basis he makes this counter-assertion which is about as useful as Wasson’s un-evidenced claim that Irvin reproduces twice in two different source documents. (6) What Irvin thinks he is proving wrong is beyond me, but it won’t convince anyone with an ounce of criticality that is for sure.

Interestingly Irvin doesn’t follow up on the point that Wasson; to my mind, makes in that Wasson alleges that Allegro was appointed to the Dead Scrolls team because he was a jew. He also claims that the ’£30,000’ that Wasson claimed Allegro was paid is beyond the boundaries of his research, with which claim I take the strongest possible objection as it is obviously of paramount importance to clear Allegro’s name of this apparent slander; which Irvin implies it to have been, but Irvin simply runs away from it for reasons that I find inexplicable and infuriating.

Another strange habit of Irvin’s is his referencing, which seems to suffer from a kind of inferiority complex in that he obsessively uses the ‘et al’ that scholars use to indicate more than two or three authors; preventing needless writing of long lists of names, of a piece of work for more than one author. I have no idea who taught Irvin to do this or whether he decided to do it himself, but it makes the reading experience even worse for it smacks of a dilettante trying to ape a scholar and is decidedly annoying. This proverbial egoistic blimp of unearned scholarly standing probably relates to the publication of Irvin and Hoffman’s article on the Wasson controversy in the Journal of Higher Criticism in 2006, but this is conjecture on my part given Irvin’s obsessive citation of this article in general without re-explaining the details. (7)

Somewhat stranger is the reference which reads ‘Shroom, 2007’ (8) and for which there is no corresponding author listed in the bibliography. Now ‘Shroom’; slang for mushroom, is a rather odd thing to put in as a ‘reference’ so we must presume it is a simple mistake on Irvin’s part, but one does get the picture of just how careless Irvin is if he leaves a reference reading ‘Shroom’ in a book then we can hardly take him particularly seriously.

I think you get the picture: Irvin promises much but his book is really a very damp squib and the only particularly useful part of it is the source documentation that has been reproduced from Wasson and Allegro; which at least shows that Irvin did some research, but I am forced to wonder how Professors Rush, Ruck and Whitehead could praise a book with so many painful issues that should have been ironed out in first draft but have apparently not even been noticed.

This could have been a brilliantly executed piece of work to re-open the debate, but it has turned out to be something that one scrapes off the intellectual boot rather than a deadly boomerang against scholarly convention in support of Allegro’s thesis (which has deep and I would say positive implications for anti-Semitism’s case against jewry).

In short: don’t purchase this book read the Journal of Higher Criticism article instead. It is far more illuminating. (9)


References


(1) Jan Irvin, 2008, ‘The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity’, 1st Edition, Gnostic Media: United States
(2) This is perhaps a slightly harsh criticism as I am a supporter of Allegro’s original interpretation, but I cannot help but find Irvin’s moribund commentary rather annoying at the best of times as it seeks to remove Allegro wholly from blame for the failure of this thesis to gain widespread acceptance, which may have been novel but had Allegro stood up more effectively for it then his opponents; Wasson included, would have not had the field day they did have misinterpreting his work.
(3) Even the idea that their religious belief is the result of drug-induced visions being written down is of course enough to send the overly-religious into proverbial spasms and lead; as it did with Allegro, to nonsensical abuse and invented arguments being thrown at you.
(4) John Allegro, 1970, ‘The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross’, 1st Edition, Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp. 19-28
(5) Irvin, p. 88
(6) Ibid, p. 83; 86
(7) I should add that the article is well-worth reading as it offers a powerful counter-argument to Wasson, which makes ‘The Holy Mushroom’ all the more of an oddity unless Hoffman was the real driver behind the research and writing of the 2006 article while Irvin was more along for the scholarly ride.
(8) Irvin, p. 93
(9) This is available at the following address: http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm [Last Accessed: 17/04/2011]

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

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...mushrooms.html
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; May 1st, 2011 at 09:26 AM.
 
Old May 9th, 2011 #18
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default In Brief: Does the Wiesenthal Center support Scientology?

In Brief: Does the Wiesenthal Center support Scientology?


The Jewish Telegraphic Association released a news bulletin on May 8th telling its probably fairly astonished readers that:

‘The Simon Wiesenthal Center honored actor and producer Tom Cruise with its Humanitarian Award.

The award, presented at a national tribute dinner May 5, was given to Cruise for his longtime support of the center and its Museum of Tolerance, the organization said. It was presented to Cruise by Brad Grey, chairman and CEO of Paramount Pictures.’
(1)

Whoa… hang on a minute. The Wiesenthal Center surely has to know about Tom Cruise’s rather obsessive Scientological beliefs, which border on having a mental illness and certainly aren’t rational in any way, shape or form. Now surely the Wiesenthal Center would have thought it better not to publicly advertise the fact that by accepting money from Scientology; via its proxy and ostensible public face Tom Cruise, they have endorsed Scientology’s ideas and activities.

The fact that Scientology is an implicit factor in this we can ascertain from the fact that they keep their cult members; Tom Cruise included, on a fairly short leash. It is also interesting that in a recent similar case of donations received from Gaddafi’s Libya; via his son’s ‘charitable foundations’, by the London School of Economics this was held to be ‘compromising’ by jews who commented on it at the time.

Why haven’t we heard a similar jewish outcry against the linking of the Wiesenthal Center with the Church of Scientology via Tom Cruise and the endorsement of that funding link by the Wiesenthal Center awarding Scientology’s proxy a ‘Humanitarian Award’?

Well I guess it is all just Shoah business isn’t it?

References


(1) http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011...tor-tom-cruise [Last Accessed: 08/05/2011]
(2) If you are interested in learning more about Scientology then read the numerous materials and information produced and reproduced by ‘Operation Clambake’, which exposes the diseased underbelly of this ‘religion’. This is available at the following address: http://www.xenu.net/.

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


This was originally posted at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...r-support.html
__________________
 
Old May 17th, 2011 #19
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default Some Thoughts on Ilan Pappe

Some Thoughts on Ilan Pappe


Ilan Pappe; sometime professor at the University of Exeter and formerly of the University of Haifa, is something of a rarity among jewish scholars of jewish history: as critical of jews as he is of gentiles. That might sound like a harsh judgement to those unacquainted with the field of jewish studies, but it is unfortunately if anything something of an understatement of the situation in which we find ourselves. In that the academics, researchers and general odd-bods who populate the field of jewish studies tend to churn out apologetics for jewry rather than taking a critical view of their subject.

The focus; in spite of the various jewish studies ‘mission statements’, in essence is not to critically study jews, Judaism and the interaction with the societies in which they lived and still live, but rather to find excuses as to why the jews aren’t to blame for anything that happened to; or anything that has been said about, them. Literally gallons of ink is spilled every year in the field in great tomes and numerous journal articles wondering out loud how anyone could think ill of the jews and how anyone who did; or does, is ipso facto irrational and otherwise a ‘nazi-who-wants-to-kill-six-millions-jews’. (1)

Pappe is something rather different and it is refreshing to see some kind of critical attitude to the jewish role in jewish history as an active; as opposed to passive, factor in their ‘persecution’ and why people might not like jews. What is interesting is that the Israeli ‘revisionist historians’ are not actually revisionists in the historical sense at all as revisionism is a form of historical skepticism and a demand for facts to back up bland assertions and wide interpretations. In essence then revisionism in the historical sense is the constant revision of the interpretation of history in close reference to the facts including extensive source criticism.

Israeli historical revisionism; as recently pointed out by a colleague of Pappe’s, (2) is actually a more sophisticated form of non-biblical literalist apologia for Israel’s existence and the jewish people in general. Rather than using the old methods of Israeli historiography; backed up by a few credulous or nefarious Christian academics in the United States, which were in effect to present a wholly incredible history of the jews from the time of the final destruction of the jewish kingdom by the Emperor Hadrian to the beginning of the occupation of Palestine by the jews as the logic end of Yahweh’s plan for them. All that they needed was the Messiah to turn up and the jews would literally be ruling the world!

Israeli ‘historical revisionism’ by contrast simply does away with the old pure certainties and claims that while Zionism was desirable it has not been without problems and that it is possible that the Messiah might not turn up: such is the historical position of the ilk of Benny Morris. Who has for reasons unknown to me long been feted on the leftist side of the fence, but they have suddenly and violently rejected him after his vicious defamation of Pappe proving what some us had long suspected. (3) Benny Morris and his ilk are just more sophisticated proponents of the jews as the proverbial master race theory of traditional (i.e. from Labour to Revisionist) Zionist; and most schools of Israeli, historiography.

Although the Messiah does appear to be rather late (or perhaps he has just been a very naughty boy): hence why the jews in New York take the occasional trip out to the backwoods of America to con the proverbial yokels out of their hard-earned savings to ‘send more jews to Israel’ (or to be pedantic ‘make Aliyah’) so that the ‘end times’ scenario can start. Of course Israel has its own modern day zealots who deny anything remotely science related (unless they can claim Hashem inspired a jew to create it or assist in its creation) and periodically demand that Israel start the long-awaited slaughter of the goyim (as Hashem will surely marshal his celestial armies in support). (4)

With all that is going on in academe Pappe is something of a breath of fresh intellectual air; in spite and not because of his foetor judaicus, in his honesty to tackle the proverbial ‘pink elephant in the room’ in jewish studies: i.e. that the jews might just have caused much of the reaction to their own behaviour. Such a revolutionary thought is not really brought up by Pappe in his most famous book; ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’, (5) and neither is it really considered in his journal articles or other academic or popular books of his that I have read.

Instead Pappe focuses on proving that the anti-gentile genocide; lets not beat around the linguistic bush shall we, committed by Israel during the supposed ‘War of Independence’; perhaps more aptly named the ‘War of Western Dependence’, were:

A) The logical result of Zionist political philosophy.

B) Systematically planned and organised before hand by major jewish figures.

With his first point I think Pappe has stayed his own hand considerably as Zionism as a political philosophy was implicitly genocidal towards gentiles from its very earliest days as the basic ideological plank that informs Zionism is the ‘chosen’ nature of the jewish people and how they are called to rule the world (as the priestly class and proverbial interface between Yahweh and the world). You can read that suggestion in both Herzl and Hess: the two intellectual fathers of Zionism. (6) You can also read that attitude among Zionism’s early major rabbinical supporters such as the Baseler Rav (7) and Rav Abraham Kook. (8)

Perhaps that just cuts too close to the bone for Pappe?

With the second point Pappe is much stronger and provides ample evidence for the existence of Plan Dalet; the plan to kill, torture and generally terrorism the native Arab population to leave so that the self-chosen could move in and steal (or rather ‘find’ halakhically speaking) everything that wasn’t nailed down, which actively included such major figures in jewish history as Moshe Dayan, Yigael Yadin and David Ben-Gurion i.e. the founding fathers of modern Israel.

Pappe notes; not incorrectly, that it is hard to argue that this coordinated activity wasn’t the centralised organised conspiracy that he evidences it to have been. Indeed those Israeli apologists who argue that either Arab losses have been grossly exaggerated (i.e. ‘there was no Nakba’) or that there was no conspiracy, but what massacres there were merely the work of a few jewish extremists (i.e. Benny Morris and the Israeli ‘historical revisionists’) are offering utterly fanciful interpretations of Israeli history according to Pappe.

Interestingly Pappe hints that the basis of much of this assumption of general jewish innocence in Israeli history is the sentimental notion that jews like Ben Gurion, Yadin and Dayan cannot be held up to the same intellectual scrutiny as others as they are part of hero-pantheon of Israel’s national mythos (pun not intended).

In essence Pappe tells us that some jews are open to criticism from other jews; although one can imagine that there will be screams of ‘jewish self-hatred’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ from some quarters, but that other jews; perceived to be the ‘chosen of the chosen’ if you will, are immune from non-superficial criticism in Israeli historical circles because to criticise them would in effect mean criticising Israel and doubting Israel’s right to exist as an entity squatting on Arab land.

According to Pappe and those jewish historians who agree with him; like Shlomo Sand, no jew should be immune from criticism and that historical research serves a higher purpose than adjunct propaganda for the Israeli state.

Now that’s a first: I agree with a jew!

References


(1) Possibly the classic example of this attitude may be found in Moshe Zimmerman, 1988, ‘Wilhelm Marr: The Patriarch of anti-Semitism’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, where he spends the entire somewhat detailed biography trying to invent reasons why Marr was completely irrational, was jealous of jews and otherwise invented his anti-Semitic attitudes because the jews rejected him.
(2) In Shlomo Sand, 2010, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, 1st Edition, Verso: New York
(3) For example: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/vi...s.php?id=16848 [Last Accessed: 17/05/2011]
(4) I pointed out just an instance in my article; ‘Rabbi Lazer Brody: ‘Hashem will Slaughter the Goyim’', which is available at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...slaughter.html.
(5) Ilan Pappe, 2007, ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’, 1st Edition, One World: New York
(6) This is most easily found and described in Alan Clark, 2005-10, ‘Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews’, 3 Vols., 1st Edition, World Focus/Clarity: London, but it may be found in numerous works on the question of Israeli history and the history of Zionism.
(7) Arthur Cohn, 1972, ‘Of Israel’s Teachings and Destiny: Sermons, Studies and Essays’, 1st Edition, Ahron Press: New York, pp. 111-113
(8) Roger Friedland, Richard Hecht, 1996, ‘To Rule Jerusalem’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 200-209

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


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...lan-pappe.html
__________________
 
Old May 18th, 2011 #20
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default And now for something completely different…

And now for something completely different…


The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the following on 17/05/2011:

‘DFM Ayalon said that the denunciation reveals double-standards towards Israel: "It is incumbent on that a United Nations senior official will denounce the provocative violence against Israel, its citizens and its sovereignty, instead of pointing the finger at a democracy trying to defend itself". Ayalon added that "Israel's territory is not worthless and will not be abandoned. Israel has the right and duty, as does any nation, to defend itself and its borders. It is disappointing that the person in charge of humanitarian affairs at the UN requires explanations on why defensible borders are a fundamental right of Israel's citizens. Israelis are not second class citizens and they are entailed to all the rights of citizens of other nations".

Ayalon also expressed another protest against the false representation of Israel contained in the OCHA reports . "There is not now, nor has there been, a humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories, these reports are inflaming the atmosphere and hurting regional stability," Ayalon said.’


I will provide a translation of what Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon should have said:

‘DFM Ayalon said that the denunciation reveals Israel’s double-standards towards the United Nations: "It is incumbent on that a senior Israeli official will denounce the provocative violence against Palestine, its citizens and its sovereignty, instead of pointing the finger at a democracy trying to defend itself". Ayalon added that "The Palestinian territories are not worthless and will not be abandoned. Palestine has the right and duty, as does any nation, to defend itself and its borders. It is disappointing that the person in charge of humanitarian affairs in Israel requires explanations on why defensible borders are a fundamental right of Palestine's citizens. Palestinians are not second class citizens and they are entailed to all the rights of citizens of other nations".

Ayalon also expressed another protest against the false representation of Palestine contained in the Israel Lobby’s reports. "There is a humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories, these reports are inflaming the atmosphere and hurting regional stability," Ayalon said.’


Oy vey!

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


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ompletely.html
__________________
 
Reply

Tags
anti-semitism, israel, jews, judaism, semitic controversies

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.
Page generated in 0.41148 seconds.