For One Democratic State
in the whole of Palestine (Israel)


FOR One Man, One Vote



Readers of this list are always well ahead of time. Sometimes, years ahead. Only now mainstream America begins to discuss “Jewish Lobby”, but on this list we expounded this subject in 2001. Actually, what we said then, remains relevant now. Here is a re-run of my 2001 essay A Yiddishe Medina (A Jewish State, in Yiddish), included in the Galilee Flowers, where I ask:

Does America support Israel because of the Jewish lobby or because of the ‘true interest of American corporations’? The putative answer is: the Jewish lobby is a superfluous body supportive of the Israeli right-wing, while America as a whole is a grander ‘Jewish’ state with interests outside the Middle East as well.

In a way, this essay sums up much of my writing.


A Yiddishe  Medina

By Israel Shamir



America prepares for a long war. It is called ‘the war on terrorism’, but the name has no meaning but ‘a war on the enemy’. Noam Chomsky gave a witty definition, “terrorism is what  they do to us”. However, in the course of this war, thousands of our brothers by Adam and Eve will be strafed, napalmed and nuked. Boys and girls, unborn babes and old men will be brought to the altar of Vengeance and ritually slaughtered.

President Bush called his enterprise, a ‘crusade’. This title invokes in our memory the dour knights of Aquitaine and the pious Frankish warriors who took the Cross, and with the name of Our Lady on their lips, ventured into a long and hard pilgrimage. Reality was worse. The Crusade was a Western Jihad and it caused a lot of bloodshed. The Crusaders were wild and unruly, they sacked the most beautiful Christian city on earth, Constantinople, and they drenched in blood the holy ground of Jerusalem. A Crusader chronicler, Radulf of Caen, wrote of his comrades-at-arms: in the Syrian city of Maarra, ‘they impaled babies on spits, grilled and devoured them’. They were rough folk, and still I would like to save the name of these killers and cannibals from being besmirched by association with Bush’s Crusade. They sought glory, not revenge, this most un-Christian, even anti-Christian feeling.

The very essence of the Gospel is the rejection of revenge. That was the great difference between the Church and the Synagogue, the two sisters born two thousand years ago. This built-in difference is the inherent feature of the schism between the two faiths: while Christians are called to pray for their enemies, Jews are supposed to dream of vengeance.



The Old Biblical Judaism, Mother-faith of Jews and Christians, contained two different interpretations of ‘Messiah’. Both can be found in the Old Testament. In the schism between Christians and Jews, each new faith picked up and made predominant one of the interpretations. For Christians, Christ came to save, while for Jews, the Messiah comes to take revenge. This is explicated by the brilliant Israeli scholar, Prof. Israel Jacob Yuval of the Hebrew University in his new book, Two Nations In Your Womb[1]. ‘Vengeful salvation’, as Yuval called it, was derived by the Ashkenazi Jews from the old Pharisee sources and became the prevailing doctrine of the Synagogue.

When Dr Israel Yuval published his perspicacious book on theology of vengeance in Judaism, it was accepted with great enthusiasm by his Israeli colleagues, but the American Jewish scholars hated it. Dr Ezra Fleischer wrote a vehement critique, concluding it with the words: ‘it would be better if such a book had not been published, but since it is published, it should be sentenced to oblivion’. [It was published in English translation only now, in June 2006].

Prof. Yuval quotes many ancient Jewish texts to support this point. “In the End of the days (when the Messiah comes) God will destroy, kill and exterminate all the nations but Israelites”, according to the Sefer Nitzahon Yashan, written by a German Jew in Thirteenth Century. A liturgical poet Klonimus b. Judah had a vision of “God’s hands full of Goyim’s corpses”.

Even more dreadful dreams of blood and destruction precede the first attacks on Jews in the end of Eleventh Century. A hundred years before the Crusaders’ onslaught on Jews, R. Simon b. Yitzhak calls on God ‘to take His sword and slaughter the Goyim”. In order to hasten their destruction, the Jewish sages of Europe adopted new horrible curses against Christians and Christ, and introduced them into liturgy of Passover and Yom Kippur and even into daily prayer, in addition to the curses embedded there in the Second Century.

The Messiah of Vengeance has actually a different name in Christian theology. He is called the Antichrist. Christian theologians have tried to delve in the qualities of this apocalyptic figure. St John of Damascus prophesied that the Antichrist will come to Jews and for Jews, against Christ and Christians. (John the Damascene was a friend of Islam and he interpreted the Muslim dogma of eternal Koran as a form of the Christian teaching of Logos). The Church Fathers considered the Rise of the Antichrist as the rise and temporary triumph of Judaism. In the Tenth Century, St Andrew the Byzantine prophesied that the kingdom of Israel will be restored and it will be the launching-pad of the Antichrist. Thus, Jewish and Christian theologians agree that their Messiahs are as opposed to each other as thesis and anti-thesis, or as Christ and Antichrist.

This proximity of Israel to the Apocalypse is felt by millions of devout Christians in the United States. They have been taught that the rise of the Antichrist is the stage before the Second Coming. But, being misled by their pastors, they draw a paradoxical conclusion and decide to side with the Antichrist. They forget the words, ‘the Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man’ who sides with the Antichrist.

Jews are not an Antichrist. But the idea of Vengeful Messiah is a very dangerous one, and it should be confronted and argued against. It could be done by the tools of the Old, or the New Testament, or with general humanist concepts. Otherwise, this idea will poison our discourse.


It would be mistake to attribute the vengefulness of the US to American Jewry. America is special for its Jews and Gentiles are discursively united ‘Judeo-Christians’, or more precisely, ‘Judeo-Americans’, for their mores have precious little of the spirit of Christ. As Karl Marx put it, “the practical domination of Jewish spirit over the Christian world has achieved in North America its unambiguous, complete expression”.

Many American public figures, Jews and non-Jews alike, call for revenge:

There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly involved in this thing[2],

said the former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who heads the Jewish organisation for claims to Germany (at $300,000 per annum).

The response to this unimaginable 21st-century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift - kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts,

said Steve Donleavy in the New York Post[3]. In the Washington Post, Rich Lowry proposed,

If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, that is part of the solution[4]

The best quotable is Ann Coulter’s, the preferred writer of the World Jewish Review:

This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity (!?). We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war’.

After writing these words, she was rightly sacked by her newspaper and taken aboard the neo-conservative Jewish magazine Commentary.

This vengeful spirit of the American press is an aberration in the Western discourse. If you sift the literature of the Christian and Muslim lands, you would discover that revenge appears rarely as the main subject of an important book. Nikolai Gogol wrote a Gothic short story called The Terrible Revenge, Prosper Mérimée wrote a novelette Colomba on Corsican vendetta. C’est tout. Brits always considered revenge a very un-English trend, certainly not cricket. ‘Vengeful’ is a negative word in every Christian and Muslim culture. The Jewish culture, au contraire, is saturated with the idea of vengeance, as it draws straight from the Old Testament, without the redeeming filter of the New Testament or the Koran.

We Jews know it better than anybody. A brilliant American Jewish journalist, John Sack noted that in his Eye for an Eye, a chilling book about horrible revenge perpetrated by Jews on the German civilians after WWII. This book tells of tortures, ‘extra-judicial killings’, mass poisoning and other horrors. You are not likely to get this book, as the Jewish establishment succeeded to suppress it and keep it out of bookshops.

Not surprisingly, Israel promoted vengeance into its daily policy. Its attacks on Palestinians were called peulot tagmul, the actions of vengeance. One of these actions was perpetrated by (later Prime Minister) General Ariel Sharon in 14 October 1953, when he and his soldiers murdered some sixty peasants, women and children, in the village of Qibya. The invasion of Lebanon in 1982, with its 20,000 murdered Lebanese and Palestinians, Christians and Muslims, was an act of revenge for the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London. During the last Intifada, every act of Israeli terror was called ‘retribution’ or ‘retaliation’ by Israelis and by the American Jewish-owned media.

This Jewish infatuation with vengeance survived the hazardous crossing of the Atlantic. The American Jews created Hollywood, and Hollywood made vengeance its main subject. In a recent American re-make of The Three Musketeers, d’Artagnan is moved by the spirit of vengeance, though this motif is hardly present in the book or in French movie. Actually, it is the bad guy, Mordred, son of Lady Winter, who nurses dreams of revenge. But for the new American movie, produced by a Jewish American, vengeance is a legitimate feeling. In a way, American cinema was an expression of the Jewish collective subconscious, and it was the main factor in the creation of the American psyche. From Hollywood, vengefulness flew all over the earth, and certainly helped to create the world we inhabit.

In other words, there was no need for a Jewish conspiracy. A grandson of Trier Rabbi, who grew up in the Church, Karl Marx noticed in the 1840s (!) that America (with or even without a single ethnic Jew) had become a state with a “Jewish” spirit, and had embraced the “Jewish” ideology of greed and alienation. A Marx’s disciple, Werner Sombart, came to a similar conclusion about America’s Jewish spirit, though in his opinion, America grew with Jews and was formed by Jews from its very first steps. The rather immature America could not withstand the impact of the Jewish mentality, and she became a Jewish State, the big sister of Israel.

This explains the successes of American Jews: it is just natural that in the ‘Jewish’ state, real Jews are more successful. This sudden rise to glory and riches should not be a cause for vertigo and self adulation - other way around. In line with the reasoning of the great American philosopher, Immanuel Wallerstein, I say: material success in our days is a sign of moral failure. ‘Success’ and riches are not a sign of God’s benevolence. Anyway, not of the God who blessed the poor. A man who succeeds in the robbers’ gang fails in the eyes of God. Our world with its starving millions and over-prosperous minority is immoral and anti-Christian, as anti-Christian as the Judeo-American ‘crusade’.

This explanation allows us to answer the question we posted previously: does America support Israel because of the Jewish lobby or because of the ‘true interest of American corporations’? The putative answer is: the Jewish lobby is a superfluous body supportive of the Israeli right-wing, while America as a whole is a grander ‘Jewish’ state with interests outside the Middle East as well.

This presumption explains away a lot of queries. It explains the incredible 99% vote in support of Israel. It explains the Holocaust museums, Holocaust studies and Holocaust films. It explains the centrality of Jews in American life, as now America views world events from a traditional Jewish position, ‘is it good for Jews?’

It explains the US walkout at Durban. G.W Bush did not mind a quarrel with Europe and Japan and reneged on the Kyoto treaty. He did not give a damn about annoying Russia and China in his unilateral decision to drop the Strategic Arms Treaty. But here he heard His Master’s Voice. The haughty rejection of Africa and Asia, the insulting dismissal of the Afro-American community, the rejection of the great struggle against racism were additional proofs that the US has become a sister state to Israel.

Recently, President Vladimir Putin tried to justify his onslaught on the Chechens in an interview with Newsweek[5]. He said the Chechen leaders ‘publicly called for the extermination of Jews’, relegating critics of his war to the ranks of anti-Semites. Now, Chechnya has no Jews, and Chechen leaders’ opinion on Jews is irrelevant, if anti-Semitism is to preserve its original meaning of ‘anti-Jewish prejudice or racism’. In this form it does not exist anymore, as we argued elsewhere[6], but the word now has a new meaning. It has become the equivalent of ‘anti-Americanism’ of McCarthy’s days, or of ‘anti-Soviet’ in Brezhnev’s Soviet Union.

Americans tense and shriek whenever they feel their loyalty to Jews questioned. Whoever rejects the new American paradigm, in America or elsewhere, is an anti-Semite by definition. That is why good persons of Jewish origin, - whether Noam Chomsky or Woody Allen, St Paul or Karl Marx - are called ‘anti-Semites’. They are usually rejected by the Jewish community, but their names are used to defend the structure they attacked.

An offence to the Jewish community is not considered a form of racism, as ordinary racism is tolerated with great ease, especially if it is directed towards Arabs (new enemies of Jews) or Blacks (old enemies of Jews). It is treated as a ‘lese majesté’; in the years of Jewish ascendancy in the Soviet Union (1917 – 1937), people were shot for an anti-Jewish remark. Manfred Stricker of Strasbourg campaigned to name the local university after Dr Schweitzer, while the Jewish community preferred the name of a Jewish scholar with a loose connection to the city. As the result, Manfred Stricker was sentenced to six months’ jail. Alexander Chancellor wrote in the Guardian (under a promising title It is not Black and White) of the assassinated Dutch right-winger: yes, he was an enemy of Islam, but he was good to Jews, and therefore, not bad a guy.

Speaking to students in Harvard, Emory and other Ivy League universities, I noticed that they do not know the name ‘Arnold Toynbee’. The greatest British philosopher of history of the Twentieth Century made an error: he spoke of the tragedy of the Palestinians. He also cited African slavery as a tragedy on a par with the Jewish holocaust. As a result, he was erased and disappeared from American consciousness. It is but impossible to find non-fiction by G. K. Chesterton in American or English bookshops. This brilliant essayist is relegated to almost non-existent ‘Christian sections’ of bookshops, and his rare reprints are sandwiched between Bad Popes and Rabbi Jesus.

This influence in public discourse explains the obedience of American (and European) intellectuals. In the Judeo-American state, the Jews form its ‘Church’, its ideological establishment. For an intellectual, it is better to be called a paedophile than an anti-Semite.


Though the US has become a Judeo-Christian state, the question of Who Rules Whom in the ménage a trois of Jews, Israel and the US is not a simple one. The three dramatis personae form a triangle as mysterious as that of Bermuda and certainly no less perilous. Half a year ago, some dubious sources reported Sharon saying at a cabinet meeting: ‘Do not worry about the US, it is under our control’. The words were denied, but as the uprising in Palestine swiftly glides into a Joshua-style extermination campaign, while the US ‘supports the war against terrorism’, the doubts grow.

The very existence of a corporate entity known as "the Jewish People" (or, Jewry, or The Jews) is frequently denied. Some two hundred years ago Jewry existed as unambiguously as France or the Church. Our ancestors were members of this extra-territorial state, an authoritarian semi-criminal order, run by rich men and Rabbis. Its leadership, called Kahal (Hebrew for Community) made the important decisions, and ordinary Jews followed their directions. The leadership could dispose with life and property of Jews, just like any feudal ruler. There was no freedom of opinion within the walls of the ghetto. A rebellious Jew could be punished by death. Came Emancipation, and the power of the Kahal was broken from inside and outside. The Jews were set free and became citizens of their respective countries.

Nowadays, a new generation of Jews has emerged that does not know of Joseph. Years of apologetic brainwashing made them forget why our grandfathers wanted to break the iron walls of the Jewish community. The notion of Jewry has become a moot point. Are we, the descendents of Jews, citizens of our countries, or are we citizens of the Jewish People? Does ‘Jewry’ exist, in the same way any state exists, or it is just a figure of speech?

Here is a paradox: the Jewish leaders want Jewry to be a sort of Stealth jet, now you see it, now you don’t. It is here to strafe, it is nowhere for flak. They say: ‘That’s what Hitler said’ or ‘That was invented by the writers of the forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, and they forget to say that it is written into Israel’s Declaration of Independence as well. Israel actually is described as ‘the State of the Jewish People’, and that is why it attracts disproportionate attention and influence as the visible (and territorially bound) part of Jewry. That is why an ambassadorial position in Tel Aviv is considered among the highest and most desirable for a career diplomat. The concept of ‘the Jewish People’ received a singular recognition in international law, when the Jewish People were declared in 1950 and in 1991 by modern Germany to be the residual heir of intestate Jews. The Israeli Criminal Law allows the state of Israel to judge and prosecute any person on the globe who acted against a person, health, life, property or dignity of a Jew, even if this Jew has no connection whatsoever with the state of Israel.

We, children of emancipated Jewish parents, are as surprised as anybody. Nothing prepared us for the miraculous recovery of Jewry. Just recently it was on its way out, indeed, proclaimed dead; and we had come to consider ourselves free men. Within our lifetime, things have changed drastically, and now we are being called upon to declare allegiance to this body, or suffer ostracism and humiliation, probably loss of livelihood, or worse. Jewry (please do not confuse this term with the millions of descendents of medieval Jews) has regained its place in world politics, and taken over the mind of the only superpower, the US.

Isaac Deutscher, a Jewish Marxist and a biographer of Trotsky, was among the first Jews to notice this phenomenon. He proposed in his essay Who is a Jew (published in the Jewish Quarterly, London 1966) to distinguish between ‘Jews’ and ‘Jewry’. While Jews are individuals of various opinions and ways of life, Jewry is a quasi-national body with its own leadership and agenda. In his opinion, Jewry was on its way to disappearance, but from the ashes of the World War Two ‘the phoenix of Jewry has risen’. ‘I would have preferred Jews to survive and Jewry to perish’, he wrote, but “the extermination of Jews gave a new lease of life to Jewry”.

The self-appointed leadership of revived Jewry achieved the pinnacle of power in close liaison with super-rich Mammon-worshippers. They are intoxicated by their clout and by the lack of opposition. They support the war criminal Sharon, but they consider him too weak. They booed Paul Wolfowitz, the Jewish American super-hawk. Every Israeli politician knows and heeds: there are powerful Jews in America and elsewhere who want endless war in Palestine. They understand the salvation brought by the armies of Russia and America in the World War Two as their personal victory over the Gentile world, as a sign of a new era of Jewry’s world-wide supremacy, promised in Talmud and Cabbala teachings.

Isaac Deutscher ascribed the changes in Israel to their influence:

A wealthy American Jew, a ‘worldly businessman’ among his gentile associates and friends in New York, Philadelphia or Detroit, is at heart proud to be a member of the Chosen People, and in Israel he exercises his influence in favour of religious obscurantism and reaction. He keeps alive the spirit of racial-talmudic exclusiveness and superiority. It feeds and inflames the antagonism towards the Arabs[7]”.

It would be odd if this ‘wealthy Jew’ would influence only distant Israel. His influence is even stronger in his country, in the US, where he promotes the same idea “of racial-talmudic exclusiveness and superiority”, in full harmony with the ‘Jewish’ spirit of America.

These rich men do not need Palestinian land. They are not going to migrate to Israel and work on its vineyards. They use Israel and its people as their dispensable tool in the world-wide game. They misunderstand the Gentiles’ compassion as a sign of weakness. They misunderstand their friendliness as their submission. Like a cat with a mouse, they played with the Church of Nativity to check when Christendom is finally dead, if it will cease to respond. At the same time, they threaten the Mosques of Jerusalem and train American cruise missiles on Baghdad. Instead of Christianity and Judaism, they bring in a new faith: they supplant the Crucifixion by the Holocaust, and the Resurrection by the creation of the State of Israel. For them, Jewish control over the holy sites of Christendom and Islam is a visual proof of their dominance. Their destruction would be a sign of total victory. In a way, they are right: a society without its sacral values is doomed to extinction.

Many Jews and descendents of Jews feel threatened by the concept of Jewry. They usually object to ‘generalities’, to ‘accusation of the whole people’ or ‘hate-mongering’.  At first, I was taken aback by their response. Afterwards, I thought that their reasoning is so good that it could be used by others as well. Pity to waste a good thing. For instance,

- How do you dare say the Americans nuked Hiroshima? I am an American, and I did not nuke Hiroshima.

- You say, ‘the English ruled India’. What nonsense! I know hundreds of poor English workers who did not rule India.

- You call for the liberation of Algeria. This is anti-Frenchism! The real difference is not between the French and native Algerians, but between cultured people and Muslim fanatics.

- ‘Russian imperialist policy’? This is a racist remark designed to cause hatred of  Russians.

Probably you will admit that this sounds silly. Policies are devised by the elites, carried out by the more-or-less willing majority, and the outsiders suffer the consequences. Jewry is not different from any other state or trans-national corporation. The Jewish leadership has policies, and is able to change them. Naturally, ordinary Jews can submit to or reject them.


This is not much like classified information, but you should not say it out loud. The Jewish establishment can tell Bush to say ‘uncle’ and he will. This is a Polichinelle secret, as the French say. The rest of the world, from the Far East to Northern Europe, knows it full well, and from time to time a reckless prime minister or a speaker of a parliament babbles about it. The US Congress always rises to the occasion and sends its strong protest to the babbling offender, like a henpecked husband who never would admit his fear of wife’s anger in front of beer buddies.

You can say the US is run by Africans, Wasps, Freemasons or Grey Aliens, and you will get no response. You may say that the land is regulated by the Corporations, Standard Oil and Boeing, and nobody will object. But just try to say “the Jews run the US” and you will find yourself in a serious trouble. Now, what is actually the position of the Jews in the US?

It can be described in many ways. They represent the Church (i.e. ideological apparatus) of the new Judeo-American faith. They are the Brahmin caste of America. They can be called even a very prominent, if not ruling ethnic minority. This turn of events is strange but not unique. Until recent times, England was run by a small caste of Eton graduates, as exclusivist as any Jew; they even married within their own group.

 That is why Powell and Bush can’t and won’t give orders to Sharon. They have some free play, so long as the Jewish People are of two minds, - before this unique entity has not decided what it wants. Now, apparently the Jews (as opposed to Jews) are united by a common will, single purpose and a feeling of power. Intoxication by power and unity has caused this cautious people to drop masks, to cease pretence. The new openness provides us with an unprecedented insight into the soul of the Jews and their Mammonite supporters.

An authentic voice, Ron Grossman of the Chicago Tribune[8] writes, “As a self-proclaimed humanist, I ought to recoil in horror from the thought of tanks rumbling through a city, anybody's city. My head should hang in sorrow at televised images of street fighting (rather, massacres - ISH) in Bethlehem and Ramallah. But here is a hint: Don't lecture or preach to us. Forget about appealing to our better selves”.

Yes, forget about appealing to their better selves, for they have not got one. ‘The better selves’ were just a device, and now their real selves have emerged in all their brutal might.


Let us turn this text into a movie script and alternate a few snapshots provided by the BBC from the field. In Palestine, UNRWA chief Peter Hansen said: "We are getting reports of pure horror. Helicopters are strafing civilian residential areas; systematic shelling by tanks has created hundreds of wounded; bulldozers are razing refugee homes and food and medicine will soon run out." Dozens of dead bodies are lying in the streets of Jenin refugee camp. The Church of Nativity is on fire, as in 614.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Jews turn up in New York to show support for Israel’s massacre of Palestinians. 150,000 Jewish demonstrators take to the streets of Paris to express their solidarity with Israel. Waving Israeli flags and draped in the blue and white colours of their national banner (the tricolour is dropped and forgotten), protesters marched from the Place de la Republique to the Place de la Bastille in Paris, chanting in French and Hebrew and carrying signs that read "Yesterday New York, today Jerusalem, tomorrow Paris.”

In Israel, “no one can express the aspirations of most Israelis like the prime minister. This is not a war that was waged by Sharon, the "warmonger," this is the war of all of us”, writes Gideon Levy, a man of heart and conscience. “It will also be very difficult to blame Sharon for the consequences of the war, in the light of the sweeping support he has been given by the majority of Israelis. Nearly 30,000 men were mobilized and they reported for duty as one man, making the refusal movement, with 21 refuseniks currently in jail, irrelevant. "We didn't ask why, we just came," the reservists told the Prime Minister, expressing the "together" syndrome that characterizes Israel at such times. Tens of thousands of men leave their homes, putting their normal life behind them, and set out to kill and be killed - and they don't even ask why? That is the behaviour of the herd”, concludes Levy.

Levy is mistaken: it is the real strength of Jewry that comes through in this immense cohesiveness and unabashed ethnocentrism. For instance, a Mark Steyn (sic) writes in the National Post. ”All civilized people can agree that killing Jews is wrong”. (Not ‘killing’ is wrong, as then it would be wrong to kill Palestinians. Only ‘killing Jews’ is wrong. This approach is based on the Jewish reading of the Ten Commandments: ‘Thou shalt not murder a Jew’, instead of the Christian ‘Thou shalt not murder’.

Professor David D. Perlmutter writes in LA Times[9]: “I daydream--if only! If in 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973 Israel had acted just a bit like the Third Reich, then today Israelis would shop, eat pizza, marry and celebrate the holy days unmolested. And of course Jews, not sheiks, would have that Gulf oil’. Such daydreamers should be carefully removed from the education system, for being unreconstructed Nazis. But no fear! Judeo-Nazism is a winning ideology in the US.

Witty if snobbish Taki of the British weekly Spectator contributed the following anecdotal evidence of the new Jewish vehemence and single-mindedness: “On Easter Sunday, during lunch, the richest woman in Israel, Irit Lando[10], suddenly burst into my house and began to harangue my friends and family about Adam Shapiro. Despite the fact she's one of my wife's oldest friends and was invited to drop in after lunch, I was extremely annoyed. I reminded Irit that my house was not Israeli occupied territory; that it was Easter; and knowing how I feel about the plight of the Palestinians, she should change the subject. Which she did, turning on the press, instead, and how they gave publicity to that godawful traitor Adam Shapiro”.

As a few mavericks of Jewish origin like Adam Shapiro are increasingly marginalized, the Jews en masse rally to support Sharon and Israel. The US officials have no choice but to take the hint. American Gentiles figured it out long time ago: if you want to make a career in politics or the media, you have to support the Jews wholeheartedly. Otherwise you will find yourself thrown to dogs. If a man has found his way to the higher echelons of American power, then he has learned the ropes and knows the limits of his power.


Eric Alterman of the Nation published a list of American pundits unreservedly supportive of Israel. It is an exciting read:


George Will, The Washington Post, Newsweek and ABC News William Safire, The New York Times A.M. Rosenthal, The New York Daily News, formerly Executive Editor of and later columnist for, The New York Times, Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, PBS, Time, and The Weekly Standard, formerly of the New Republic. Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, National Journal, and, formerly of The New Republic and The New Yorker. Lally Weymouth, The Washington Post and Newsweek Martin Peretz, The New Republic, Daniel Pipes, The New York Post Andrea Peyser, The New York Post Dick Morris, The New York Post Lawrence Kaplan, The New Republic William Bennett, CNN William Kristol, The Washington Post, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, formerly of ABC News Robert Kagan, The Washington Post and The Weekly Standard, Mortimer Zuckerman, US News and World Report (Zuckerman is also Chairman of Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations ). David Gelertner, The Weekly Standard John Podhoretz, The New York Post and The Weekly Standard Mona Charen, The Washington Times Morton Kondracke, Roll Call, Fox News formerly of The McLaughlin Group, The New Republic and PBS Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, Fox News, formerly of The New Republic, The McLaughlin Group, and The Baltimore Sun Sid Zion, The New York Post, The New York Daily News, Yossi Klein Halevi The New Republic, Sidney Zion, The New York Post, formerly of The New York Daily News Norman Podhoretz, Commentary, Jonah Goldberg, National Review and CNN Laura Ingram, CNN, formerly of MSNBC and CBS News Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe Rich Lowry, National Review Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic Seth Lipsky, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Sun, formerly of the Jewish Forward Irving Kristol, The Public Interest, The National Interest and The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Chris Matthews, MSNBC Allan Keyes, MSNBC, Brit Hume, Fox News John Leo, US News and World Report Robert Bartley, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page John Fund, The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal, formerly of The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Ben Wattenberg, The Washington Times, PBS Tony Snow, Washington Times and Fox News Lawrence Kudlow, National Review and CNBC Alan Dershowitz, Boston Herald, Washington Times David Horowitz, Jacob Heilbrun, The Los Angeles Times Thomas Sowell, Washington Times Frank Gaffney Jr, Washington Times Emmett Tyrell, American Spectator and New York Sun Cal Thomas, Washington Times Oliver North, Washington Times and Fox News, formerly of MSNBC Michael Ledeen, Jewish World Review William F. Buckley, National Review Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Paul Greenberg, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, L. Brent Bozell, Washington Times Todd Lindberg, Washington Times Michael Barone, US News and World Report and The McLaughlin Group Ann Coulter, Human Events, Linda Chavez, Creators Syndicate Cathy Young, Reason Magazine Uri Dan, New York Post Dr. Laura Schlessinger, morality maven Rush Limbaugh, radio host.

“What is perhaps most interesting is the long list of non-Jews who support Israel reflexively and without qualification”, - wrote Professor Kevin McDonald of California State University[11]. – “Unconditional support for Israel is a critical litmus test of acceptability by the major media in the U.S. Prospective pundits “earn their stripes” by showing their devotion to Israel (and, presumably other Jewish issues). It seems difficult to explain the huge tilt toward Israel in the absence of some enormous selective factor as the result of individual attitudes. And there is the obvious suggestion that while the Jews on this list must be seen as ethnic actors, the non-Jews are certainly making an excellent career move in taking the positions they do. This litmus test for prospective opinion makers is further supported by the fact that Joe Sobran was fired from the National Review because he had the temerity to suppose that the U.S. foreign policy should not be dictated by what’s best for Israel”.

The careerists were chosen for their ability to disregard the interests of the American people. A good indicator of elite composition and behaviour can be found in the figures of student-admission figures of the Ivy League universities. The share of the traditional elites of the US, the WASPs, has shrunk from 85% to 35%, while the Jews’ share (2% of population) has reached 40%. In other words, a non-Jew’s chance of finding a place among the elite has decreased significantly.

Thus, after many years of selection process, pro-Jewish forces have risen to positions of power and influence in the US. All this said, America was almost doomed to become a Neo-Jewish state by virtue of its ideology. Anthony Judge wrote, “There is an extraordinary parallel between the unusual exclusivist perception of America as ‘God's own country’, and of Israel as a gift by God to "Chosen People". Why have these perceptions justified encroachment on the lands of others, the displacement and death of the indigenous populations, their restrictions to ‘reservations’, and the development of a strategic framework for the expansion of "western civilization" into the spaces of other cultures?”

The Fathers Pilgrims, the founders of America, called themselves a New Israel. However, Satan played a cruel game with their WASP descendants. He promised to make them new Jews, and he made his promise good. However, they became a minor partner in the Judeo-Mammonite alliance, doomed to swear their allegiance each day.


Still, Professor McDonald is mistaken in oversimplifying the reasons of the Gentile support for the Jews. Apart from Bush and Ramsfield, apart from the careerists, there are good non-Jews who support the Jews, just as there are maverick Jews and ‘non-Jewish Jews’, by definition of Isaac Deutscher. This is due to the contradictory nature of the centrifugal and centripetal tendencies within the Jewish community. By their individual responses to encounters with the non-Jews, the Jews can be classified as Rim Jews or Core Jews. Rim Jews try to leave the community by marrying out, by adopting Christianity, Communism or other faiths, by seeking communion with God. Core Jews proclaim the primacy of the community in permanent warfare against the Goyim. In the millennia-old tug-of-war, Christendom tries to undo the Core, while Jewry tries to undo the Rim.

That is why there are two kinds of ‘philo-Semites’. One of them, the good Gentiles, look to a new spiritual home. They are influenced by the positive parts of the Bible, by ‘love thy neighbour’. They like the spirit of community, of belonging, of the tradition that Jews exude. They like a light touch of ‘outsider’ that attracts poetic natures. There are many people, who want to break the tiresome strangling ties of their immediate surroundings. James Joyce, the Irish writer, saw the Jews as a way out of the bloody feud with Brits. Marina Tsvetaeva, the Russian poetess, felt herself an outsider in her steady middle-class family, and wrote, ‘in this most Christian world, all poets are Jews’. The charming female characters of Woody Allen’s early comedies are attracted to this eternal foreigner, the Jew.

It is not a coincidence that such people usually meet with marginal Jews on the outer rim of the Jewish community. The Jew of Joyce was the Italian Jewish writer Italo Svevo, the Jew of Tsvetaeva was the Russian Communist spy Sergey Ephron. The Jew of Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow was this amusing outsider, Woody Allen. As the rim of the Jewish community is quite large, there always is intermingling with the better sort of Gentile mavericks.

The second set of allies consists of the hard businessmen who appreciate the practical side of Jewish ideology. They like the idea of the Mob, the pursuit of money, the disregard of morals and of social consequences thereof, of others’ property and very life. People who see everybody as an enemy, and life as eternal warfare, notice that in Jewish ideology, no stranger is a ‘neighbour’. That is why the cruellest rulers, princes and kings were those who took Jewish advisers and ministers. They learned from them how to disregard their subjects. Such people as Nero and Pedro the Cruel, Conrad Black and Margaret Thatcher, the Mafia Godfathers and Third World dictators loved the Core (as opposed to Rim) Jews.

Thus, good people have their Jews, and bad people have their Jews. There is a problem: the Jews of good people are the outsiders, who hardly qualify as Jews, while the Jews of bad people are the powerful Jewish leaders. And the Jewish fraternity is a structurally hierarchical body, strongly influenced by its authoritarian leadership. Unwillingly, the good Jews were used by the bad Jews. Albert Einstein rejected the Jewish community, disproved of Zionism, never went to a synagogue and was a charming man. But his achievements were used by bad Jews to promote their own concept.

It happened because not too many people dare to understand: the Jews are neither a people, nor a religion, nor a race. They are a quasi-religious organisation; a likeness of the Catholic Church bundled together with the IMF like browser and mailer are bundled in the Windows. One can find all sorts of Catholics, but decisions are made in Rome. One can find all sorts of Jews, but the decisions are made in Wall Street.

While fighting against the Core, it is important to support the Rim. That was the traditional approach of the Christian Church: fight Jewry for the soul of Jews. A Jewish Zealot, ‘Mad’ Goldhagen, claimed in his books that the Church was ‘anti-Semitic’ and its policies led to the Jewish holocaust. Nothing could be more wrong: the Church wished to correct the mind, not to kill the body. Indeed, the true interests of Jews and the Jews are at loggerheads.

The Jewish elites know that people should be given a choice, and they try to ensure that it will be the wrong choice. That is why the Mammonite Jews support the Zionist Zealots. They want us, Jews, to make our choice between these two evils, the Zealots and Mammonites. But there is ‘the third philosophy’ as well. Its adepts believe in the great fraternity of mankind, and they reject both the Zealots’ hate and the Pharisees’ drive for the world domination. They can adhere to different political and religious schools, be on the left or on the right of the political map, believe in Christ or Allah, Lenin or Chomsky, the New Age or Buddha, Art or Love. They are the remnant of Israel, proclaimed by St Paul. In their merging with mankind, the words of Christ will be fulfilled: a corn that dies, lives. A corn that lives, dies.

The story of the Death and the Resurrection has this mystic meaning: do not be afraid of death and disappearance, as it is the way to life. The Jews who died as Jews remained alive. After the curtain descended on the Jewish community in Spain; St Teresa of Avila and St John of God died as Jews and remained alive forever. The names of exiles who went to Amsterdam and Morocco are gone and forgotten: they remained alive as Jews, then died forever. It was repeated in 1917 in Russia: that those who remained Jews died forever; those who embraced the revolution live forever.


Just before 9/11, a group of US congressmen visited Palestine, and one of them made headlines. It was the Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (a Democrat from Nevada) who said to the Palestinian Minister Saeb Erakat: “This is our country; we won the war. If the Palestinians do not like living under Jewish rule, I would not prevent them from leaving”.

Who are the Hon. Shelley Berkley’s ‘we’? She certainly did not mean ‘we the Americans’, or ‘we the Nevadans’ who sent her to Washington. Nevada did not wage a war in the Middle East, to the best of my knowledge. Some naïve person would probably reply ‘Israel’, and even accuse her of ‘dual loyalty’. Strict mentors would censure her for betraying the trust of her electorate by switching her allegiance to a foreign country. But it would be a dishonest misinterpretation. Miss Berkley never switched allegiance. Together with many other members of Congress and the Senate, she has a single loyalty, which is to the Jewish cause.

Miss Berkley makes sense. If Nevadans and other Americans do not mind living under heavy Jewish influence, why should the Palestinians mind it? Americans apparently do not mind that their wealth is managed by big investment bankers, under the umbrella of Mr Greenspan’s Federal Reserve. Jesus saves, but Moses invests. Jewish influence does not stop where the buck stops. The ideals of Americans are formed by Hollywood with its cult of greed and success. Their thoughts are supplied by the Jewish pundits in the universities and media. For comfort, they take the New York Times chicken soup. Their history has shrunk down to Holocaust studies. Their books are written by Bellow and Malamud. Americans do not mind that their politics are in the hands of people whose single devotion is to the Jewish cause.

If they do not mind, why do I, an Israeli Jew, mind it, instead of feeling pride for this great achievement of my brethren the American Jews? After all, it is no mean feat to take over the only superpower without a single shot being fired. This is not a rhetorical question, it has an answer, and it is not ‘self-hatred’. I feel perfectly comfortable with myself, and with the majority of Jews I meet. Separately, we are nice and cuddly. Well, as nice as any. But together, we form a formidable and repulsive social machine, hell-bent on power grasping and greed. I like ‘the Jews’ as much as the great American Henry Thoreau loved the American Empire, as Voltaire loved his Catholic Church, as Orwell loved Stalin’s Party.

Jewry has become the adversary of Jews in Israel: Israelis who would like to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours, in peace with churches and mosques, can not counteract the raw muscle of the American Jewish leadership. Good Israelis and their Palestinian allies can’t win, unless this power is contained. In a Nordic story, the hero-god Thor came to Utgard to prove his power. The gods of Utgard challenged him to drink from a horn. He tried and failed: The horn was connected to a well. Only by severing the connection, could he meet the challenge. If you, my readers overseas, will block the sea of the Jewish support abroad, we, Israelis and Palestinians, will be able to change things on the ground. The supporters of the Jewish state in your midst should be contained, for your and our sake.


A few months ago, my travels took me to the Amazon basin, to the Peruvian jungle deeply cut by Rio del Madre de Dios. In this remote location, small rivulets meander for miles among endless forests, navigable just by small pirogues. After a long sailing from Puerto Maldonado, my native guide brought me to the Lost World of many-coloured parrots and of friendly monkeys that sat on my shoulder. On a narrow path, I noticed a huge tree. It was bigger than all other trees of the jungle. Its huge roots were spread across many yards. It is the telegraph-tree, my guide replied to my query. He tapped on the trunk of the monster tree and the sound boomed throughout the jungle. The giant was hollow.

I looked at it closely and noticed a strange feature I had missed before: some seven yards above the ground, another trunk, a partly digested palm tree, protruded from the embracing, smooth bark. The telegraph-tree was a monstrous parasite, a growth on a palm tree. The parasite had no trunk of its own, but it enveloped the tree and grew on it, eventually blocking it and digesting its life juices. The tree rotted inside its shell, and the hollow trunk climbed to new heights, creating a perfect drum for the local Indians.

It was a living image of the United States of America, this huge and hollow trunk, towering above the forest of nations, but dead inside. The American Empire has entered its period of decline. The dollar is still the world currency, the American army is still the formidable war machine, the stock market still runs to trillions, but the great state of the West is a spiritual nonentity. Political life in the US has entered the twilight reminiscent of the last days of the Meroving kings. For an outsider, it is hard to comprehend that this nation of 275 million could not find better leaders than the two nincompoops Bush and/or Gore. Both appear to be weak of mind, lacking in basic knowledge, and totally devoid of political will. Probably an average city could field better men than these two.

General political decline is accompanied by weakness of mind. America of the mass media and public life is silly. There are no important new books, comparable with the pre-war American output. The US TV is an insult to human intelligence. Museums are full of rusty junk and videotapes purporting to be American art. The Judeo-Mammonite takeover has eliminated the living forces of America, and directed them into consumption.


The ‘Jewish’ spirit of America, denounced by Marx, was glorified and exalted by a Jewish American journalist Phillip Weiss[12]:

No one is allowed to speak up about something we all quietly know: Jews changed America. The civil rights movement reflects Jewish values of justice. Feminism is a reflection of liberal Jewish matriarchal values. Ever-more-powerful Jews in the media have ushered in the information age. Psychologically attuned Jews and Hollywood Jews changed the language of popular culture—Seinfeld, Weinstein. And the new emphasis on educational achievement throughout our society reflects the Jewish love of learning. I have not even gotten to finance or the law… These trends have made America a fairer and more creative place. Jews have fostered the separation of church and state. The greatly diminished influence of church on public mores wouldn’t have happened without secularized Jews gaining cultural power. And no one ever talks about it. The most important change in establishment culture in the last 25 years, and it goes unspoken.

This smug self-adoration of Weiss calls for some sobriety. These changes can be seen in a less felicitous light. Jews changed America during last 25-30 years, says Weiss. These were golden years for American Jews, as their share of power and influence grew. But these years were rather bad for un-Chosen Americans. A British weekly, the Economist, an ardent supporter of the neo-liberalism, reported[13] recently:

The gap between the poor and the rich is rising. In America, in last twenty years, average income of the richest fifth of population from 9 to 15 times income of the poorest fifth. In 1999, British income inequality reached its widest level in 40 years.

The growth of Jewish influence was accompanied by divergence: the rich became richer, the poor became poorer, and the middle class lost. It should have been expected, as traditionally the prosperity of the Jewish community runs counter to the interests of common folk. The Bible provided us with an archetypal story of Joseph and his brothers, who prospered by enslaving ordinary Egyptians to the Pharaoh. The Jewish community stood by the king and against the ordinary folk in Spain in the days of Don Pedro the Cruel, in Poland and Ukraine of 17th century. Not in vain Jewish neighbourhoods were located next to royal palaces everywhere in Europe.

The ‘ever-more-powerful Jews in the media’ were engaged in their usual drivel: glorifying Israel, bemoaning the Jewish Holocaust, supporting every nasty case from mass murder in Iraq to the blocking of the Blacks’ advancement in the US. Under the Jews, Hollywood made American cinema even more violent, moralistic, repulsive, and philistine. There is a good Jewish guy in the movies, Woody Allen, but he is not in Hollywood and he is anyway considered an anti-Semite. In the law, the advent of the Jew did not make America a more just society, but a more litigious one. ‘A Jewish lawyer’ has come to stay as the bogeyman for scaring kids at night. ‘Separation of church and society’ can be considered to be its forced de-Christianisation and de-spiritualization.


The US has become a Jewish state in more ways than one. It has the same security checks, the same holocaust museums, the same poverty for many and riches for a few as Israel. The similarity is felt by its friend and foe alike. David Quinn[14] wrote in the Sunday Times, that the feel of Irish intellectuals’ rejection of American policies is “so strong, so palpable, so irrational (!?), that it reminded me of nothing so much as anti-Semitism”. Quinn continued:

Americans are like the Jews in having become the scapegoats of choice for half the planet. The Jews were accused of controlling the world's finances; so is the United States. The Jews were accused of promoting decadence through their control of culture and the arts. So is the United States. The Jews were accused of putting their power to a range of nefarious uses. So is the United States”.

“Given America's power and wealth, and the strength of its Jewish lobby, in the Middle East it has been simplicity itself to mix anti-American with age-old anti-Semitism to produce a truly poisonous brew. Tens of millions of people have imbibed this concoction and are now filled with a hatred of America as strong as that of many Germans in the Weimar Republic.

“Osama bin Laden and his followers have followed their hatred to its logical conclusion, just as Hitler did: If America really is to blame for the world's problems, then it, and its people, must be eradicated”.

This article is important, as it displays the subconscious of an adept of Judeo-Americanism. Quinn appeals to Jews and Neo-Jews: support America as America is a Jewish state that carries out Jewish policies and causes normal anti-Jewish response. Quinn considers Jews and America to be identical, and he uses the many cliché of Neo-Jewish propaganda.

One of the clichés is that rejection of Jewish/American policies is ‘irrational’ for there is a tenet of faith: “thou shall not try and understand why thine policies cause rejection”. Elie Wiesel, the prophet of holocaustism, recites at every occasion: ‘totally irrational… no explanation… no reason, just pure hate of everybody to Jews’, and Rabbi Tony Bayfield repeats it with usual Jewish vehemence[15]:

I am seething with rage at anyone who dares suggest that, in any way, such acts (attack on Pentagon etc) are even explicable, let alone justifiable.

Without knowing Rabbi Bayfield personally, I venture a wild guess. If you mention Deir Yassin to him, or the genocide in Iraq, he will seethe with rage: How can one compare! He will find these mass murders justifiable, let certainly explicable. But whenever Jews suffer, it can not be explained and understood but by some mystic means.

Quinn, as any Neo-Jewish apologist, denies the undeniable. For him, America does not control world finances, she is accused of it. Probably, America is only accused of occupying a large part of North America. In Quinn’s mind, she lives in a poor house, in a little schtetl. I have no idea of David Quinn’s origin, but nobody can be more Jewish than he.

For Quinn, every enemy of Jewish supremacy/American domination is a new Hitler who wants to kill all Jews/Americans. Nasser was Hitler when he nationalized Suez, Arafat was  Hitler and Beirut was his bunker. Soviet Russia was the same as Nazi Germany from the moment Moscow completed its part in vanquishing Hitler. Osama bin Laden, or ‘tens of millions of people in the Middle East’ became a new Hitler. The idea behind this comparison is that these ‘tens of millions’ of Muslims should be dealt with as Hitler and his ‘many Germans in the Weimar Republic’.

Judeo-American discourse inherited this demonisation idea from its Jewish predecessor. Introduction of fury, hatred and vengefulness into a discussion of the adversary is a potent traditional Jewish ideological weapon. It is never turned on inside the community, but used outside of it. Demonisation and fury causes general nastiness and bias in discourse and eventually destroys society. Rabbi Shmuel Boteach, formerly the Chabad Rabbi at Oxford University, presented this Jewish approach in his aptly named piece, A Time to Hate[16].

The proper response to the cowardly brutes who perpetrated the horrific attacks against America is to hate them with every fibre of our being and purge ourselves of any morsel of sympathy which might seek to understand their motives. Hatred is a valid emotion… Contrary to Christianity, which advocates turning the other cheek to belligerence and loving the wicked, Judaism obligates us to despise and resist the wicked at all costs. For us to extend forgiveness and compassion to <sinners> in the name of religion is not just insidious, it is an act of mocking G-d, who has mercy for all, yet demands justice for the innocent. The only response to Hitler is utter contempt and violent hatred. The only way to react to incorrigible evil is to wage an incessant war against it until it is utterly eradicated from the earth. I maintain that any culture that does not hate Hitler and his ilk is a non-compassionate society. Indeed, to show kindness to the murderer is to violate the victim yet again. Thus, in the interest of justice, the appropriate response to the evil person is to hate him with every fibre of our being and to hope they find no rest, neither in this world nor in the next.


In the struggle of ideas, there is a formidable weapon of mass destruction: demonisation of the opponent. Theologically it is called the ‘Manichean’ heresy. There is no better systemic weapon if you intend to destroy society. One should not divide people unto Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness.

Jews usually are quite tolerant of ideas produced within the community. The founder of Zionism Theodor Hertzl was anything but a pious Jew. Religious Jews greatly disliked him. Still, when a Rabbi was asked to say something good about him, he found good words: Theodor Hertzl never spoke on mundane subjects in a synagogue, never entered a toilet while wearing phylacteries, he never studied the Talmud on Christmas Eve.  The truth is that Hertzl never visited a synagogue, never wore phylacteries, never studied the Talmud, full stop. In a similar vein, Jews were quite tolerant of Leon Trotsky the Communist, and of Yair Stern the Nazi supporter, for they knew that every idea has its positive elements. Nowadays, the leader of Left Opposition Yossi Sarid was a friend of the assassinated Judeo-Nazi minister Zeevi and touchingly eulogised him.

But to the outside world, Jews usually offered the idea of the eternally blessed vs. the eternally damned, of seething rage, of anger and vengeance. In order to restore the balance of mind, this Jewish internal tolerance should be universalised, and Jewish external intolerance rejected.

Judeo-American thought keeps producing intolerance for external consumption. Ronald Reagan called Russia, ‘the Evil Empire’. Bush called Saddam Hussein, ‘Hitler’. Barbara Amiel, wife and guiding light of the media magnate Lord Black, remarked that now, Israel and the Jews are presented as an Evil Empire.

Wrong, Ms Amiel: there are no Evil Empires, only unchecked ones.

Soviet Russia was not an Evil Empire, nor was Communism embodied in Stalin and the Gulag. Sholokhov, Block, Pasternak, Esenin, Mayakovsky and Deineka embraced the Revolution and expressed its ideas in art. It was a land of the great and partly successful experiment in equality and brotherhood of Man, of a brave attempt to defeat the spirit of Greed. Communists and their supporters tried to liberate labour, to bring the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, to remove poverty and free the human spirit. Communism brought forth the social democracy of Europe.

Germany was not an Evil Empire, nor was the spirit of organic traditionalism embodied in Hitler and Auschwitz. The Traditionalists tried to establish an alternative paradigm based on Wagner, Nietzsche and Hegel, to go to the roots and traditions of the folk. Not in vain, the best writers and thinkers of Europe from Knut Hamsun to Louis Ferdinand Celine to Ezra Pound to William Butler Yeats to Heidegger saw a positive element in the Traditionalist organic approach. If Russia and Germany had not been demonised, it is quite possible we would not have seen them coming to such extremes.

We have to restore the balance of mind and discourse lost in the aftermath of the World War Two, due to the too-complete victory of the bourgeois ‘Judeo-American’ thought. While condemning excesses and war crimes, we should regain the kingdom of the spirit from Mayakovsky to Pound. There are no evil men, we are created in the image of God, and all ideas are needed to produce new thought.

The two great protagonists of 1930s and 1940s committed many atrocities, but whoever is without sin, let him throw the first stone. After Dresden and Hiroshima, and the Deir Yassin and Jenin massacres, there are not many takers. They should be de-demonised, as their demonisation creates a dangerous imbalance of ideas.

We should not demonise their opponents, either. America is not an Evil Empire. It can and should be brought to its senses. The American spirit of entrepreneurship, invention, self-reliance, unbridled freedom and democracy should be kept as all-human valuable assets.

The Jewish People are not an Evil Empire. Good organisers and ambassadors, stubborn and devout, easily carried away, high-strung, first-class thinkers and brave soldiers, light travellers, compassionate and cheerful; Jews are needed for the prosperity of mankind.

But every one of these approaches can destroy the world if left unchecked.

The Soviets killed and exiled millions in their drive to demolish the Old Order. They ruined old churches, uprooted peasants and supported uniformity as much as their American antagonists. The Nazis unleashed the most horrible war on the world and killed millions of Slavs and Jews. Now, the Judeo-American forces have been unhinged by the completeness of their victories in 1945 and in 1991. They understand it as a licence to drive the world to perdition. Their programme of globalisation would eliminate all beauty and specific quality of the world, kill the spirit, undermine art, wipe out spirit, destroy nature, undo social achievements, divide mankind into Masters and Slaves. Wherever they go, old cafès and restaurants disappear and Starbucks and McDonalds take over. Workers lose their working places, museums are filled with trash, art is replaced by TV. Still, they should be contained, not destroyed.

Usually we discuss war as the conflict of state interests. But the never-ending World War Two was the war of ideas, as well. It was wrong and unneeded, as various ideas should coexist in eternal struggle, as Yin and Yang, or feminine and masculine forces. The Judeo-American idea will emasculate the world if left to run unchecked. This emasculation is strongly felt in the US, where men do not dare to be men anymore. They can be sued if they look at a girl, and sued if they do not look at a girl. In Beowulf, the great Anglo-Saxon epic poem, a cruel queen kills every man who dares to look at her. Little did they know that the spirit of the cruel queen will rule supreme in the world.

The Judeo-American idea has a strong attachment to biological life, but rejects spirit. It is not for nothing that no great pieces of art, no great new ideas appear under its rule. On the other hand, the purely masculine tendencies of its opponents were also dangerous for the survival of the human race.

All three adversaries of the last Century had a common feature: they rejected Christ, the base of our spirituality. None of the great leaders of the WWII ever turned to God. Americans are and Communists were scared to mention Christ in order not to be ridiculed or rebuked by Jews. The Nazis were strongly anti-Christian, and dabbled in the occult. This is the fourth element missing for the restoration of the balance.

Thus, we should look for a synthesis of the four tendencies: the organic native love of nature, local roots and tradition, social communal justice for all mankind, love of life and entrepreneurship; and spirituality. They would present the new meaning of Cross, and bring mankind to its unity in spirit, while preserving its beautiful variety.


Many scholars of the Rise of the Jews encounter a difficulty. Their Darwinist instincts called them to presume some better qualities of the Jews which led them to succeed. McDonald came to the conclusion that Jews possess a higher intelligence, the result of eugenics and careful breeding. I felt myself proud while reading his work, until I looked around at real Jews, my neighbours. His concept did not survive encounter with reality. If it is not higher intelligence, what then?

Darwinists’ error lays in their inability to see success as a function of society. In traditional Gentile societies, a model of success was provided by a poet, a saint, an artist, a brave warrior, a good worker or peasant, a man who made life better for others. For Homeric Greeks, good sportsmen, seafarers, poets, musicians and dancers were the models for success as we can learn from the wonderful utopia of the Feacians. These idyllic people, like the jolly Oxford student of old, despise a trader and a businessman, and prefer a good yachtsman.

 According to Jews, there are two different concepts of success. One, success within the Jewish community, was achieved by studying the Talmud. Another, success in the Big World of Jews and Gentiles. This success is measured by the ruthless amassing of money and power.

From the Jewish point of view, Jews were always successful, as they always had both sorts of success. But until recently, the Jewish external success was not considered a success by Gentiles at all. There were always Gentiles who shared their view, but be they Richard III or Harpagon, they were considered monsters rather than models of success. In the Nineteenth Century, the critical mass of monsters was achieved and thus the Mammonite world was born. By actively participating in discourse (media + universities), Jewish thinkers and ideologists promoted the Mammonite idea of success and made it the standard one in Western society. Modern Harpagon and Richard, be they Iacocca or Soros, are generally approved of in the new society formed by the Mammonite discourse-masters. The Western world became Jewish, as Marx put it, and it adopted the Jewish idea of success. In plain words, Jews did not ‘become successful’, rather, their normal behaviour became a norm of success.

If the discourse of the US were transferred into Afro-American hands, it is possible that good sportsmen and musicians would come to be considered successful, while lawyers and bankers would be considered failures. That would be better for the future of mankind than the present adoration of money and power.


Even the material success of Jews is not achieved by a miracle. A tentative explanation was offered by two Israeli directors and producers, Menachem Golan and Yoram Globus. People of meagre talents whose cinematographic achievements remain strictly in the B-class, they made a fortune in Hollywood and produced many awful films until they suffered a setback. Their key to success lay in vertical networking. Golan and Globus bought cinemas all over England and the UK, and there they screened the movies of their choice. They invariably (well, almost) chose awful movies, as they had no taste, talent or ability. They said: If you own a chain of cinemas, you do not have to worry about the quality of your movies. Globalisation and creation of networks is the way to avoid competition by merit. Instead of opening a better café, it is easier to buy every café and turn it into a Starbuck. People will have to come to your café.

The second reason for Jewish success is in our mutual psychological compatibility. Adversaries usually describe it as Jewish ‘freemasonry’, almost a conspiracy. But it is quite natural for Jews to like similar things, like Englishmen like bacon and eggs. Still it creates a problem for human development. In Prague of the 1920s, there were two equally good but very different writers, an alienated and abstract Jew, Frantz Kafka and an earthly Czech Communist Jaroslaw Hasek. Both are good, both are necessary for the development of mankind, but the genius of Kafka is more palatable for Jews. As there are many more Jewish professors of literature and newspaper editors than the Czech ones, it is but natural that Kafka is universally known and recognised, while Hasek’s name remains in Bohemia. More writers imitate Kafka than so much as consider Hasek. As a result, mankind, not only America, turns more and more ‘Jewish’. As writers know, they must write in a way palatable to the Jewish editors and professors. Otherwise they can expect only a parochial success. Thus, without any conspiracy, normal human Jewish tendencies influence the spirit of mankind by eliminating its beautiful variety.

Now, these problems can be solved. While some amount of private initiative is good, networking should be banned. One may own a bookshop or a cinema or a café. But an attempt to buy or establish control over a second one should attract criminal prosecution.

An Inuit was hit by a steam train while visiting the continent, tells a Northern joke. He survived the accident, but since then, he destroys every kettle he sees. They should be eradicated while small, he says. After seeing the monopolisation, we should follow the advice of the wise Inuit. It is better for us to have a hundred different cafés than a hundred Starbucks.

Man’s income should be capped by a double-average industrial wage, while above that amount, taxes should exceed one hundred percent.  Managerial privileges should be capped severely as well. Media and discourse in general should be freed. In the area of human thought, the Brahmanite tendency of Jews should be made visible and confronted. The Brahman is not an enemy, but his traditional tendency to domination should be counteracted by better visibility and accountability.

A joint communion of spirit proclaiming our unity should be established. It implies rejection of interest and racial discrimination. St Ambrose, in his comments on Deut. 23:19, wrote: “From him exact usury whom it would not be a crime to kill. Where there is a right of war, there also is a right of usury”[17]. People who share communion with their brothers and sisters in spirit do not demand usury. But, if the communion is gone, usury, unlimited exploitation and slavery come in. Slavery was introduced by Calvinists and Jews in North America, while it was unknown in the lands where the communion united the people in one Church.

In his witty Catch-22, Joseph Heller has a General ask his chaplain in disbelief: “Do enlisted men pray to the same god as we do?” This is the idea of the world without a shared communion. It is not without reason that the Talmud forbids a Jew to drink wine with a Gentile, as sharing wine is a communion. As the purpose of Jewish Law was to maintain low-intensity warfare of Jews against Gentiles, a Jew was also forbidden to make an interest-free loan to a Gentile. By sharing communion, society will overcome this difficulty.

With this, the Rise of the Jews will be transformed into a Rise of Man.

The long saga of the Jewish people is headed for an unknown end. It began with rejection of communality, and it ends with the same question asked again. If Zionism and its elder brother Mammonitis were to win world-wide, it would remove variety, mercy and spirit. If the spirit of communality wins, the prophecies of old will become true. We shall say: We be of one blood, the Palestinian people, descendents of Abraham, of the Israelites, of the Apostles, the rightful dwellers of Palestine, and their close kin and kith, the wandering Jewish folk, who came back like the Prodigal Son to the land of his fathers. The exiled sons of Palestinian villages, of Kakun and Suba, will return and they will rebuild the ruined cities, never again to be uprooted (Amos 9:15). In the Holy Land, the two branches of one people, the Jews and the Palestinians will unite, intermarry and create a new folk - like the Normans did in East Anglia, Sicily and Normandy - never again to disturb the peace of the world.



[1] Publisher: Alma/Am Oved, Tel Aviv, 2000, ISBN 965-13-1428-1,

English translation or cheaper: from Barnes and Noble

[2] CNN, 9/11/01

[3] 9/12/01

[4] --Rich Lowry, National Review editor, to Howard Kurtz (Washington Post,

[5] 2.7.01

[6] The Third Dove

[7] The Israeli-Arab War, June 1967, New Left Review, 23.6.67

[9] April 7, 2002

[10] I normalised the spelling of her name. Taki the snob had to spell quite an ordinary Jewish name Landoi (var. Landau) in the French way.

[11] in private communication to the author

[12] Source: NY Observer of 22 January 2001 by: Philip Weiss  

[13] June 16, 2001

[14] Blaming America, Irish edition, Sunday Times

[15]  Guardian, 15 Sept 2001

[17] The quote supplied by David Pidcock.