In the Jewish media—and today that means much of the major media
of the world and virtually all of it in the U.S.—in newspapers,
magazines, radio, television, and films, everything comes down
to the Jews as arbiters, the setters of intellectual (and
ideological) trends, the determiners of value, collectively the
“glass of fashion and mold of form,” and above all the
Masters of Discourse.
Those capitalized words are the title of the new and thoroughly
remarkable book by Israel Adam Shamir, native of Siberia,
resident of Jaffa in Israel, ex-Jew, Orthodox Christian,
magnificent thinker and writer, compassionate human being, and a
nervy chap altogether.
I have previously dealt with some of Shamir’s positions in an
article, “Shamir and the Jewish Question,” published in the
September, 2005 issue of Culture Wars. It is online at
http://www.culturewars.com/2005/Pardes.html). To summarize
very briefly: he desires to see the Holy Land become a single
state, with one man, one vote, including all present
residents—Jews, Christians, and Muslims—and with a right of
return for all Palestinians, thus to bring to an end what brave
President Jimmy Carter, and many others, including Shamir, have
called a racist, apartheid state.
Israel is actually more truly a “Jews-only” state, that is, a
religiously exclusive one, rather than one set up on racial
lines. What race, after all, are the Jews? Homo
sapiens for sure, but what beyond that? The identity of the
Jews today—as a religious group that has rejected the Christ,
the Logos—is definitively discussed in the first chapter,
“The Synagogue of Satan,” of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit,
the new book by E. Michael Jones, the editor and publisher of
this magazine.
Jones’s entire book, and Shamir’s work I am reviewing here, are
magisterial texts on the current world crisis arising from the
convergence of so many problems, chief among them a controlled
press, global usurious capitalism, global climate change, peak
oil, and ineffective government ruled from behind the scenes by
financial oligarchs, many of the richest of them Jews, in a
pretense of “free markets.”
Shamir, an admirer of democracy (more than I am at present),
thinks Israel’s claims to be a democracy are hollow hypocrisy.
Modern Israel is, he says, a pilot project for the New Order to
be imposed on the world. It is a paradise for the rich and a
total misery for lesser folk, including native Arab Muslims and
Christians and even many Jews who do not belong to the
Ashkenazim elite, but to “inferior” orders of Sephardic,
Ethiopian, and Russian Jews.
As to the Ashkenazim, see Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth
Tribe, about the astonishing fact that the Central
Euro-Asian Khazar kingdom converted to Judaism more than a
millennium ago, and the former Khazars are now the Ashkenazim,
who are the lion’s share of today’s Jews. They have basically no
genetic connection at all with Middle Eastern Jews. A brief
summary of the work is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe .
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the
one and love the other: or he will hold to the one and despise
the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
And here is the same
verse as translated by Msgr. Knox in his 20th century
English version:
No servant can be in the employment of two masters at once;
either he will hate one and love the other, or he will devote
himself to the one and despise the other. You must serve God or
money; you cannot do both.
Why St. Jerome chose
to take the word mammon over from the Greek New Testament rather
than translating it, I can only guess. But the very learned
Msgr. Knox evidently accepts the definition in Strong’s famous
Concordance that mammon (mammonias), a word of
Chaldean origin, means wealth (personified) or avarice
(deified); and he translates it as, simply, money, which covers
the case nicely for the modern understanding. (“Mammon” does not
appear in the Old Testament or Torah.)
So now we have it
clear: mammon worshippers worship money; their psychic
commitment is to getting more of it; their god is greed. There
are a lot of Mammonites around, and they aren’t all Jews,
although after the Jewish rejection of the Christ, of the Word,
of the Logos that lighteth every man that cometh into the
world, it was the only other choice, as Christ made clear. He
did not suggest there was any third option.
Mammon—money—contains all of “this world,” all material goods
and power, and the massive influence that flows from having them
in excess. It is what people aim for when they despair of God
and the life of the Spirit. Mammonites think the “kingdom of
heaven” can be achieved on earth by stacking up wealth and
possessions. There is a real temptation to worship mammon in all
of us.
A crazy thought, you say, about an even crazier schema? Read
Shamir’s book and see where you come out. Here, to start with,
is the “product description” posted on the Amazon page marketing
the book, a description I am pretty sure was written by Shamir
himself and was certainly vetted by him:
Welcome to the new world order, where mass media, a fully
integrated public-opinion-forming machine of mind control has
rendered the Left and Right obsolete and subservient to Zionism.
Who are the people who own and operate this machine? Are they
actually the Jewish Lobby? No, says Shamir. The formidable
Jewish Lobby is just the visible tip of the iceberg, while below
there are miles and miles of solid ice: media lords, chief
editors, their favourite university pundits—in short, the
Masters of Discourse. In this third volume of his writing,
Israel Shamir travels around the world to find the
reason for their captive hold over our thinking.
And here,
predictably, are the first two reader reviews posted on the same
Amazon site, one pro, and one con:
Pro:
This is a most impressive book
on the Left and Right, on the world as it is today, from Cuba to
Malaysia, and about the Masters of media owners who dictate our
agenda. It includes some of Shamir's most controversial essays.
Con:
Shamir's latest book continues
his Jew-hating rhetoric. Have no doubt, this is a thinly veiled
anti-Semitic diatribe on the Jewish control of the media.
You could describe that as a
sharp difference of opinion.
Here is in amplification of Shamir’s point about the control of
media, one of many statements of his case (pages 665-666):
The battle of ideas does not take place in the mind of an
isolated hermit, but in the minds of millions of people
connected by means of discourse, from a conversation around the
dinner table to a TV programme. The discourse forms the
battlefield and this battlefield, like every battlefield, is not
flat ground without features of its own: imagine hills, mountain
crags, valleys and streams crossing it, and making is as
complicated as every battle on a real battleground.
This battle had changed its character since our enemies and the
enemies of liberty invented and constructed a unique machine
like nothing that was ever known to mankind. This machine is a
fully integrated public-opinion-forming device; it consists of
mass media, experts and universities, it owns practically all TV
stations and newspapers, it produces a single narrative, and it
succeeds in brainwashing the masses. The owners of this machine
are the Masters, or Proprietors, of Discourse. They decide what
will be known to people, what opinion will be acceptable and
what banned. Because of this machine, the imperialist rulers
became so devoted to “democracy”: they know that this device
renders democracy an empty slogan.
For instance, a few days ago there were the primaries in Nevada,
US. The second-place candidate in the elections was Ron Paul, an
anti-establishment, anti-war, libertarian man. We won’t discuss
whether he is good or bad for us; what is relevant is that the
US media, integrated in one machine, did not report his
achievement at all. I checked dozens of reports; his name was
not even mentioned, though the third runner-up was mentioned at
length. In other words, the media now is able to undermine even
the bourgeois democracy it was supposed to protect and nourish.
Shamir’s favorite literary form is what I like to call a
“feuilleton,” a word both unspellable and largely
unpronounceable but a proper label for a favorite form of mine
that is short, usually a few hundred words, and permits attempts
at humor or at least lightness, while also permitting heavy
philosophical points so long as you don’t overdo it. I first
encountered the word and examples of the form in the work of the
Russian mathematician and philosopher P.D. Ouspensky many years
ago. Shamir has put together this huge book by assembling more
than 100 feuilletons (but he calls them essays, which they also
are) that appeared first on his website,
http://www.israelshamir.net/ .
It is quite impossible to do justice here to the tremendous
range of topical references in Masters of Discourse.
Shamir is a polymath, a genius of learning, language, and
observation. I can’t convey much beyond broad outlines of what
Masters of Discourse is up to. But I would think it most
advisable to tell readers of this review to read the book, meet
a great man, and widen their horizons to take in the whole world
as it relates to a “global people,” that most extraordinary
tribe, the Jews.
Three of the longest and most trenchant of his essays are the
last three in the book, each a blockbuster: “The Tyranny of
Liberalism,” “Northern Spring,” and “Keep Shining, Cuba.” Some
snippets from “The Tyranny of Liberalism”
In recent years, with the American invasion of Afghanistan and
Iraq, many others have come to share [Carl] Schmitt’s
realization that liberalism is an aggressive global ideology
that is bent on forcing certain principles to be implemented
world-wide—by force of arms if necessary. These principles can
be described either in positive or negative terms, just as a
restaurant guest and an oyster would describe the arrival of
Chablis and lemon in different ways. Much depends on whether you
eat or are eaten. Let’s have a look at the menu from both sides:
·
Human Rights versus the denial of Collective
Rights.
·
Minority Rights versus the denial of Majority
Rights.
·
Non-governmental ownership of the media versus the
exclusive right of Capital to form public opinion.
·
Women’s rights versus the dissolution of the
family.
·
Anti-racism versus the dissolution of native
culture.
·
Economic self-reliance versus the denial of social
supports and mutual charity.
·
Separation of Church and Sate versus total freedom
for anti-Christian propaganda and a ban on the Christian mission
in the public sphere.
·
Controlled public elections with safe choices
versus the denial of authentic self-determination. (p.643)
Thus we come to a conclusion: modern American liberalism is
secularized Judaism for gentiles—and not the freedom from
religious pressure as its proponents claim. (p. 651)
Wherever it gains the upper hand, the Liberal Secular Judaic
doctrine creates enormous gaps between the upper and lower
castes. Indeed in the US 60 million Americans live on $7 a day,
while a happy few have billions they can’t possibly spend. This
represents a very successful evolutionary strategy for the
ruling minority. The strategy has been so successful that
eventually the ruled majority may have to apply drastic measures
to moderate that success. (p.653)
And at the beginning of the book there are two introductory,
positioning interviews of Shamir by journalists: “Getting to
know Mr. Shamir” by Kim Pederson of Dissident Voice, and
“Hatred is a Mother-in-lawish word” by Raja Bahari of the
“leading radical left-wing magazine of Sweden.” Some snippets
from these:
Christianity and Judaism are strongly connected religions. A
Christian, Karl Marx said: Christianity is sublime Judaism,
while Judaism is sordid Christianity. A real Christian knows
that a goy is not worse than a Jew; so the idea of Jewish
exclusivity is not acceptable to a Christian. (p. 14)
The scourge of [David] Irving, Deborah Lipstadt, denied the
fiery holocaust of Dresden, and was not discredited. . . . Face
it . . . the very concept of Holocaust is a concept of Jewish
superiority. . . . Thus the question of Holocaust denial is the
question of apostasy: will our society stand on the rock planted
by Christ or will it worship the Jewish state. This is an
important discovery of eternal religiosity of human spirit: the
attempt to create a secular society did not work out. After an
illusionary short break, the gods came back. (pp. 15 and 16)
In my view, Christianity is reformed, corrected Judaism,
ideologically and theologically in permanent tension towards
Rabbinic Judaism. I reject Judaism completely, and think it is a
dangerous and troublesome ideology. (p. 20)
Some personal reflections, if I may: my brother sends me, as he
does a number of other relatives, an annual subscription to the
New Yorker Magazine. As sheer product, it’s actually a great
bargain at a subscriber’s price of $1 an issue, with its masses
of glossy ads and acres of well-proofed print.
I think my brother considers it to be still pretty much the same
magazine we read in our college days (60 years back now), when
we thought it a smart, sophisticated, and funny assemblage of
great cartoons and fantastic reporting about everything under
the sun and especially of the art and literary doings in THE
CITY, a place to which we all posted with great dexterity from
what we held to be backwater Boston as soon as WWII was over.
In a letter to Culture Wars that appeared in the (????????)
issue, I wrote of an article in a recent New Yorker (June 9 and
16, 2008) about the great American poet Ezra Pound that
denigrated him as a severe antisemite. In my letter I
characterized the magazine as “an upscale element in the
Jewish-owned media monopoly in America.” It is definitely no
longer the magazine my brother may think it still is, the old
wry, funny, WASPy, cultural showpiece that it was under editor
Harold Ross and with writers like James Thurber, Dorothy Parker,
and Robert Benchley, and cartoonists like Peter Arno and Helen
Hokinson filling the pages. The old American WASP elite has now
been firmly displaced by the new, immensely prosperous, and very
clever Ashkenazi Jewish elite.
It appears that one aspect of the mission of the New Yorker
under its Jewish ownership is to reassess all the old “good
writers” in terms of their “attitude to the Jews.” In the New
Yorker issue of July 7 and 14, 2008, they are at it again, this
time damning with faint praise—and condemning as an
antisemite—the British and Catholic giant, G.K. Chesterton.
These hatchet jobs are well done. This is not crude journalism;
the point of the effort by author Adam Gopnik is to insinuate
the value judgment, “bad man because he did not like Jews,” into
a quite learned piece that involves a good deal of positive
comment on GKC’s work but never gets around to a discussion of
what behavior of Jews it was that GKC didn’t like; the mere fact
of his disliking something he thought they were doing we are to
take as proof of his antisemitism.
Up to now I’ve been noticing this kind of piece out of the
corner of an eye, but alerted as I now am to what is going on, I
shall perhaps set up a scoreboard. I’ll note on it when we are
treated to a long piece on a contemporary Jew who has done
wonderful things in business and is now fantastically rich;
there are a lot of these in the New Yorker. And then, I’ll note
when we get another of the revelations that a big Christian, or
at least “Western,” writer has feet of clay with respect to
Jews. The evident purpose of such pieces is get the subject
knocked out of the respectable canon. Pound and Eliot and Yeats
are long gone; Chesterton follows them; who’s next?
This sorting out of the world into two kinds of people, people
who like “the Jews” and their contemporary drive for dominance,
and people who don’t, may seem like the most important task
there is in the world to nervous Zionist Jews, but it seems
hugely egotistical and tiresome to me and I trust a few billion
other people. I see no end to the trouble the “Jewish
revolutionary spirit” can cause in the world unless some big
majority of Jews choose to do what many of them have been doing
all along, drop the hostility to Christ-Logos, the Messiah,
rejoin the human race, and bumble along with the rest of us.
Shamir has done it, and he seems happy and enlightened, and very
unnervous. He, like his Master Jesus Christ, seeks peace in the
world among all mankind.
A last point: Shamir clearly considers the Jewish penchant for
usury, and for financial skullduggery in general, to be an evil
aspect of their history. Shamir often cites the contemporary
refuge from extradition in Israel that is so conveniently
available to Jewish crooks who find the U.S. or Europe suddenly
too hot. But I think he sees this proneness to financial crime
as having arisen largely in the modern era. Certainly it has
figured prominently in European and Western history in modern
times and led to much “antisemitism.”
But I think Shamir might be wrong not to see that there has
indeed been a “worldwide ancient Jewish conspiracy to rule the
world.” I rely in this on a great book I have cited in this
magazine before. It is not widely known; but it must be very
high on any Zionist index that may exist of detestable (to them)
writings. It posits precisely a truly ancient Jewish
understanding that usury is the way to penetrate and destroy any
society where it is permitted. By usury I mean the charging of
any interest on money.
The book is The Babylonian Woe by the late David Astle, a
Canadian naval officer and scholar. Astle researched the
development three to four millennia ago in the Middle Eastern
world of the systematic corruption of political-religious rulers
by a group, alien to all the nations of the time, who were, even
then. a sort of international money power. Historian V. Gordon
Childe said Imperial Rome fell because of widespread usury (in
What Happened in History); Hillaire Belloc said Islam
swept so swiftly across North Africa and into Europe partly
because it promised relief from the usurious debt that was
crushing ordinary people.
The most strenuous prohibitions against usury as an evil
practice are on record in the Bible, the Torah, and the Psalmist
(Ps 15) says flatly that a usurer cannot reach God’s kingdom.
The inspired authors of the Bible knew what they were talking
about. If the Jews practiced usury among themselves it would be
ruin for all, so it was strongly prohibited. But it might be
practiced against the non-Jew. (Deuteronomy 23:20: Unto a
stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou
shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee
in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou
goest to possess it.)
Whether this permission was a scribal mistake or an accidental
distortion of God’s word, or a deliberate declaration of Jewish
exceptionalism, I am not scholar enough to know, but when some
Jews rejected Christ, and the Christian religion that was
initiated by other Jews became the “new Israel,” the distinction
between Jew and Greek broke down and all men became brothers. On
this basis the Church fought usury for a thousand years, the
same thousand years during which, according to E. Michael Jones,
in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, the Jewish
inclination to revolt went passive, only to rise again in the
Protestant disturbances in early modern times and subsequently
in the rise of capitalism and universal usury.
Protestant reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) wrote that the
charging of interest, that is, usury, was entirely legitimate;
the scriptural taboo ought not to prevail since it concerned
different circumstances. Modern business, he thought, required
usury. He, as it were, opened Pandora’s box for the Christians,
and also of course for the Jews; thus we have ended up with the
usurers’ paradise we have today.
The Jewish devotion to extracting usury from goys has been a
major theme of Western and finally world financial history. They
have been joined enthusiastically by huge numbers of non-Jews
attracted by easy money in our increasingly Mammonite age. Usury
defines our modern time, an era apparently now ending as the
realization creeps upon us that the usurious charges of the
bankers have built up ruinous debts to them of so many trillions
that the mind and heart tremble.
Aristotle had said charging interest for the use of money was
“unnatural.” Aquinas said it was charging for something
non-existent, which is clearly the case with modern bank loans.
Interest is charged for future repayment, but the amount of the
interest is never put into the money system, so (through
complicated mechanisms) all interest must become public and
private debt. I have lately seen estimates that the sum of these
exceeds $70 trillion. Repudiation will almost certainly prove to
be the upshot, with who knows what social result.
The scene has been murky for centuries, but the light is
beginning to penetrate. Shamir’s Masters of Discourse is
an element of light; Jones’s The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit
is another. There is hope yet.
Tom White
|