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