Addressing the ultimate Taboo

Their (the neo-cons') mentor Leo Strauss, in his 1962 lecture “Why We Remain Jews,” declared himself an ardent supporter of the State of Israel but rejected the idea that Israel as a nation should be contained within borders; Israel, he argued, must retain her specificity, which is to be everywhere

Addressing the ultimate taboo

Israel, its followers and Jews in contemporary history

Seemorerocks

Today is a relatively quiet day so I want to be distracted from all the terrible things are happening in our world to focus on one of my interests - history - and specifically I want to go where angels fear to tread - zionism, Judaism and the position of Jews in recent history.

This was in part brought about from a recent article written by Charles Bausmann in Russia Insider, It'sTime to Drop the Jew Taboo which was roundly condemned by others in the western ex-pat community in Moscow such as Peter Lavelle.

One thing I agree with in the article is that if you suppress debate the results can be very negative.

I have to point out that throughout my life any discrimination based on a person’s appearance or religion. At the same time, since visiting Israel in 1982 I have been an inplacable opponent of the state of Israel. Since then my suspicions that Israel was a racist state founded on ethnic cleansing of the local population have been more than confirmed – to the point where half of the Israeli population supports some form of genocide of the Palestinians.

My generous views have been somewhat dented by seeing certain groups put on pedestals and in the liberal West beyond criticism.

Even mild criticism of the political policies of the state of Israel is condemned as anti-semitism and any institutional analysis of the real situation is not allowed.

Similarly with Islam, whatever the roots of the problem (17 years of constant bombing by a rapacious imperial power) we have a problem with Takfiri extremism and terrorism and this too is beyond criticism.

It has got so preposterous that it is fine to advocate for the killing of Russians but there is talk of the rehabilitation of returned ISIS fitting.

To finish off this introduction I have to make my position clear:

• I am a vehemently opposed to any rewriting of history which suggests that the Holocaust did not take place, that the Germans were the "victims" of World War 2
• I am opposed to any theories that are based on a "clash civilisation" or based on the ethnic or religious identities of people.
• Even more, I am impeccably opposed to the way that modern (neo-) liberal thought uses the history of the Holocaust and the sense of guilt that has been inculcated to take any very real criticism of the state of Israel and its toxic role in politics and geopolitics
• For all this there are inconvenient facts that have to be acknowledged. To point then out is to risk being labelled as racist, right-wing or nazi

JEWS IN RUSSIAN HISTORY

The number of taboos is breathtaking but perhaps the greatest is the contribution of Israel and Israelis to most of today’s geopolitical problems. I cannot say so much about Western European history but I can say a bit about Russian history.

It is beyond dispute that the Jews were the most discriminated-against groups in the Russian Empire and that the tsar Nicholas 11 was very anti-semitic and had the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by his bedside.

It is not surprising to learn that the revolutionary movement in tsarist Russia was dominated by Jews.

But there are some inconvenient facts that can be pointed out and to do so is to run the risk of being compared with the most notorious anti-Semites and even nazis -as in this Wikipedia article:

Jewish Bolshevism

Jewish Bolshevism, also known as Judeo-Bolshevism, is an antisemitic and anti-communist canard which alleges that the Jews were at the origin of the Russian Revolution and held the primary power among Bolsheviks. Similarly, the Jewish Communism theory implies that Jews have been dominating the Communist movements in the world. It is similar to the ZOG conspiracy theory, which asserts that Jews control world politics.[1] The expressions have been used as a catchword for the assertion that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy

Here is a list of members of the Central Committee of Lenin’s Bolshevik Party.

Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew

Zinoviev (Apfelbaum)  Jew
Kamenev (Rosenfeldt) Jew
Sverdlov (Yankel) Jew
Yuritski Jew

Lourie (Larine) Jew

Volodarski Jew

Smidovitch Jew

Nakhamkes (Steklov) Jew

Krylenko Russian

Lunacharski Russian

In a population that constituted 4.15 per cent of the population of the Russian Empire in the census of 1897 nine out of twelve members were of Jewish origin.

According to my Russian Jewish friend who first pointed this put to me, in his words “communism in Russia was made by the Bolsheviks: the state of Israel was made by Mensheviks”

Another inconvenient fact is that each of the oligarchs studied in the documentary by an Israeli film maker, The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs - every one of them - was Jewish, not ethnic Russian.  Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky come to mind immediately.

Whatever way you wish to interpret this facts remain facts: they are in the words o Stalin an "obstinate thing".

THE ISRAELI PRESS AND THE KHAZARS

One of the things that has been pointed out is that the Israeli press is free to say things that no one in the West is free to say.

One obvious thing is that the media has been able to criticise government policies towards the Palestinians where this privilege is not extended to western media. 

To say one single word against the State of Israel or against its government in the West is to be anti-semitic.

The whole of the Israeli press is free to talk of everything in racialist terms. Even when talking about New Zealand's ex-PM, John Key they are able to point out that he is Jewish whereas to point that out here would be anti-semitic.


New Zealand’s Jewish PM wins third term

A major case-in-point is the whole question of the Khazars and the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews that set up the state of Israel. About 30 years ago I read this book by Hungarian-Jewish ex-communist Arthur Koestler which posited the hypothesis that they came, not from the "lost tribe of Israel" but from a Caucasian state called Khazaria.

The Thirteenth Tribe

This has always been rejected as it tends to undermine the claims of Ashkenazi Jews to the state of Israel (this was not the aim of the author, by the way).

"A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to the populations among whom they lived in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to Haplogroup R1a, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. "

Leaked report: Israel acknowledges Jews in fact Khazars; Secret plan for reverse migration to Ukraine

You just try putting this up as an argument and you will be shot down as snti-semite, right-wing, nazi etc., whatever the facts are.

However, it seems, once again that the Israeli media (the Times of Israel, no less) are free from this taboo and are able to reveal that:

“A blue-ribbon team of scholars from leading research institutions and museums has just issued a secret report to the government, acknowledging that European Jews are in fact Khazars”

This has been tied to a reverse migration back to Ukraine, possibly the site of the most anti-semitic outrages, second only (perhaps) to Poland.

"All Jews who wish to return (to Ukraine) would be welcomed back without condition as citizens, the more so if they take part in the promised infusion of massive Israeli military assistance, including troops, equipment, and construction of new bases. If the initial transfer works, other West Bank settlers would be encouraged to relocate to Ukraine, as well. After Ukraine, bolstered by this support, reestablishes control over all its territory, the current Autonomous Republic of Crimea would once again become an autonomous Jewish domain. The small-scale successor to the medieval empire of Khazaria (as the peninsula, too, was once known) would be called, in Yiddish, Chazerai.

And further:

“As you know,” the spokesman continued, “the Prime Minister has said time and again: we are a proud and ancient people whose history here goes back 4,000 years. The same is true of the Khazars: just back in Europe and not quite as long. But look at the map: the Khazars did not have to live within ‘Auschwitz borders.’”...

“As the Prime Minister has said, no one will tell Jews where they may or may not live on the historic territory of their existence as a sovereign people. He is willing to make painful sacrifices for peace, even if that means giving up part of our biblical homeland in Judea and Samaria. But then you have to expect us to exercise our historical rights somewhere else. We decided this will be on the shores of the Black Sea, where we were an autochthonous people for more than 2000 years. Even the great non-Zionist historian Simon Dubnow said we had the right to colonize Crimea. It’s in all the history books. You can look it up.”

In short, the message is don't worry about historical truth when it comes to projecting the interests of the Greater State of Israel... the other stuff is just for the Goyim.

One case-in-point is that an Israel author, Shlomo Sand,is able to write a book called The Invention of the Jewish People and not be sent to Purgatory for it

"A historical tour de force, The Invention of the Jewish People offers a groundbreaking account of Jewish and Israeli history. Exploding the myth that there was a forced Jewish exile in the first century at the hands of the Romans, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues that most modern Jews descend from converts, whose native lands were scattered across the Middle East and Eastern Europe" 

Conclusion

Getting back to Charles Bausmann’s article, what he does is ask that the “taboo” of talking about political and geopolitical events in terms of the JEWS be lifted.

He argues that somehow everyone is talking in terms of ‘euphamisms’ instead of addressing the racial/religious issue.

“None of these terms work, do they? They all obscure the issue, actually enhancing the taboo’s inherent deceit.”

“Zionists? Really? I've never heard anyone describe themselves this way, or even other people describe them - 'Have you meet Max?, he's an enthusiastic Zionist!' I've never seen it mentioned as an interest in a social media profile (perhaps Facebook should include it as an Emoticon). Maybe Rachel Maddow IS a Zionist, what do I know, although as far as I understand, Zionism was a political movement that lost its urgency once the state of Israel was well on its merry way”

“Zionism was a political movement that lost its urgency once the state of Israel was well on its merry way” Really?!! When has zionism ever lost its relevance?!

What we are talking about has EVERYTHING to do with the State of Israeli, its citizens pushing “the New American Century” and the non-Jewish zionists in the West (including evangelical Christians) that are every bit as numerous as the Jews and very little to do with Judaism as a religion or Jews as a social group.

The truth is complex and paradoxical, not least that the zionists and their apologists in the West who will characterise Jews as being synonymous wth the Zionist entity, with a religion or an ethnic group – whatever suits them at the time. One totally fake narrative especially for the Goyim and quite another (more truthful one) for internal consumption.

I refuse at once to identify with positions that come dangerously close to neo-nazism as well as having any political criticism of the State of Israel and their apologists as ‘anti-semitism”

I risk being attacked from all sides but will stick with what I see as the facts.

In conclusion, I stand with the Saker, in his determination to call things by their names and not being intimidated into avoiding the topic so here is what he has to say in its entirety.

AngloZionist: Short primer for the newcomers



Why do I speak of “AngloZionists”?  I got that question many times in the past, so I will make a separate post about it to (hopefully) explain this once and for all.

1) Anglo:

The USA in an Empire.  With roughly 1000 overseas bases (depends on how you count), a undeniably messianic ideology, a bigger defense offense budget then the rest of the planet combined, 16+ spy agencies, the dollar as work currency there is no doubt that the US is a planetary Empire.  Where did the US Empire come from?  Again, that’s a no brainer – from the British Empire.  Furthermore, the US Empire is really based on a select group of nations: the Echelon countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and, of course, the US.  What do these countries have in common?  They are the leftovers of the British Empire and they are all English speaking.  Notice that France, Germany or Japan are not part of this elite even though they are arguably as important or more to the USA then, say, New Zealand and far more powerful.  So the “Anglo” part is undeniable.  And yet,
even though “Anglo” is an ethnic/linguistic/cultural category while “Zionist” is a political/ideological one, very rarely do I get an objection about speaking of “Anglos” or the “Anglosphere”.

2) Zionist

Let’s take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word “Zionism” means: it is “a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel“.  Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right?  But think again.  Why would Jews – whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity – need a homeland anyway?  Why can’t they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries?  The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions.  Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and, apparently, in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions or, at the very least, a high risk thereof.  Let’s accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies.  First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide.  This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become an vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go.  Furthermore, until all Jews finally “move up” to Israel, they better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment.  Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the network of sayanim, etc.  In other words, far from being a local “dealing with Israel only” phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet.  As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should “think locally and act globally” and when given a choice of policies always ask THE crucial question: “But is it good for Jews?“.  So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally split up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles), which assumes that the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again).  Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both.  Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called “pre-traumatic stress disorder”

3) Anglo-Zionist

The British Empire and the early USA used to be pretty much wall to wall Anglo.  Sure, Jews had a strong influence (in banking for example), but Zionism was a non-issue not only amongst non-Jews, but also amongst US Jews.  Besides, religious Jews were often very hostile to the notion of a secular Israel while secular Jews did not really care about this quasi Biblical notion.  WWII definitely gave a massive boost to the Zionist movement while, as Norman Finkelstein explained it, the topic of the “Holocaust” became central to Jewish discourse and identity only many years later.  I won’t go into the history of the rise to power of Jews in the USA, but from roughly Ford to GW Bush’s Neocons it has been steady.  And even though Obama initially pushed them out, they came right back in through the backdoor.  Right now, the only question is whether US Jews have more power than US Anglos or the other way around.  Before going any further, let me also immediately say that I am not talking about Jews or Anglos as a group, but I am referring to the top 1% within each of these groups.  Furthermore, I don’t believe that the top 1% of Jews cares any more about Israel or the 99% of Jews than the top 1% of Anglos care about the USA or the Anglo people.  So, here my thesis:

The US Empire is run by a 1% (or less) elite which can be called the “deep state” which is composed of two main groups: Anglos and Jews.  These two groups are in many ways hostile to each other (just like the SS and SA or Trotskysts and Stalinists), but they share 1) a racist outlook on the rest of mankind 2) a messianic ideology 3) a phenomenal propensity for violence 4) an obsession with money and greed and its power to corrupt.  So they work together almost all the time.

Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it, that I will have to explicitly state it: to say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites.  That is a straw-man argument which deliberately ignores the non commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evil doing.  So to be very clear:

When I speak of AngloZionist Empire I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers elites which for this Empire’s “deep state”.

By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists (Biden, in his own words) and there are (plenty of) anti-Zionist Jews.  Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists and there are (plenty of) anti-imperialists Anglos.  To speak of “Nazi Germany” or “Soviet Russia” does in now way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russian s Communists.  All this means it that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National-Socialism and Marxism, that’s all.

My personal opinion now

First, I don’t believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity.  I always doubted that, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me.  Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are  secular).  Truly, Jews are a tribe.  A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).  In other words, I see “Jewishness” as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology.  I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are racist, but not a race.  Second, I don’t even believe that the concept of  “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning.  I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.  Third, since being Jew (or not) is a choice, one to belong, adhere and endorse a tribe (secular Jews) or a religion (Judaics).  Any choice implies a judgment call and it therefore a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism.  Fourth, I believe that Zionism, even when secular, instrumentalizes the values, ideas, myths and ethos of rabbinical Judaism (aka “Talmudism” or “Phariseism”) and both are racist in their core value and assumptions. Fifth, both Zionism and Nazism are twin brothers born from the same ugly womb: 19th century European nationalism (Brecht was right, “’The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”).  Nazis and Zionists can hate each other to their hearts’ content, but they are still twins.  Sixth, I reject any and all form of racism as a denial of our common humanity, a denial of the freedom of choice of each human being and – being an Orthodox Christian – as a grievous heresy.  To me people who chose to identify themselves with, and as, Jews are not inherently different from any other human and they deserve no more and no less rights and protections than any other human being.

I will note here that while the vast majority of my readers of Anglos, they almost never complain about the “Anglo” part of my “AngloZionist” descriptor.  The vast majority of objections focus on the “Zionist” part.  You might want to think long and hard about why this is so and what it tells us about the kind of power Zionists have over the prevailing ideology.  Could it be linked to the reason why the (openly racist and truly genocidal) Israeli Prime Minister gets more standing ovations in Congress (29) than the US President (25)?

Some objections:

Q: it makes you sound like a Nazi/redneck/racist/idiot/etc.
A: I don’t care.  I don’t write this blog for brainwashed zombies.

Q: you turn people off.
A: if by speaking the truth and using correct descriptors I turn them off, then this blog is not for them.

Q: you can offend Jews.
A: only those who believe that their ideas cannot be challenged or criticized.

Q: but you will lose readers!!
A: this is not a popularity contest.

Q: your intentions might be good, but they are easily misinterpreted.
A: this is why I define my words very carefully and strictly.

Q: but why are you so stubborn about this?
A: because I am sick and tired of those in power hiding in the dark: let’s expose them and freely challenge them.  How can you challenge something which is hidden?

Q: but I am a hasbarachnik and I need to get you to stop using that expression!!
A: give it up and find an easier target for your efforts.  You will still get paid.

A: I have a much better term.
Q: Good!  Use it on your blog then :-P

That’s it for now.

Actually no, there is one more thing, while I am at it:

Thanks,

The Saker

POSTSCRIPT: - The Real News is neither Right nor racist

Israel Lobby Doesn't Want Al Jazeera to Spill its Secrets

The Real News

Qatar is under pressure to bury an undercover Al Jazeera documentary that exposes the Israel Lobby in the US. Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada says the film's key revelations include the close cooperation between the neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Israeli government