|
If we are to begin with metaphors about elephants and blindness, perhaps
we might shift from the old Buddhist parable and start instead by imagining
a band of Jews riding atop a blind elephant, one -- of course -- which
they own. Perhaps their judgment is clouded by their perpetual haze of
collective neurosis (alternately slapping and hugging each other). Perhaps
these particular Jews are apparently intoxicated with their own power
and the free wind rushing into their hair. Or it may be simply that as
they perpetually stare at their faces in the ornate mirrors up on the
elephant's shoulder, they have lost the ability to focus beyond their
own reflected gazes. Or maybe its Freud's secularly Talmudic Death Wish.
Whatever the case, they do not seem to grasp where their blind elephant
is taking them, although their entire history of such galloping blind
elephants should be warning enough. To everyone on the ground who steps
forward to shout," Stop! Stop! Your blind elephant may trample my
home!" the Jews astride the behemoth angrily shout -- in unison --
as rehearsed for centuries, "Bigot! Bigot! Out of our way! By what
right do you dare to limit us?"
Israel Shamir is one of the few commentators of Jewish descent who risk
examining troubling aspects of Jewish history, power, and identity. We
welcome his criticism of the Jewish Tribal Review, towards wider dissemination
and discussion of the issues at stake here. It is no surprise that in
building a veritable mountain, there will always be more than enough space
for complaint.
Here is JTR's response to Mr. Shamir:
WHEN VICTIMS RULE. A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH PREEMINENCE
IN AMERICA (hereafter abbreviated as WVR) is a very large compilation
of facts and citations about Jewish history, Jewish identity, and Jewish
power and influence. It is not block of cement. It is not a fossil. It
is -- as huge as it is -- not even complete. It is not a normal book,
nor is its conceptual framework one of traditional scholarship, nor traditional
closure.
How so? As a cyberspace entity, it has some special advantages over a
normal, paper book. For example,
1) It is implicitly subject to change: revision, correction, addition,
and reevaluation. It is dynamic in nature. Not static.
2) It is, like any noncommercial web site, easily accessible. And it is
free. Anyone can scan its data at any time. They may accept or reject
the facts posted, per their own respective openness or bias. And -- if
so inclined -- they may further research the veracity of information posted.
3) WVR is further informed and contextualized by the rest of the web site,
wherein it rests. Discussions, debate, and argument may be attached as
contextual satellite. Someone, like Shamir, may comment on its content
and this addenda floats in orbit around WVR in cyberspace, now part of
the information bank.
4) There is no one associated with the web site who is compromised by
the ideological restrictions implicit in the struggle for an advanced
university degree or a university teaching position. They are therefore
not subject to the usual pressures of convention and censorship.
5) There is no one here who expects a reward for the volume, or this site.
(On the contrary, in our current censorial climate there are prospects
for the opposite -- punishment and condemnation). In one sense, the required
anonymity is a personal restriction. In another way, it is a form of liberation
from the chains of self-aggrandizement, in deference to the public good..
5) There is no one here seeking to advance his/her personal reputation.
Most material posted is anonymous or under pseudonyms. Anyone investigating
the subject of Jewish power and influence is categorically condemned in
the Thought Police world.
6) There is no one here who even expects to get credit for their labor
in the creation of either the site or book. This is true intellectual
freedom.
STRATEGY: The intention of this Internet project is the creation of a
web site, the Jewish Tribal Review, which opens with access to short,
digestible excerpts from mostly mainstream news sources about various
fields of Jewish endeavor, arranged in categories. The reader may peruse
those subjects he/she is interested in. If the information fires interest,
links at the bottom of category listings lead the viewer to a deeper investigation
of the subject at-hand. If satisfied with the informational integrity
thus far, the viewer may move to other subject themes in a kind of "curiosity
contagion" and soon begin to wonder about the broadest sociopolitical
implications of what they are reading. The aim of the web site, and the
book, quite simply, is to start people thinking. That is its modest goal,
which is the key to everything.
Mr. Shamir complains -- at such an embryonic stage -- that there should
be closure to WVR. He wants a dictatorial summation; he wants posted definitive
-- or at least speculative -- answers to go with implicit questions. The
aim of the web site, however, is not to tell people what to think or what
to do about the problem of widespread Jewish hegemony. The aim is to aid
in creating the conditions by which public discussion about Jewish influence
and power, from a wide spectrum of social and political opinion, may begin
-- and grow. JTR and WVR function as two components of an information
clearinghouse about Jewish identity and Jewish power. Yes, it is a database.
It's intention is to be a RESOURCE. There is nothing else online quite
like it -- at least in size.
We live in world where an intentionally created mass ignorance about Jewish
history, identity, and power (and, conversely, an endless endorsement
of Judeocentric self-celebration) is part of our diet of disinformation.
The first order of business to remedy this situation should be to provide
relevant information per the old Jewish "question" on an open
table for public comment and examination. The Thought Control about this
is vast. Honest examination of Jewish hegemony cannot occur at a university-supported
forum, which would be implicitly censorial. The idea here is not to dictate
to people the exact "whys" of Jewish power and influence. It
is difficult enough to merely put such facts about Jewry on the table
for public view against the censorial wall that mitigates against this.
The first premise in any democracy is that people must have the necessary
information to make informed decisions about their lives. Modern Western
society does not have that. So there are series of battles that must be
faced. The first battle is an information war. Creating the Jewish Tribal
Review and WVR is, by "politically-correct" dictate, toxic material.
Ironically, it is merely the equivalent of shining a light on shadow.
WVR seeks to elicit a genuine sociopolitical dialogue in public reflection
upon the kinds of questions Mr. Shamir poses. We feel no need here to
dictate the terms of this dialogue, as absolutes, in the political sense.
We welcome the broadest possible audience reception and reflection in
tackling the moral and political issues of Jewish hegemony and identity.
Why do Jews have such power? What are the processes by which even most
non-Jews have even ingrained Judeocentric thinking, to the extent that
it is even detrimental to them? WVR does not formally conclude its examination
with final, definitive judgments. It is the reader's job to reflect upon
what is happening in today's world and to interact with others towards
negotiation of these facts' ultimate meanings.
Merely placing information about Jews on the table for discussion -- to
break the chain of public ignorance -- is the first step. Israel Shamir
insists upon the second, third, fourth, and fifth steps all rolled into
one (a 20,000-page volume?) Perhaps he does not grasp the dynamic at work
at this web site, or perhaps he does not think the concept to be a viable
one. But we think it will work in the long term. At least it has possibilities.
And Mr. Shamir himself exemplifies this potential for interactive success,
with his own critical contribution (his
own web site is of course part of this dynamic).
One must first plant seeds before crops will rise from the soil. And seeds
cannot rise till the moisture content is right, the soil is adequate,
and it is the right season. We are planting small seeds in the spring,
and we will see if they take root. But it is a certainty that nothing
can grow without seeds in the soil. The priority is getting them planted.
WHEN VICTIMS RULE is a child of the Internet; it is not frozen and finished.
Its potential is that of cyberspace. Mr. Shamir's comments become -- at
the Jewish Tribal Review web site -- part of the context of the book.
It is open-ended. His critical commentary has become part of the web site.
Among the most noteworthy curiosities suggested by Mr. Shamir is that
posting long lists of influential Jewish figures in various fields as
verifiably "Jewish" has the effect of heralding them. As if
the Jewish Tribal Review is a kind of celebratory Jewish magazine. Does
he really think this is true? Jewish commentators have already called
JTR everything from "terrorist" to "anti-Semitic."
None have come forward to thank the Jewish tribal review for its celebration
(?) of Jewish crime figures. Or celebration of anything else. On the contrary.
Only Mr. Shamir raises the odd point that such facts about influential
Jews could be perceived as a form of flattery. Shamir is neglecting the
context of the web site. The context is CRITICAL, not congratulatory,
and this perspective informs the entirety of the site. Any set of information,
or any list, has meanings that are defined by other information around
it. The lists of Jewish influence at JTR are clearly not neutral in impact.
Direct responses to specific Shamir commentary::
SHAMIR: "The Author of the Critique is worried that he will
be considered 'anti-Semitic' ...
RESPONSE: Those who contribute to the Jewish Tribal Review are
not "worried" that they will be considered "anti-Semitic."
As Mr. Shamir knows, anyone (including himself) who criticizes the Jewish
community or Israel is subject to the smear of "bigot." He too
endures a wide range of slurs and defamation from some Jewish quarters.
It is not an issue of "worrying" about it. The accusation is
a norm for the subject terrain. The issue is to expose this censorial
tool as the fraud it is -- towards breaking it as a censorial device.
SHAMIR: "My main objection is quite an opposite one, namely,
The Critique is too 'Jewish' by its outlook."
RESPONSE: It is only "Jewish" in the sense that it examines
-- and exposes for public discussion -- what Jews typically think and
write about themselves. True, the bibliographic citations are overwhelmingly
from Jewish sources. This is a sound strategy to elicit public debate.
The Jewish Lobby controls public moral discourse about itself, so much
so that there are hardly any non-Jews who dare to risk research in the
Jewish realm, especially from a CRITICAL perspective. (Professors Albert
Lindemann and Kevin MacDonald are the only non-Jews I know in recent years
who have dared to do this in book form, and both have faced the inevitable
charges of "anti-Semitism" for their honest endeavors).
We live in world where Jews are afforded sole credibility and authority
to discuss the subject of Jewry. Massive Jewish social and political engineering
since Adolf Hitler has effectively created the condition where ANY non-Jew
who dares to assail the Jewish community for its many failings is decreed
to have a virtual Nazi root, and such critics are routinely morally and
intellectually condemned and marginalized. So, the problem is this: In
a supposed "free" society that is not so very free about the
Jewish subject, how does one attempt to initiate an open public forum
about massive-scale Jewish-inspired injustice? Let Jewish commentators
-- who have a monopoly in the field -- indict themselves. The task
is to meticulously examine their research in a wide range of fields (fields
that are usually out of the mainstream limelight) and piece it all together,
quite like a puzzle. Connect the dots. This implicitly CRITICAL context
-- an overview of the subject of Jewry -- is emphatically NOT Jewish in
design or concept. The Jewish community is being afforded the uncomfortable
opportunity to look at the Big Picture of themselves and their community.
There is no such large-scale collective self-examination emanating from
the Jewish community itself. (Mr. Shamir, in this regard, is an anomaly.
And Jewish critics like Norman Finkelstein and John Sack -- as good as
their respective works are -- are nowhere near in attempting to address,
in overview, that which is forbidden -- issues that go to the heart of
Jewish power and identity). And that is why WVR -- so often quoting Jews
-- is emphatically NOT "Jewish" in world view. A celebration
by Jewish commentators of disproportionate numbers of Nobel Prize winners
is not the same thing.
The Jewish community, as a collective, is in massive denial about its
history and identity. Self-delusion and denial are foundations of the
Jewish world view. WVR (and Jewish Tribal Review) holds a mirror up to
them. They may now examine -- in broad overview -- what they are. Or,
at the very least, what they appear to be. Herein lies the foundation
of open debate and discussion towards clarification.
It is more difficult for the Jewish Thought Police to dismiss material
by Jewish commentators than it is non-Jewish ones. Mr. Shamir surely recognizes
this. Although he himself, of Jewish heritage, is thrown by some into
the "anti-Semitic" or "self-hating Jew" camp, he is
not subject to the fullest thrust of defamation. (Although, it is true,
in Mr. Shamir's very unusual case, he has written some especially courageous
things and the gravity of the anger towards him by some Jews is extraordinary).
But to frame the entirety of WVR as "Jewish" in outlook, by
virtue of its Jewish bibliography root, is absurd. The basic framework
of the volume is a CRITICAL inquiry into Jewish identity, Jewish history,
and Jewish power and influence.
It is not just a list of citations, meaningless to each other -- although
there are very, very many. The point of view of the compiler of this work
is quite clear; the simplest evidence of this is the fact that JTR and
WVR are condemned by Jews who understand such a systematic collection
of (mostly) Jewish commentary to be, inexplicably, an expression of anti-Jewish
bigotry.
There is no comparable "Jewish" work (a methodical deconstruction
of the Jewish "ideology") -- at least of this scope -- by any
"Jewish" author. (And those who, like Mr. Shamir, dare to challenge
Jewish history and identity on an article-by-article basis, are also extremely
rare). Although the citations at WHEN VICTIMS RULE are mostly from Jewish
sources, they are hewn into a context whereby they inform and elaborate
upon each other. If nothing else, the criticism is implicit in the enormous
dimensions of Jewish cultural, social, economic, and political
influence.
Mr. Shamir surely recognizes that in Jewish circles it is an emphatic
taboo to systematically expose international Jewish influence and power
to a non-Jewish audience. By this criteria alone, WVR isn't "Jewish."
On the contrary. It is an act of subversion against the tenets of being
"Jewish," simply in consolidating the many unpleasant aspects
of Jewish identity and history into one place, side by side. It excerpts
an enormous amount of Jewish commentary and aligns it in such a manner
that shines light across a broad spectrum of Jewish experience. The result
is not the effect of a cheerleading squad.
What Mr. Shamir also does not consider is that, overwhelmingly, material
about Jews is by JEWISH authorship. Non-Jews are afraid to touch the subject,
certainly from a critical perspective. Those few who dare to write on
the subject of Jews typically write from a fawning, congratulatory, and
subservient perspective. (See, for example, "The Gift of the Jews")
In contradistinction, WVR juxtaposes research into historical Jewish criminality,
Jewish racism, Jewish ethnocentrism, and cross-cultural influence and
power. The question is implicit to any reader: What about this? What do
YOU think it means?
SHAMIR: The observations are valid and important; now they should
be collected and systematized until the ground is ripe for a man of vision
who would draw a picture of the elephant. It is not an easy task, for
it is an article of faith in our world, 'thou shalt not draw an elephant'.
This commandment is enforced by the fierce Jewish opposition to such endeavor.
RESPONSE: Herein exactly lies the non-"Jewish" nature
of WHEN VICTIMS RULE.
No Jewish scholar has been interested in examining the scope of Jewish
power and influence, for fear of soliciting non-Jewish discontent and
agitation about the subject. The foundation for further critical inquiry
and reflection along this line has been established (in tandem with the
likes of the Lindemann and MacDonald works, perhaps -- maybe also Paul
Finley's take on the Jewish/Zionist lobby) . It may not be a perfect foundation.
It may have weaknesses. There may be cracks. After all, it is a pioneer
struggle in taboo territory. But a foundation it is, where no such foundation
stood before. And it is emphatically not "Jewish." Why? By definition,
the Jewish community detests such investigations that aim to map its collective
power and influence.
SHAMIR: However, this interesting book is regrettably short of
insight. While noting and criticizing 'Jewish preeminence', it does not
offer an answer to the paramount questions: What does it mean? how it
was achieved? Why it is achieved? Without an attempt to answer, the book
remains but an important database.
RESPONSE: Shamir's commentary is something akin to the diner who
is not satisfied at a single meal with a whole cow, but insists upon partaking
in the rest of the herd at that same moment. What does Jewish preeminence
mean? An answer in a sentence? Or another 2,000 page book? Perhaps Mr.
Shamir can clarify it all in a 500 world article?
Shamir seems to be demanding political closure. Perhaps he'd like a speculative
finality to locate the exact ideology of the author of the research, which
he may condemn or endorse. But perhaps he is dissimulating a bit here.
Certainly the "meaning" of Jewish preeminence is not too difficult
to grasp, and needs not really be spelled to the letter. Afforded the
facts of the situation, most people should be able to recognize that such
massively disproportionate influence in Western culture heralding Judeocentric
chauvinism is not beneficial to non-Jews. It is a subversion of the multicultural/universalistic
sharing of power, a sharing which Jewish activists have been so adamant
in demanding. Ultimately, as always, this robbing of a true democracy
cannot be truly beneficial for Jewry either. And it is all part of loathsome
historical loop whereby Jews succeed in collective aggrandizement at the
expense of others -- again and again and again throughout history. And
at this juncture in human social evolution (?), with international Jewry's
collective love-hate neurosis so firmly embodied in the violently vengeful
land of Israel, and welded to the very marrow of the American politic,
Jewish intransigence, victimology obsessions, and nuclear bombs threaten
all with prospects for an apocalypse. How is that, in quick sum, for WVR's
essential aim at Jewish power's ultimate "meaning?"
SHAMIR: The Author is worried that he will be considered 'anti-Semitic',
but my main objection is quite an opposite one, namely, The Critique is
too 'Jewish' by its outlook, and not only because some pages appear as
a Jewish vanity publication, listing prominent and successful Jews. It
is true, there are lists of Jews in unorthodox business of robbery and
murder, but even this thing is not unusual. Isaac Babel happily described
Jewish gangsters of Odessa, while the stories of Jewish-American gangsters
were published many times and are quite popular with Jewish readers.
RESPONSE: As noted earlier, this is a skewed critique. A listing
of prominent Jews in Hollywood in Jewish Week, a discussion of
prominent Jewish criminals in Rich Cohen's "Tough Jews," and
so forth is in no way similar to the mapping of Judeocentric dominance
in so much of popular culture.
As Mr. Shamir must surely recognize, it is one thing for a book by a Jewish
author to celebrate Jewish gangsters, Jewish violence, Jewish revenge,
and Jewish machismo to titillate a largely Jewish audience. It is quite
another to place such an author's commentary into a new, broader context,
adjoining it with larger dimensions of Jewish criminality, and its enormous
influence in popular culture -- from the mass media to publishing. There
is no fair comparison.
SHAMIR: Probably the word 'tribal' is the key to its 'Jewish-ness'
and to the relative failure. The view of Jews as a tribe is a very Jewish
view, promoted nowadays by Adin Steinzaltz, the chief Talmudic authority
in Israel. He called the Jews: 'family'. But this view does not furnish
us with a good explanation of the Rise of the Jews and of its consequences.
If the Jews are 'a tribe', sort of extended family, what is the secret
of their magic attraction and strange successes?
RESPONSE: Here, and in commentary that follows it, Mr. Shamir poses
a central question of which the Jewish community itself cannot come to
consensus: What is a Jew? WVR addresses this question, but it does not
conclude with absolutes. "Being Jewish" was rooted in tribalism
and has never shaken it. It has evolved over the centuries through various
phases of collective allegiance and, today, in fruition, it manifests
itself as primarily a defensive allegiance against the non-Jewish Other,
codified today as the generic "anti-Semite" who may be European,
African-American, Muslim or even Japanese. The "secrets" to
Jewish "success" we may understand to be a confluence of a number
of variables in their Darwinian survival as an ideology across history,
including a this-life materialism, centrality in the growth of capitalism,
dual moral standards, and on and on, all discussed at varying lengths
at WVR.
Mr. Shamir seems to be uncomfortable with the Jewish "tribe"
concept, as he argues here:
"[Is the concept of Jewish tribalism] True? Not really. This state
of mind is shared by Conrad Black, a Gentile who became a Jewish media
mogul without undergoing circumcision. He is an accepted and valued member
of the Jewish community and a potential citizen of Israel. Technically,
by virtue of his marriage to his Jewish wife, but much more so by his
state of mind. Plenty of Gentile Americans share this state of mind. On
the other hand, a factory worker or a peasant born of Jewish parents technically
entitled to the place in the community and to the Israeli passport but
lacks this state of mind and would be out of place in the Jewish community.
In Israel there are many immigrants of Jewish origin who were thoroughly
de-Jewified but decided to come to Israel. They do not fit into the Jewish
society and form its outcast fringe."
RESPONSE: Conrad Black is a Gentile in the Rupert Murdoch or Kirk
Kerkorian mode: non-Jewish media moguls whose business lives deeply entwine
with Jewish networking towards power and advancement. These men
are not part of a non-Jewish tribe, in the activist sense. Allegiance
to the Jewish tribal spirit is extremely advantageous to them. Like virtually
anywhere, it is sound business. Apparently devoid of his own innately
tribal allegiance, Black has essentially sold his loyalty on the open
market. Shamir anoints such non-Jewish Zionists as members of the Jewish
tribe -- if not literally, then at least in honorary terms: "spiritually."
But Black and Murdoch are "accepted and valued members of the
Jewish community" insofar as they provide Gentile power and sustenance
towards Jewish tribal advancement, codified for most as modern Israel.
As Shamir knows, there are plenty of Russian immigrants to Israel who
are partially of Jewish genetic descent and do not wield such Black-like
power. These people are of much less use to the Jewish tribe and are therefore
exploitatively expendable (note, for example, the cases of Russian Israeli
soldiers who are not technically Jewish according to Orthodox law and
-- despite being killed while serving in the Israeli army -- have been
refused burial in Jewish cemeteries).
The key to Black joining the powerful "tribe" of course,
in any sense, rests upon his Jewish connections -- in this case his wife,
Barbara Amiel, both their allegiances to the Jewish state, and the fundamental
profitability of proclaiming support for the Mideast Jewish clan. Ultimately,
the "state of mind" Black probably holds in the business sense
is an allegiance not to his own ethnocentric roots, but to one that is
-- in the media world -- far, far more profitable.
Per marginalized Russian Jews in Israel who had been "dejewified"
and form its "outcast fringe." There is no question that the
current social political climate in Israel (a virtual war between Jews
and Arabs) pushes the "dejewified" Jew (if there truly is such
a thing) into the Jewish tribal camp. If he cannot decide allegiance with
bullets whizzing over his head, the inevitable allegiance is dictated
for them by the Jewish state. (Mr. Shamir, as an important exception to
this, does not evidence that an anomaly is the rule).
SHAMIR: "[The author of WVR] writes: "Yet modern Jewry's
deep animosity towards Christianity stems from the accusation that institutional
Christianity was seminal to anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages."
It is the traditional Jewish point of view, deeply unhistorical and
anachronistic. In the same vein, the Author could say, "Yet modern
Jewry's deep animosity towards Palestinians stems from the accusation
that Palestinians were seminal to anti-Semitism."
RESPONSE: Jewry's views of Christianity as the main cause of anti-Semitism
is indeed the "traditional Jewish point of view, deeply unhistorical
and anachronistic" and WVR goes on to examine the socioeconomic tensions
between Jews and their neighbors, throughout Europe. There is no disagreement
here with Shamir, except to the degree that he apparently objects to presenting
the Jewish conventional perspective at all (which is deconstructed in
other places in the online book. Perhaps, in the vastness of the volume,
he did not read them?).
SHAMIR: In both cases, Jewry was on the offensive, not a defensive
side. The Jews attacked Christians from the days of the Apostles, just
as they attacked Palestinians by depriving them of their livelihood from
the very beginning of Zionist immigration. The Author probably noticed
his mistake and tried to correct it without harmonising with his preceding
statement: "Judaism had, of course, antipathy for Christianity from
the latter's very inception." So, the reader has a choice of two
contradicting statements: the Jewish animosity is a reaction to Christian
anti-Semitism, or it is a primary attitude of Jews.
RESPONSE: I do not recognize Shamir's depiction of the WVR presentation
here, in total. Yes, Jewry's traditional notion of Christianity is presented,
but Shamir seems to be isolating it out of the broader context. Jewry's
notions of Christianity is deconstructed in various chapters throughout
the book. Here's the quote by Lenny Brenner that Shamir takes so dearly
to task: "Popular hatred of the Temple priests and the rich," says
Lenni Brenner, "became the basis of Christianity, and the New Testament
must be seen as the last major production of the Jewish religious genre."
One sentence. It seems folly to be burdened in a debate by a sentence
in a book, let alone defend the implied socialism of Lenny Brenner. It
may or may not be an overstatement to speak in terms of "popular
hatred" of religious elite, but it is fair to assume that the dissident
Jews' creation of Christianity -- whatever the timeline -- was based upon
an emphatic rejection of some of the central tenets of Judaism and the
dictatorial elitism of its leaders. And that the New Testament was an
expression of a Jewish-based tangent. I don't see the grounds for serious
argument here. Nor do I see its importance in the larger scope of things.
The Jewish community still defames Christianity as institutionalized bigotry
against Jewry, while Jews refuse to examine the echo of the same charge
in their own world. If Mr. Shamir accepts this statement in some form,
there is really little difference on this point between us. This is one
of the essences of the WVR assertion.
SHAMIR: The Author collected much evidence of Jewish hostility
to Christianity, but he failed to comprehend its key role in Jewish attitudes.
RESPONSE: This is a surprising statement. WVR is rife with an examination
of Jewish hostility not just to Christianity, but to the generic non-Jewish
other.
SHAMIR: He failed for he adopted basically Jewish materialistic
'export vision' of history, world and self. He quotes: As even Mark
Twain noted, "With most people, of a necessity, bread and meat take first
rank, religion second. I am convinced that the persecution of the Jews
is not due in any large degree to religious prejudice." It is an erroneous
observation of a myopic Yankee.
RESPONSE: By now, I'm having difficulty in understanding Shamir's
essential argument. I think WVR's premises are less antithetical to his
position than he seems to think. Per Mark Twain. By the same token, if
Shamir's take about myopia is fair to state, why cannot his own assertion
be understood as the "erroneous observation of a myopic Jew? (or
Russian, or Israeli, or whatever other way he'd care to champion his own
innate ethnocentrism). Why is the place Shamir is standing in relation
to the world any more visionary, more encompassing than Twain's? I think
Twain is right. Religious prejudice against Jews is the foundation of
Jewish understanding of the Christian world. No doubt there was plenty
of religious prejudice throughout European history, from Christian to
Jew and vice-versa. But when this is complicated, with Jews who in some
parts of Europe reputedly held control to the very keys to the church,
when Jewish faces dominated war economies, Jews dominated usury, Jewish
arendators legislated over non-Jewish serfs, and on and on, we speak of
inevitable animosities at very raw levels -- hostilities with blatant
life and death -- survivalist -- dimensions. Twain's comment seems accurate.
SHAMIR: In the course of history, people gave up their bread and
meat, wives and children, died and killed for the sake of their faith.
RESPONSE: Of course we may also say with equal certainty quite
the opposite, that in the "course of history, people gave up their
faith, and died and killed for their bread and meat, wives and children."
Why would this not be so? Why does Mr. Shamir hold religious faith to
be monolithic? Why does he think a starving man would always seize a crucifix
over a loaf of bread? Is this not a form of stereotyping? And might this
not be, dare I say, a Jewish conventional stereotyping of the non-Jewish
Christian Other? Of course, Mr. Shamir reflects here in his own argument
Jewry's OWN religious tradition; for centuries Jews heralded martyrs for
their faith -- Jews who chose death rather than convert to the dreaded
Christian world. "Being Jewish" was defined as being a martyr
to the faith, the faith of Jewish suffering.
SHAMIR: While persecution of the Jews was not due to religious
commandment, the relentless Jewish assault on Christendom can't be comprehended
without this framework.
RESPONSE: No question there were religious hostilities. But economic,
and other, tensions have always been part of the "framework"
as well.
SHAMIR: The non-tribal character of Jews is well illustrated by
the fate of the Jews of China. This community was successfully assimilated,
and all efforts of Israeli and American Jews to bring them back to 'Jewish
conscience' failed, for it makes no sense to be a Jew outside of Christ's
ecumene.
RESPONSE: Why must it be assumed that because a small tribe is
isolated that once it becomes extinct this is proof that it wasn't ever
a tribe? There were/are Jews of various sorts in India and various other
remote places in the world -- from Kurdistan to Argentina. Many have moved
to Israel to reconnect with the "tribe."
SHAMIR: The 'pre-eminence of Jews in America' is another form of
re-stating words of Marx: America has been Jewified and accepted the Jewish
values.
RESPONSE: Agreed.
SHAMIR: The Author failed to understand this spiritual meaning
of Jews and Jewish influence. Not a tribe, but ideology, that is the essence
of the problem.
RESPONSE: "Tribe" and "ideology" are not mutually
exclusive terms. Jewish identity is a tribal ideology. It manifests
an exploitative, survivalist, self-aggrandizing "spirit." It
is a Darwinian, this-life, materialist, collective "spirit"
against the non-Jewish other. I think Mr. Shamir is splitting hairs.
SHAMIR: Pre-eminence of Jewish ideology and Jewish values in America
is the true problem of America and the world.
RESPONSE: Agreed.
SHAMIR: Judaic spirit is a real danger to the tripartite ecumene
of West-Russia-Islamic world. But biological approach proposed by the
Author does not help.
RESPONSE: WVR does not endorse a "biological approach,"
but merely discusses the "biological approach" from the perspective
of Jewish ideology. Shamir melds the Jewish version of itself as WVR's
version of Jewish identity. This is not accurate. Our position is that
"being Jewish" is very much an ideology, an ideology that has
guided Jewish identity along significant racial terms. Mr. Shamir seems
to be blaming the messenger (WVR) for Jewish notions of its tribal (and
to some degree racial) identity. "Being Jewish" is a complex
maze of socio-psychological identification.
SHAMIR:Without spiritual background, the tribe-based research of
the Author offers no solution but copying of the Jewish strategy. It will
certainly be utilised as a good database, after some editing will be done.
The encyclopaedic grasp of the book makes some errors unavoidable.
RESPONSE: We do not "copy Jewish strategy," as I have
already argued above. That's absurd. If we did, we'd have Jewish groups
lining up to appropriate the web site. Again, WVR research frames Jewish
identity as it conventionally defines itself. Reasonable, moral people
can examine this and decide what it means. The facts, of their own great
weight, are indicting. True, the "encyclopaedic" nature of the
volume invites inevitable errors. Of course. But because of the online
dimensions of this work, anyone at all -- if they have some authority
and credibility -- can function as volunteer editors to steer the bulk
of information down an accurate road.
SHAMIR: For instance, the Author writes at length about relevance
of Maimonides, a medieval Jewish scholar and sage, and then, on the next
page, he refers to "an old -- and obviously still influential -- Talmudic
expert, Rambam". He does not realise Rambam and Maimonides is but one
person, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Author has no clear grasp of Russian
name usage and constantly confuses family names and patronymics. For instance
he refers to 'Moisei Solomonovich, head of the secret police in Petrograd',
though his last name was Uritsky.
RESPONSE: In a book of over 2,000 pages, of all the things to criticize,
why such nitpicking? Does the fact that Maimonides and Rambam are the
same person destroy the credibility of the context from which these comments
came (a discussion of traditional, religiously-based racism, which Mr.
Shamir doesn't even mention)? Are the details of Russian surnames that
terribly relevant to the subject from which it is excerpted: the fact
that Jewish agents were prominent in the Soviet secret place? Every time
Mr. Shamir makes a reference to America in his essays, since he was not
born and raised there, nor lives in that nation, shall we examine with
a microscope the intricate nuances of the American experience that he
cannot possibly know so we may somehow foil with grains of sand the machinery
of his greater arguments?
[Mr. Shamir breaks off here. There will be more in response to his
observations as necessary]
|
