Revisiting The Horrors Of The Holocaust

Out of the Box said:
Prayers for rain said:
Assuming you're sincere and this question is not just rhetorical noise, you might want to check this board :

as well as read Political Ponerology (Andrew Lobaczewski) and The Sociopath next door (Martha Stout) for starters.

The problem with psychology, sociology and "ponerology" is the very subjective nature of these fields. Not only do they allow a lot of room for interpretation and bias, they also depend heavily on credible information. Hence, I think it is quite absurd to make psychological profiles of anyone without having known them personally.

Psychologists and psychiatrists usually do a lot of testing and/or inquiries before they make their diagnosis.... and even they are often wrong because of their own biases.

I understand your skepticism, because on the face of it ponerology can look simply like another more sophisticated form of scapegoating. I'm not as up to speed on ponerology as some in this forum however from my understanding it is a discreet and specific type of (possibly genetic) defect (a defect which i guess could be linked in the esoteric sense mostly to those called "organic portals") which manifests itself in very recognizable ways to those who are paying attention. If some random person you've never seen before is chasing you with a knife or a gun you don't need a psychiatrist to tell you that this person has come unhinged for whatever reason, and wants to harm you. In the same way, we can usually see from the habitually harmful and almost incomprehensibly destructive actions of certain people (specifically those in leadership positions) the effects of ponerolgy or something equally as pathological, whatever you want to call it. Ponerology, for whatever reason, seems to be a recurrent trait of those in high leadership positions who have across the board an almost inhuman regard for other human lives outside of their own immediate social network.

It doesn't take a big leap of imagination to see the effects of something akin to mental pathology at work during the Shoa. What is really unfortunate from my point of view is that this event has been mythologized and placed beyond the realm of close examination. IMO, this lack of examination keeps us from being able to see it for what it really was - insanity plain and simple, NOT some kind of special event with ramifications only for Jewish people.

Judas Saduj

The Force is Strong With This One
Did somebody here read "Who Financed Hitler?", by James & Suzanne POOL.

It shows that big time Jewish financiers supported elements of the Nazi party that were opposed to Adolf Hitler.

Looks like Sutton was wrong !



FOTCM Member
Judas Saduj said:
Did somebody here read "Who Financed Hitler?", by James & Suzanne POOL.

It shows that big time Jewish financiers supported elements of the Nazi party that were opposed to Adolf Hitler.

Looks like Sutton was wrong !


Actually, considering the question "cui bono", it had occurred to me some time back that the "big time Jewish financiers" backing Zionism probably financed Hitler himself. I felt so sure of this that I went looking for any possible evidence for it. I came across "Red Symphony."

Since then, there has been a discussion about this here in the forum:

R. - I shall tell you that only in the case of the non-recognition of "Them" and their aims you would be right ..., but you must not forget about their existence and aims, and also the fact that in the USSR power is in the hands of Stalin.

G. - I do not see the connexion here....

R. - Because you do not want to: you have more than sufficient deductive talents and capabilities of reasoning. I repeat again: for us Stalin is not a Communist, but a bonapartist.

G. - So what?

R. - We do not wish that the great preconditions which we had created at Versailles for the triumph of the Communist revolution in the world, which, as you see, have become a gigantic reality, would serve the purpose of bringing victory to Stalin's bonapartism ... Is that sufficiently clear for you? Everything would have been different if in this case Trotzky had been the dictator of the USSR; that would have meant that "They" would have been the chiefs of International Communism.

G. - But surely fascism is totally anti-Communist, as in relation to the Trotzkyist and the Stalinist Communism ... and if the power which you ascribe to "Them" is so great, how is it that they were unable to avoid this?

R. - Because it were precisely "They" who gave Hitler the possibility of triumphing.

G. - You exceed all the boundaries of absurdity.

R. - The absurd and the miraculous become mixed as the result of a lack of culture.

Listen to me. I have already admitted the defeat of the opposition. "They" saw in the end that Stalin cannot be overthrown by a coup d'etat and their historical experience suggested to them the decision of a repetition (repris) with Stalin of that which had been done with the Tsar. There was here one difficulty, which seemed to us insuperable. In the whole of Europe there was not a single aggressor-State. Not one of them was geographically well placed and had an army sufficient for an attack on Russia.

If there was no such country, then "They" had to create it. Only Germany had the corresponding population and positions suitable for an attack on the USSR, and it was capable of defeating Stalin; you can understand that the Weimar republic had not been invented as an aggressor either politically or economically; on the contrary, it was suited to an invasion.

On the horizon of a hungry Germany there sparkled the meteor of Hitler. A pair of penetrating eyes fixed their attention on it.

The world was the witness to his lightning rise. I shall not say that all of it was the work of our hands, no. His rise, uninterruptedly increasing in extent, took place as the result of the Revolutionary-Communist economy of Versailles.

Versailles had had in mind not the creation of preconditions for the triumph of Hitler [549], but for the proletarization of Germany, for unemployment and hunger, as the result of which there should have triumphed the Communist revolution.

But insofar as, thanks to the existence of Stalin at the head of the USSR and the International, the latter did not succeed, and as a result of an unwillingness to give up Germany to bonapartism, these preconditions were somewhat abated in the Davis and Young Plans, in expectation that meanwhile the opposition would come to power in Russia ..., but that, too, did not happen; but the existence of revolutionary preconditions had to produce its results. The economic predetermination of Germany would have forced the proletariat into revolutionary actions. Through the fault of Stalin the Social-International revolution had to be held up and the German proletariat sought inclusion in the National-Socialist revolution. This was dialectical, but given all the preconditions and according to common sense the National-Socialist revolution could never have triumphed there. That was not yet all.

It was necessary that the Trotzkyists and Socialists should divide the masses with an already awakened and whole class consciousness - in accordance with instructions. With this business we concerned ourselves. But even more was needed: In 1929, when the National-Socialist Party began to experience a crisis of growth and it had insufficient financial recources, "They" sent their ambassador there. I even know his name: it was one of the Warburgs. In direct negotiations with Hitler they agreed as to the financing of the National-Socialist Party, and the latter received in a couple of years millions of Dollars, sent to it from Wall Street, and millions of Marks from German financiers through Schacht; the upkeep of the S.A. and S.S. and also the financing of the elections which took place, which gave Hitler power, are done on the Dollars and Marks sent by "Them."

G. - Those who, according to you, want to achieve full Communism, arm Hitler, who swears that he will uproot the first Communist nation. This, if one is to believe you, is something very logical for the financiers.

R. - You again forget the Stalinist bonapartism. Remember that against Napoleon, the strangler of the French revolution, who stole its strength, there stood the objective revolutionaries - Louis XVIII, Wellington, Metternich and right up to the Tsar-Autocrat ... This is 22 carat, according to the strict Stalinist doctrine. You must know by heart his theses about colonies with regard to imperialistic countries. Yes, according to him the Kings of Afghanistan and Egypt are objectively Communists owing to their struggle against His Britannic Majesty; why cannot Hitler be objectively Communist since he is fighting against the autocratic "Tsar Koba I"? (Meaning Stalin - Transl.)

After all there is Hitler with his growing military power, and he already extends the boundaries of the Third Reich, and in future will do more ... to such an extent as to have enough strength and possibilities to attack and fully destroy Stalin ... Do you not observe the general sympathy of the Versailles wolves, who limit themselves only to a weak growl? Is this yet another chance, accident?

Hitler will invade the USSR and as in [550] 1917, when defeat suffered by the Tsar then gave us the opportunity of overthrowing him, so the defeat of Stalin will help us to remove him ... Again the hour of the world revolution will strike. Since the democratic states, at present put to sleep, will help to bring about the general change at that moment, when Trotzky will take power into his hands, as during the Civil War. Hitler will attack from the West, his generals will rise and liquidate him ... Now tell me, was not Hitler objectively a Communist? Yes or no?

G. - I do not believe in fairy tales or miracles ...

R. - Well if you do not want to believe that "They" are able to achieve that which they had already achieved, then prepare to observe an invasion of the USSR and the liquidation of Stalin within a year. You think this is a miracle or an accident, well then prepare to see and experience that ... But are you really able to refuse to believe that of which I have spoken, though this is still only a hypothesis? You will begin to act in this direction only at that moment when you will begin to see the proofs in the light of my talk.

G. - All right, let us talk in the form of a supposition. What will you say?

R. - You yourself had drawn attention to the coincidence of opinions, which took place between us. We are not at the moment interested in the attack on the USSR, since the fall of Stalin would presuppose the destruction of Communism, the existence of which interests us despite the circumstance that it is formal, as that gives us the certainty that we shall succeed in taking it over and then converting it into real Communism. I think that I have given you the position at the moment quite accurately.

G. - Splendid, the solution ...

R. - First of all we must make sure that there would be no potential possibility of an attack by Hitler.

G. - If, as you confirm, it were "They" who made him Fuhrer, then they have power over him and he must obey them.

R. - Owing to the fact that I was in a hurry I did not express myself quite correctly and you did not understand me well.If it is true that "They" financed Hitler, then that does not mean that they disclosed to him their existence and their aims. The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his race, he also lied regarding whose representative he was. He told him that he had been sent by the financial circles of Wall Street who were interested in financing the National-Socialist movement with the aim of creating a threat to France, whose governments pursue a financial policy which provokes a crisis in the USA.

G. - And Hitler believed it?

R. - We do not know. That was not so important, whether he did or did not believe our explanations; our aim was to provoke a war ..., and Hitler was war. Do you now understand?

G. - I understand. Consequently I do not see any other way of [551] stopping him as the creation of a coalition of the USSR with the democratic nations, which would be capable of frightening Hitler. I think he will not be able to attack simultaneously all the countries of the world. The most would be - each in turn.

R. - Does not a simpler solution come to your mind ..., I would say - a counter-revolutionary one?

G. - To avoid war against the USSR?

R. - Shorten the phrase by half ... and repeat with me 'avoid war" ... is that not an absolutely counter-revolutionary thing? Every sincere Communist imitating his idol Lenin and the greatest revolutionary strategists must always wish for war. Nothing is so effective in bringing nearer the victory of revolution as war. This is a Marxist-Leninist dogma, which you must preach. Now further: Stalin's National-Communism, this type of bonapartism, is capable of blinding the intellect of the most pure-blooded Communists, right up to the point at which it prevents their seeing that the transformation into which Stalin has fallen, i.e., that he subjects the revolution to the State, and not the State to the revolution, it would be correct ...

G. - Your hate of Stalin blinds you and you contradict yourself. Have we not agreed that an attack on the USSR would not be welcome?

R. - But why should war be necessarily against the Soviet Union?

G. - But on what other country could Hitler make war? It is sufficiently clear that he would direct his attack on the USSR, of this he speaks in his speeches. What further proofs do you need?

R. - If you, the people from the Kremlin, consider it to be quite definite and not debatable, then why did you provoke the Civil War in Spain. Do not tell me that it was done for purely revolutionary reasons. Stalin is incapable of carrying out in practice a single Marxist theory. If there were revolutionary considerations here, then it would not be right to sacrifice in Spain so many excellent international revolutionary forces. This is the country which is furthest from the USSR, and the most elementary strategical education would not have allowed the loss of these forces ... How would Stalin be able in case of conflict to supply and render military help to a Spanish Soviet republic? But this was correct. There we have an important strategic point, a crossing of opposing influences of the Capitalist States ..., it might have been possible to provoke a war between them. I admit that theoretically this may have been right, but in practice - no. You already see how the war between the democratic Capitalist and fascist States did not begin. And now I shall tell you: if Stalin thought that he was capable of himself creating an excuse sufficient in order to provoke a war, in which the Capitalist States would have had to fight among themselves, then why does he not at least admit, if only theoretically, that others too can achieve the same thing, which did not seem impossible to him? ...

G. - If one is to agree with your assumptions then one can admit this hypothesis.

R. - That means that there is yet a second point of agreement between us: the first [552]- that there must be no war against the USSR, the second - that it would be well to provoke it between the bourgeois States.

G. - Yes, I agree. Is that your personal opinion, or "Theirs"?

R. - I express it as my opinion. I have no power and no contact with "Them," but I can confirm that in these two points it coincides with the view of the Kremlin.

G. - That is the most important thing and for that reason it is important to establish this beforehand. By the way, I would also like to know on what you base yourself in your confidence that "They" approve this.

R. If I had the time in order to explain their full scheme, then you would already know about the reasons for their approval. At the present moment I shall condense them to three:

G. - Just which?

R. - One is that which I had already mentioned. Hitler, this uneducated and elementary man, has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind. Being illiterate in all economic theories and being guided only by necessity he removed, as we had done it in the USSR, the private and international capital. That means that he took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the State. He exceeded us, as we, having abolished it in Russia, replaced it merely by this crude apparatus called State Capitalism; this was a very expensive triumph in view of the necessities of pre-revolutionary demagogy ... Here I give you two real facts for comparison. I shall even say that Hitler had been lucky; he had almost no gold and for that reason he was not tempted to create a gold reserve. Insofar as he only possessed a full monetary guarantee of technical equipment and colossal working capacity of the Germans, his "old reserve" was technical capacity and work ..., something so completely counter-revolutionary that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers.

G. - Thanks to increased re-armament.

R. - What does your re-armament give? If Hitler reached this despite all the bourgeois economists who surround him, then he was quite capable, in the absence of the danger of war, of applying his system also to peaceful production ... Are you capable of imagining what would have come of this system if it had infected a number of other States and brought about the creation of a period of autarky ...

For example the Commonwealth. If you can, then imagine its counter-revolutionary functions ... The danger is not yet inevitable, as we have had luck in that Hitler restored his system not according to some previous theory, but empirically, and he did not make any formulation of a scientific kind. This means that insofar as he did not think in the light of a deductive process based on intelligence, he has no scientific terms [553] or a formulated doctrine; yet there is a hidden danger as at any moment there can appear, as the consequence of deduction, a formula. This is very serious. Much more so that all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism. We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this so decisive economic doctrine. There is only one solution - war.

R. - If the Termidor triumphed in the Soviet revolution then this happened as the result of the existence of the former Russian nationalism. Without such a nationalism bonapartism would have been impossible. And if that happened in Russia, where nationalism was only embryonic in the person of the Tsar, then what obstacles must Marxism meet in the fully developed nationalism of Western Europe? Marx was wrong with respect to the advantages for the success of the revolution. Marxism won not in the most industrialized country, but in Russia, where the proletariat was small. Apart from other reasons our victory here is explained by the fact that in Russia there was no real nationalism, and in other countries it was in its full apogee. You see how it is reborn under this extraordinary power of fascism, and how infectious it is. You can understand that apart from that it can benefit Stalin, the need for the destruction of nationalism is alone worth a war in Europe.

G. - In sum you have set out, Rakovsky, one economic and one political reason. Which is the third?

R. - That is easy to guess. We have yet another reason, a religious one. Communism cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still living Christianity. History speaks very clearly about this: the permanent revolution required seventeen centuries in order to achieve its first partial victory - by means of the creation of the first split in Christendom. In reality Christianity is our only real enemy, since all the political and economic phenomena in the bourgeois States are only its consequences. Christianity, controlling the individual, is capable of annulling the revolutionary projection of the neutral Soviet or atheistic State by choking it and, as we see it in Russia, things have reached the point of the creation of that spiritual nihilism which is dominant in the ruling masses, which have, nevertheless, remained Christian: this obstacle has not yet been removed during twenty years of Marxism. Let us admit in relation to Stalin that towards religion he was not bonapartistic. We would not have done more than he and would have acted in the same way. And if Stalin had dared, like Napoleon, to cross the Rubikon of Christianity, then his nationalism and counter-revolutionary power would have been increased a thousandfold. In addition, if this had happened then so radical a difference would have made quite impossible any collaboration in anything between us and him, even if this were to be only temporary and objective ... like the one you can see becoming apparent to us.

G. - And so I personally consider that you have given a definition of three fundamental points, on the basis of which [554] a plan can be made. That is what I am in agreement about with you for the present. But I confirm to you my mental reservations, i.e. my suspicion in relation to all that which you have said concerning people, organizations and facts. Now continue to follow the general lines of your plan.

R. - Yes, now this moment has arrived. But only a preliminary qualification: I shall speak on my own responsibility. I am responsible for the interpretation of those preceding points in the sense in which "They" understand them, but I admit that "They" may consider another plan to be more effective for the attainment of the three aims, and one quite unlike that which I shall now set out. Bear that in mind.

Of course, the origin of Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor is contentious... but still... It clearly states something that seems to be so obvious that it is a wonder that no one else talks about it: that Hitler was financed by the Jews. After all, even Hannah Arendt writes at great length about how Jews became the bankers of the world and that any and all "rulers" of the world were only thus because they had the backing of Jewish money. So, in the midst of this condition that was prevalent, one has to ask HOW could someone like Hitler make it to the top as fast as he did?

It is clear from both Arendt and Douglas Reed that the Jews controlled the money and MOST of the media. And "controlling" doesn't necessarily mean "owning," either. So, with control of the money and most of the media, even inside Germany, it is impossible that anyone could come to power other than one who was favored by this controlling faction.

Being that it would have been impossible for anyone to come to power in Germany without Jewish/Zionist support, then we have to conclude that the highest probability points to Zionist support of Hitler. And that means Zionist support of the Holocaust which Hannah Arendt also puzzles over, noting again and again that the Holocaust could never have happened without Jewish support.

WHO were the victims of the Holocaust? Please re-read my post here to notice that it was the vast rank and file of ordinary people of the Jewish faith, NOT the pathological types. In short, the Holocaust seems to have been designed to "cull the herd," to create a "bottleneck" of pathological types. In short, in a backward sort of way, Hitler did prepare the ground for the creation of the "Master Race," only it wasn't quite what he thought.

The conclusion is this: indeed, the Holocaust happened; indeed, Hitler and the Nazis mainly targeted the Jews; and very likely, MORE than 6 million innocent Jews were sacrificed to create the nation of Israel.

Notice also that extraordinary remark from Red Symphony:

We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this... doctrine.

Now, perhaps, you begin to understand why Holocaust Revisionism is a "third rank" operation right out of Protocol 12.


FOTCM Member
Now, just to give a bit of support to the theses expounded in Red Symphony, though even that seems to have contained some disinformation, (it's not Communism that is the goal, it is global Totalitarianism), have a look at a post I snagged from another thread. (I've added a few text enhancements):

Telperion said:
'The Cunning of History – The Holocaust and the American Future' by Richard L. Rubenstein

I've only read a few books that have given me that sense of 'revelation', that sense of pieces of a puzzle snapping into place. Laura's book was one and 'The Cunning of History' is another. It's a slim book, more like a long essay but don't let that fool you. This work is practically a masterpiece of objective analysis regarding a subject that is by nature an emotional minefield.

This book was published almost thirty-five years ago however it seems to have become more relevant with every passing year. The event that has been the implicit or explicit “excuse” for much of the happenings in the Middle East has never been examined so clearly, at least that's the way I see it. For those who would like additional understanding of why Israel is the way it is and why the West panders to this tiny Mediterranean 'state', please read this book.

Rubenstein's work is essential reading for understanding the phenomenon of Auschwitz objectively, the phenomenon that has shaped so much of 20th century history. 'The Cunning of History' leads the reader to an understanding of the possible future implications of the existence of that institution (concentration/labor camps), an institution which arose in a technologically sophisticated, 'civilized' Western state in the heart of Europe.

The traditional explanations for the disaster and existence of the death/labor/concentration camps range from the Jews suffering karmic/divine retribution to some particularly brutal and sadistic tendency in the German psyche. These kind of explanations have always left much of the picture unclear or skewed. Rubenstien focuses on the sort of 'hidden hand' of unseen mechanisms that made much of what happened possible. He also shows the reader why we need to be ever vigilant, and not deceive ourselves into thinking that what happened in Germany/Poland during WWII could never happen again in a 'civilized' Western country. I've included a few excerpts I thought would be useful for a general understanding what Rubenstein is saying.

William Styron Introduction –

Styron said:
Rubenstein is forcing us to reinterpret the meaning of Auschwitz- especially, although not exclusively, from the standpoint of its existence as part of a continuum of slavery that has been grafted for centuries onto the very body of Western civilization. Therefore, in the process of destroying the myth and the preconception, he is making us see that the encampment of death and suffering may have been more horrible than we had ever imagined. It was slavery in its ultimate embodiment....the etiology of Auschwitz – to some a diabolical, perhaps freakish excrescence, which vanished from the face of the earth with the destruction of the crematoria in 1945 – is actually embedded deeply in a cultural tradition that stretches back to the Middle Passage from the coast of Africa, and beyond, to the enforced servitude in ancient Greece and Rome. Rubenstein is saying that we ignore this linkage, and the sleeping virus in the bloodstream of civilization, at risk of our future.

Chapter 1 – Mass Death and Contemporary Civilization

Rubenstein said:
Scholars have invariably failed to recognize the phenomenon for what it was, a thoroughly modern exercise in total domination that could only have been carried out by an advanced political community with a highly trained, tightly disciplined police and civil service bureaucracy.

The process was a highly complex series of acts which started simply with the bureaucratic definition of who was a Jew.

Once defined as a Jew, by the German state bureaucracy, a person was progressively deprived of all personal property and citizenship rights. The final step in the process came when he was eliminated altogether.

The destruction process required the cooperation of every sector of German society. The bureaucrats drew up the definitions and decrees; the churches gave evidence of Aryan descent; the postal authorities carried the messages of definition, expropriation, denaturalization, and deportation; business corporations dismissed their Jewish employees and took over “Aryanized” properties; the railroads carried the victims to their place of execution, a place made available to the Gestapo and the SS by the Wehrmacht.

To repeat, the operation required and received the participation of every major social, political and religious institution of the German Reich.

In this chapter Rubenstein illustrates how the transformation of war in the early 20th century led to a new kind of relationship between world powers. This led to the ultimate expendability of large numbers of people on a scale that would have been unimaginable just a few years before WWI.

Consider 9-11/ the war on terror and Guantanamo Bay in conjunction with the following quote used by Rubenstein to further illustrate his points –

Rubenstein said:
Goebbels wrote in his diary that “the war made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times.”

It's easy to forget sometimes, but we've been at war for the last five years, and a lot can happen in five years while people are distracted by the Super Bowl, American Idol, the Paris Hilton sex tape and so forth.

Rubenstein said:
As Hannah Arendt pointed out, in spite of the treaty guarantees, none of the national minorities could either trust or be trusted by the states of which they were technically citizens. To make matters worse, the unfortunate fact that the minority guarantees were deemed necessary was itself recognition that only people belonging to the dominant state nationality, such as the Poles in Poland, or the Hungarians in Hungary could count upon the full protection of the political and legal institutions of the states of which they were citizens. Ms. Arendt has observed that with the signing of the minorities' treaties after World War I, the transformation of the state from an institution of law into an instrument of the dominant national community had been completed.

This transformation of the fundamental nature of the state is an unfortunate and enduring legacy of WWI and WWII, and a reason why during times of strife especially, it would behoove minorities of any kind to pay extremely close attention to everything and not be lulled into a false sense of security.

Part of this lulling here in the US is currently being played out in the realm of politics. Ignoring or unaware of the alarming health, imprisonment and economic statistics, many minorities think the appearance of someone somewhat like them on the national stage points towards some glorious rosy future. The rise of Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish Jew, to high prominence in the German Parliament during WWI could have pointed towards a greater level of tolerance towards Jews in Germany, however her assassination negated such claims. In addition, regardless of any debate as to the origins of the people living in Europe calling themselves Jews during WWII and regardless of the relevance of that origin to the current fact of Israel's existence, it must be remembered that those people, whoever and whatever they were - were minorities. It also bears remembering that so called 'Aryan' German citizens were the first minorities imprisoned and murdered in the Nazi concentration camps; they were political dissidents, Jehovah's Witnesses, gays and other "anti-socials".

Rubenstein said:
The Nazis insisted that the protests emanating from the so-called democracies concerning German treatment of Jews were not without a strong element of hypocrisy. This theme recurs frequently in Nazi sources. For example, on December 13, 1942, Goebbles wrote in his diary, “At bottom, I believe that both the English and the Americans are happy that we are exterminating this Jewish riffraff.”

The more one studies the literature of the period, the more difficult it is to avoid the conclusion that Goebbles was right, at least in his estimation of the British, but also to some degree the American government. When we look for the problem the British were attempting to “solve” by their not entirely passive cooperation with the Germans in the extermination of the Jews, it is clear that they were seeking to protect their disintegrating imperial domain east of the Suez, especially in India. Beneath all pretensions to imperial glory, the British had their own economic and political reasons for being in India. The Indians understandably wanted to be rid of them, and the problem of maintaining Britains position in India was for a long time a preoccupation of English statesmen. At one point, some British bureaucrats in India contemplated “administrative massacres” as a means of terrorizing the Indians and maintaining their own tenuous hold *Al Carthill (Bennet Christian Huntington Calcraft Kennedy), The Lost Dominion (Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood, 1924), pp. 93 ff and Arendt, The Origins, pp. 210 – 12, 216, 221

Chapter 2 - Bureaucratic Domination

Rubenstein said:
In order to understand how the moral barrier was crossed that made massacre in the millions possible, it is necessary to consider the importance of bureaucracy in modern political and social organization. The German sociologist Max Weber was especially cognizant of its significance. Written in 1916, long before the Nazi party came to prominence in German politics, Weber observed: “The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other kind of organization. The fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine with the non-mechanical modes of organization. Precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs – these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic organization.”

Almost from the moment they came to power, the Nazis understood the bureaucratic mechanism they controlled...Himmler does not seem to have been a sadist. During the war, he did not like to watch killing operations and became upset when he did. But, Himmler was the perfect bureaucrat. He did what he believed was his duty sine ira et studio, without bias or scorn...

Under Himmler there was no objection to cruelty, provided it was disciplined and systematic. This preference was also shared by the German civil service bureaucracy. According to Hilberg, the measure that gave the civil service bureaucrats least difficulty in exterminating their victims was the imposition of a starvation diet. In a bureaucratically controlled society where every individual's ration can be strictly determined, starvation is the ideal instrument of “clean” violence.

(I'm observing with dismay the current world wide skyrocketing cost of food products, especially wheat, corn and other commodities...will this all eventually lead to ration cards which some will receive and some won't? Ration cards that can be invalidated or unhonored at the discretion of a particular government?)

Rubenstein said:
It was only possible to overcome the moral barrier that had in the past prevented the systematic riddance of surplus populations when the project was taken out of the hands of bullies and delegated to bureaucrats.

In the twenties and thirties denaturalization and denationalization were increasingly used by governments as ways of getting rid of citizens they deemed undesirable.

One of the first large groups to suffer denationalization were the White Russian opponents of the Bolshevik regime who escaped to the West...

The denationalized White Russians were followed by the Spanish republicans, the Armenians, and of course, the Jews...

Unfortunately the Nazi's clearly understood the importance of the question of statelessness. When they began to deport Jews from such occupied nations as France, Bulgaria, and Hungary, they insisted that the deportees be stripped of citizenship by their respective governments no later than the day of deportation...

In the case of German Jews, the Nazis used a very simple bureaucratic device to strip them of citizenship...Men without political rights are superfluous men. They have lost all right to life and human dignity. Political rights are neither God-given, autonomous nor self-validating. The Germans understood that no person has any rights unless they are guaranteed by an organized community with the power to defend such rights.

They were perfectly consistent in demanding that the deportees be made stateless before being transported to the camps.

They also understood that by exterminating stateless men and women they violated no law because such people were covered by no law.

Even those who were committed by religious faith to belief in natural law, such as the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, did not see fit to challenge the Nazi actions publicly at that time.

Chapter 3 – The Modernization of Slavery

Rubenstein said:
Without the complete depersonalization of human relationships, which Weber identified as the “specific nature” and “special virtue” of bureaucracy, it is impossible to create a true society of total domination.

Slavery in North America was thus an imperfectly rationalized institution of nearly total domination under conditions of a shortage of productive labor. The death camp was a fully rationalized institution of total domination under conditions of a population surplus...In North America, the slaves were an important part of the slave owners' capital...In the German camps the inmates had neither political status nor long term economic value.

The slave was a human being who was treated as a thing and defined as such in law.

Every system of slavery until the twentieth century experienced a certain tension because of the contradiction.

The Nazis were the first masters to resolve it. They were able to turn human beings into instruments wholly responsive to their will even when told to lie down in their own graves and be shot. That is perhaps the supreme “achievement” of their society of total domination.

Unfortunately, if it is true that every system of domination has an inherent tendency towards the expansion of its power, then the society of total domination may prove to be a permanent temptation to future rulers, especially in stressful times. Every ruler seeks affirmative response to command. As long as a residue of unpredictable freedom of action is possible in his subjects, the ruler's assured response to command escapes him.

Chapter 4 - Health Professions and Corporate Enterprise at Auschwitz

Rubenstein said:
As we have noted, had the Germans won the war, mass sterilization would have been an important aspect of their program for the subject peoples. It must be remembered that with both the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, victory invariably led to an intensification rather than a diminution of terror.

(Hmmm...seems familiar. Note the rapid acceleration of the erosion of our civil liberties and the expansion of military actions even though we here in the US are supposedly winning the war on terror. Victory after WWII also brought an intensification of violence all over the world. Korea, Vietnam, the CIA in South America and Iran, and on and on and on.)

Rubenstein said:
If one wishes security against real or imagined enemies, it is not enough to defeat them in war. A defeated enemy may rise again and seek vengeance. Total security can only be achieved by biological means. The enemy must either be killed or sterilized. And, no antique Christian prejudice must be allowed to interfere.

(Consider for a moment the possible implications of SARS and the “Bird flu” in Asia, HIV/AIDS in India and Africa)

Rubenstein said:
Another recent American parallel to the Nazi experiments was the decision of welfare authorities in Georgia to sterilize several mentally deficient black girls. Their illiterate parents were allegedly compelled by representatives of the welfare bureaucracy to sign papers permitting the sterilization. The syphilis experiments and the sterilization of the black girls are in all likelihood but the tip of the iceberg.

During World War II, the great German pharmaceutical corporation Bayer A. G. of Leverkusen, made extensive use of death camp inmates for their experiments on human beings. Today, Bayers American corporate counterparts such as Lederle, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, and Upjohn have found plentiful supply of subjects (objects?) in America's prisons for their “voluntary” experiments on human beings. The experiments in American prisons have the cooperation and approval of such federal bureaucracies as the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Food and Drug Administration.

In 1933 I. G. Farben was not an anti-Semitic cooperation. It employed many Jews...By 1939 I. G. Farben was fully integrated into the new German order. I. G. Farben's decision to locate at Auschwitz was based upon the very same criteria by which contemporary multinational cooperations relocate their plants in utter indifference to the social consequences of such moves: where ever possible costs, especially labor costs, must be minimized and profits maximized.

In February 1941, Auschwitz appeared to be an excellent corporate investment to some of Germany's most respectable business leaders. The mentality was not very different from that of executives who close down plants in such high labor cost areas as Stuttgart and Philadelphia and relocate them in Manila and Singapore...

About 35,000 slaves were used at I. G. Auschwitz...The workers knew the moment they were no longer capable of meeting work schedules, they would be sent to the gas chambers. No other incentive was required. None was given...

As Weber could not have foreseen the ultimate potentialities of systematic domination given twentieth century technology, neither could Marx or Engels have foreseen the extent to which terror could replace all other incentives in human exploitation.

One wonders what refinements might have been added had the SS possessed computers.

Chapter 5 - The Victims Response: Bureaucratic Self-Destruction

Rubenstein said:
The question of the Jewish response to the Germans is one of the most painful that arises out of the Holocaust...Within the Jewish community there has been an understandable tendency to regard those who perished as martyrs whose sanctified memories must not be soiled by the cold blooded objectivity of political reflection. Regrettably, those who avoid objective reflection on the Jewish response add to the confusion concerning what took place.

The process of taking over the Jewish communal bureaucracies and transforming them into components in the extermination process was one of the organizational triumphs of the Nazis. In the face of the German determination to murder all Jews, most Jews instinctively relied on their own communal organizations to defend their interests whenever possible. Unfortunately, these very organizations were transformed into subsidiaries of the German police and state bureaucracies.

When the doomed remnant of the Warsaw Ghetto finally decided to organize and fight the Germans, it's first task was to create a non-collaborating organization that could destroy the Judenrat's (Jewish Council) authority over the Jewish community. Only after they had violently displaced the Judenrät could they move against the Germans...

The Warsaw resistance was atypical. Almost everywhere else the Judenräte maintained their authority until the leaders of the Judenräte, their usefulness to the Germans at an end, were themselves sent to their deaths.

In his essay on bureaucracy, Max Weber observed that the apparatus, with its peculiar impersonal easily made to work for anybody who knows how to gain control over it. A rationally ordered system of officials continues to function smoothly after the enemy has occupied the area: he merely needs to change the top officials.”

With the Jewish community it was not even necessary to change the top officials, even when they were revered and distinguished rabbis. Here as elsewhere, Weber's observations are prophetic, although it is doubtful he could have realized the extremities to which they could apply. If nothing else, the fact that the best and most selfless Jewish leaders represented no greater obstacle when the Nazis took over their communities than did th most opportunistic raises some very terrifying questions about the potentialities of bureaucratic domination in modern society. And, as we have noted, the Nazis didn't even have computers.

Chapter 6 - Reflections on 'A Century of Progress'

Rubenstein said:
Once a system of domination has been proven to be a capability of government, it invites repetition.

There are a number of circumstances in which a future ruler of a modern state might be tempted to install his own version of such a system. At the crudest level, government by bureaucratically organized, rationalized terror simplifies the problem of command, especially in a bitterly divided society. Those classes or groups who for economic, racial, religious, or social reasons oppose the program of the dominant elite could find themselves condemned to detention camps or eliminated altogether.

Whatever the future may bring, it is certain that the pressure of population on resources will continue to grow.

In a multi-ethnic society, the dominant ethnic majority might retain scarce jobs and resources for itself and eliminate competing minorities. That, in effect, is what the Germans did.

We know to what extremes men with power can be driven under conditions of stress. Is it possible for example, that some future American administration might solve the problem of non-white “welfare loafers” who are “too lazy to work” by such measures?...

Today resentment at supporting the poor takes verbal expressions. However, such resentment could become draconian should the resources available to sustain the poor disappear. There could come a time when bureaucrats might attempt to eliminate all of the ills associated with urban blight such as crime, drugs, and unsafe streets by eliminating those segments of society that are regarded as most prone to social pathology.

My purpose in suggesting these unpleasant scenarios is neither to play the prophet nor to predict the future...My purpose is rather to point out that the explosive combination of surplus population, finite resources, and the expanding sovereign powers of government suggest that the Nazi extermination program may yet foreshadow other exercises in the politics of total domination by future governments as they face catastrophic population problems arising out of mankind's very success in mastering nature.

The problem is compounded when you consider the particular psychology of the psychopath which sees "normal people" as a threat to survival even under ordinary circumstances. Add to that the capacity of the psychopath to "rise to the top" and what do you have?

It's not a pretty picture; and it is real; it is right now. This is what we are facing.

Judas Saduj

The Force is Strong With This One
Laura said:
WHO were the victims of the Holocaust? Please re-read my post here to notice that it was the vast rank and file of ordinary people of the Jewish faith, NOT the pathological types. In short, the Holocaust seems to have been designed to "cull the herd," to create a "bottleneck" of pathological types. In short, in a backward sort of way, Hitler did prepare the ground for the creation of the "Master Race," only it wasn't quite what he thought.

In his latest book, Judaism Discovered, Michael A. Hoffman II gives some names (with pictures) of Jewish individuals who were acutely aware to jewish control over Germany but were sent to die in Nazi concentration camps.

Your explanation then makes sense of this apparent contradiction.

Laura said:
Now, perhaps, you begin to understand why Holocaust Revisionism is a "third rank" operation right out of Protocol 12.

Hoffman is a revisionist historian, but he's a very unique one: he's highly critical of Naziism and Hitler (which he almost calls a "crypto-talmudist"), etc. This is not the case with Zundel and his very best friend Faurisson, who both might very well be useful idiots or even worse. Although Hoffman supports both of them, he seems honest IMHO and still a lot of his work is extremely valuable.


FOTCM Member
I agree that, in many respects, Hoffman is going in the right direction. But then, he goes off on Christianity itself and that is what spoils his analysis. He doesn't get it that this was a creation of Judaism also. It's all fairy tales and BS.


Jedi Council Member
I really liked Rubenstein's "The Cunning of History"... very efficiently written, concise and effective.. reminded me of that Greenbaum speech in execution.. you can see the professionalism in the writing.. and the mindset that allows a thorough understanding of the rationalization of the bureaucratic process as just a continuation of the process of civilization as we know it today from our history in so-called ancient times... which weren't really so different as the division of West vs Eastern governmental tendencies were known then as well... as exemplified with Alexander the Great's usage of the foreign bureaucracies as his forces moved through... doing the same as the latter Nazi forces.. merely replacing the head of the beast... a beast tamed and ready to work for any master.

It reminded me of Spengler's cycles of civilizations as well.. the process of a people going from republican tendencies to imperial ones. In chapter 3 of Rubenstein's book, page 42:
The institution of slavery in America is further evidence that the death camps were the end product of a very long cultural development involving all of the major countries of the Western world, rather than the specialized and extraordinary hatred of the Germans for the Jews. On the contrary, taken together, the record of the British, Portugese, Dutch, French, and Spanish in Africa, Asia, and the Americas is quantitatively as bloodstained as that of the Germans. The Germans were, however, latecomers to the twin games of slavery and slaughter, but they utilized advanced methods to do more efficiently in the heart of Europe what other Europeans did elsewhere.
From Chapter 6, page 92-3:
It is an error to imagine that civilization and savage cruelty are antithesis. On the contrary, in every organic process, the antithesis always reflect a unified totality, and civilization is an organic process.
[...]Both creation and destruction are inseparable aspects of what we call civilization.
Even, nay especially, religion has its night side. Thus, we have offered the hypothesis that the secularization process that led to bureaucracy, capitalism, and the society of total domination was the outcome of the biblical tradition. Without that tradition, or at least the ethos it engendered, it is likely that neither fully rationalized bureaucracy nor the death camps would have developed. Nor can we ignore the biblical roots of the hideous Nazi caricature of the Chosen People doctrine, the claim that pure-blooded germans are a Herrenvolk, a master race, destined to rule, enslave or exterminate non-Germans.

It makes me wonder at the role of the Nephilim enforcers arriving on this wave... like their masters, it is said unexpressive of emotion... sounds like perfect bureaucrats... only half of the equation... the rational... the machine... like those psychopaths mentioned here so often... one mirrors the other.... as above, so below.... until that ray of creation withers on the vine... as all empires always do, expiration dates written into their code.
From CH 6 page 91:
Thus, the Holocaust bears witness to the advance of civilization, I repeat, to the advance of civilization, to the point at which large scale massacre is no longer a crime and the state's sovereign powers are such that millions can be stripped of their rights and condemned to the world of the living dead.
[...] In the end, the secular state has dethroned all mystifications of power and morality save its own. The state becomes the only true god on earth with the power to define realistically what is good and will be rewarded and what is evil and will be punished; this truly sovereign god also has the ultimate power of divinity, the power to decide who shall live and who shall die. No cold-blooded contemporary David need worry about a modern Nathan the prophet proclaiming the ultimacy of God's law. That day is over, never to return, unless some apocalyptic catastrophe destroys Western civilization as we know it and compels mankind to begin again out of the nuclear ruins.
Perhaps not nuclear but cometary?
It really is an excellent book... short and bitter sweet.

Approaching Infinity

FOTCM Member

Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, discussed in this thread, is available for purchase at the Red Pill Press website. By purchasing the book on RPP, you are both supporting the copyright holder, and the present and future activities of Red Pill Press.


FOTCM Member
A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about Holocaust Revisionists (which includes some neo-Nazis). I thought that now might be a good time to revisit that post so I am going to include it here in its entirety.


21 October 2006
The Mystic vs. Hitler

Recently, the formerly highly respected web essayist, John Kaminski, wrote a new piece entitled "Parasite alert: Outing those who pretend to be friends of the truth" in which he took a strange jab at yours truly as follows:

[...] It's also interesting that Daryl writes about Zionists but agrees with French law that one may not speak about the Holocaust, a colossal act of cowardice that should send people running from his site and should delegitimize anything he says in the minds of anybody who can think. [...]

Another person who falls into this category is channeler Laura Knight-Jadczyk, who has inveigled many with her prescient psychological pronouncements that it is a percentage of psychopaths that hold the world in thrall through savagery. K-J's encyclopedic and endlessly perfect papers about aspects of human behavior scare the shit out of me, because her new science of ponerology could serve perfectly as a new template for totalitarianism, to be imposed by the very people who get to fund spooky think tanks like these.

Thankfully, she has not caught on in any of the groups I observe working on the world's problems. [See our Forum Thread for the entire essay]

John is right: understanding what is really going on here on the BBM has not caught on in any of the groups he observes "working on the world's problems." We can also note that none of these groups seem to be making any progress because the very science that could help them to understand the first level of what they need to solve before anything can ever get done "scares the shite" out of them.

Now, why would that be?

It's an interesting question, and I want to share a story about someone else who was working on solving the world's problems at another time and place in history, similar to our present day, in order to make a particular point. I want to talk about Fritz Gerlich's Bloody Spectacles.

Now, before I get to Fritz, let me first say a few words about David Irving. In my previous blog post, I discussed the truly scary idea that is taking hold in many anti-Zionist circles that, because the Zionists seem to be at the root of the world's problems today, that Hitler must have been a good guy because he saw the Jews as being at the root of all the world's ills then. David Irving seems to be one of the ringleaders of this idea.

I recently read an interview with Irving where he says that the "defining moment" for him was when he had penetrated the "inner circle" of the people who had been close to Hitler and he realized that they were all "well-educated, nice and decent". So, of course, if all these well-educated, nice people with deep thoughts and insights thought Hitler was a good guy, then of course, he must be!

Irving was caught in the psychopath's trap just like all the people in Hitler's inner circle were caught... .

He's not the first, either. Nor will he be the last. In fact, it's almost epidemic nowadays. I won't belabor the point; those of you familiar with the problem know exactly what I'm talking about. What is problematical is what this "conviction" has driven Irving to do: cherry pick and spin data. More than that, it has driven him to emulate his hero in certain respects. About the people who support him, Irving has been recorded to say:

"I find it odious to be in the same company as these people. There is no question that there are certain organizations that propagate these theories which are cracked anti-Semites."

He then asserts that he's only using these "cracked anti-Semites" cynically. He plans to jettison them as soon as he can find more respectable forums:

"If I've been denied a platform worldwide, where else can I make my voice heard? As soon as I get back onto regular debating platforms I shall shake off this ill-fitting shoe which I'm standing on at present. I'm not blind. I know these people have done me a lot of damage, a lot of harm, because I get associated then with those stupid actions." [Interviewed by Ron Rosenbaum in Explaining Hitler, 1998, Random House]

The history of psychopaths having followers who worship the ground they walk on is legion. Manipulation is the key to the psychopath's conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy, and many of them study the tricks that can be employed by the empathy technique. Psychopaths are often able to incite pity from people because they seem like "lost souls" as Guggenbuhl-Craig writes. So the pity factor is one reason why victims often fall for these "poor" people. Martha Stout, who has studied these types of people and manipulations in great deal, writes about the "pity play" in her book The Sociopath Next Door:

"The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy...

"More than admiration -- more even than fear -- pity from good people is carte blanche.... Pity and sympathy are forces for good when they are reactions to deserving people who have fallen on misfortune. But when these sentiments are wrestled out of us by the undeserving, by people whose behavior is consistently anti-social, this is a sure sign that something is wrong, a potentially useful danger signal that we often overlook."

Robert Hare, who has devoted his career to the study of psychopathy, cites a famous case where a psychopath was "Man of the Year" and president of the Chamber of Commerce in his small town. (Remember that John Wayne Gacy was running for Jaycee President at the very time of his first murder conviction!) The man in question had claimed to have a Ph.D. from Berkeley. He ran for a position on the school board which he then planned to parlay into a position on the county commission which paid more. At some point, a local reporter suddenly had the idea to check up on the guy - to see if his credentials were real. What the reporter found out was that the only thing that was true about this up and coming politician's "faked bio" was the place and date of birth. Everything else was fictitious. Not only was the man a complete impostor, he had a long history of antisocial behavior, fraud, impersonation, and imprisonment. His only contact with a university was a series of extension courses by mail that he took while in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. What is even more amazing is the fact that before he was a con-man, he was a "con-boy." For two decades he had dodged his way across America one step ahead of those he had hoodwinked. Along the way he had married three women and had four children, and he didn't even know what had happened to them. And now, he was on a roll! But darn that pesky reporter!

When he was exposed, he was completely unconcerned. "These trusting people will stand behind me. A good liar is a good judge of people," he said. Amazingly, he was right. Far from being outraged at the fact that they had all been completely deceived and lied to from top to bottom, the local community he had conned so completely to accrue benefits and honors to himself that he had not earned, rushed to his support! I kid you not! And it wasn't just "token support." The local Republican party chairman wrote about him: "I assess his genuineness, integrity, and devotion to duty to rank right alongside of President Abraham Lincoln." As Hare dryly notes, this dimwit was easily swayed by words, and was blind to deeds. And that seems to have been the case with the "intellectuals" associated with Hitler.

So, of course, having decided that Hitler had to be a nice guy because all these nice, well-educated people said he was, everything Irving has done since then was predicated on his need to cleanse Hitler of any sins. The fact is, Hitler was a lying, evil psychopath who murdered millions upon millions of decent human beings, a large proportion of them being Jews.

Which brings me to Fritz Gerlich and the Munich Post.

I've often wanted to get my hands on the German newspapers of the time before and after Hitler came to power so as to try to understand what was really going on in Germany at that moment. I wondered if we could draw any lessons from it for our present time. I've asked many people if they have ever seen any such articles reproduced anywhere, or have they heard of them, and I've always drawn a blank on that question. After all, if we suppose that our present time under the Bush Reich has any similarity to the Third Reich of Hitler, it would be nice to have some concrete material that was written in real time, at the time, on which to base comparisons. As it happens, Ron Rosenbaum was curious about it too but for a different reason. He interviewed a Holocaust survivor who mentioned an article that he remembered from the time, and Rosenbaum went looking for it. He found a lot more than he bargained for. He found Fritz Gerlich and the Munich Post. Rosenbaum calls Fritz and his ilk the "First Explainers."

The heroic anti-Hitler Munich journalists who, from 1920 to 1933 (when many were jailed or murdered) bravely went about the daily task of attempting to tell the world about the strange figure who had arisen from the Munich streets to become leader of a movement that would seize power and inscribe a new chapter in the history of evil.

My fascination with these largely forgotten figures, the reporters who were the first to investigate the political and personal life, the criminality and scandals of Hitler and "the Hitler party," as they astutely called it, began to grow as I first began to pick up echoes and traces of their struggle with Hitler, buried in the footnotes of postwar historians...

My fascination deepened when I came upon a nearly complete collection of flaking and yellowing, seven-decades-old back issues of the anti-Hitler Munich Post, moldering away in the basement of Munich's Monacensia library archives. They've since been transferred to microfilm, but there was something about communing with the actual crumbling copies of the newspaper Hitler's party called "the Poison Kitchen," issues in which Hitler was a living figure stalking the pages, that served to give me a painfully immediate intimation of the maddeningly unbearable Cassandra-like frustration the Munich Post journalists must have felt. They were the first to sense the dimensions of Hitler's potential for evil - and to see the way the world ignored the desperate warnings in their work.

As a journalist, I felt simultaneously a growing awe at what they'd accomplished, how much they'd exposed, and how completely they'd been forgotten. Theirs was the first sustained attempt to fathom the depths of the Hitler phenomenon as it began to unfold.... The vision of the First Explainers was the vision of the men and women who were critical witnesses to the now-lost spectacle of Hitler becoming Hitler.

In addition to the courageous reporters and editors of the Munich Post, there were others such as Rudolf Olden, Konrad Heiden, Walter Schaber... and Fritz Gerlich. The iconoclastic editor of a conservative anti-Marxist, anti-Nazi opposition paper called Der Gerade Weg (The Right Way, or Straight Path), celebrated as a journalistic nemesis of Hitler in his time, largely forgotten now. Gerlich was murdered in Dachau for attempting to print a damaging expose of Hitler five weeks after the Nazis had seized power and crushed the rest of the opposition press.

A fascinating figure, Gerlich, a scathing Swiftian satirical scourge of Hitler, he possessed an uncanny insight into the racial dynamics of Hitler's pathology. A skeptical historical scholar, Gerlich nonetheless came to believe in the prophetic powers of a controversial, probably fraudulent, Bavarian stigmatic and found in her a source of the faith that led him to gamble his life on a last-ditch effort to bring Hitler down with his pen and printing press. With an expose to end all exposes of Hitler, he hoped: one final story that would shock the public and cause President Paul von Hindenburg to depose the newly installed Chancellor Hitler before it was too late.

It was a desperate gamble that failed. On March 9, 1933, storm troopers burst into Gerlich's newspaper office, ripped his last story from the presses, beat him senseless, and dragged him off to Dachau, where he was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934. The nature of the expose he'd been about to publish - some said it concerned the circumstances of the death of Hitler's half-niece Geli Raubal in his apartment, others said it concerned the truth about the February 1933 Reichstag fire or foreign funding of the Nazis - has been effectively lost to history; it is one of the evidentiary trails I've pursued to the bitter end. ...

I managed to track down in Munich one of Gerlich's last living colleagues, Dr. Johannes Steiner, a retired publisher in his nineties who had been a partner in Gerlich's doomed anti-Hitler attack sheet, Der Gerade Weg. Dr. Steiner's memory of that awful time, particularly the last days of Gerlich, when they were all on the run, was fragmentary. But there was one moment, one memory he'd preserved with frightening clarity for six decades: a memory of the Gestapo and Fritz Gerlich's spectacles. Gerlich's steel-rimmed glasses had become a kind of signature image for the combative newspaperman among those who knew him in Munich, an emblem almost of his steely determination and clarity of vision.

But after a year in Dachau, after the Gestapo had dragged him out of his cell and shot him in the head on the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler's thugs chose a cruel and chilling way to notify Gerlich's wife. Dr. Steiner recalled: "They sent to his widow, Sophie, Gerlich's spectacles, all spattered with blood." [Ron Rosenbaum, Explaining Hitler]

Rosenbaum sees the cruel gesture as, perhaps, an acknowledgement by Hitler's thugs that Gerlich had seen too much and knew too much, "a token of how much his vision was feared and hated by the Hitler inner circle, for having seen through them."

Now, did you notice anything particularly interesting in the above, brief account of the who, what, when, and where of Fritz Gerlich?

It probably slipped right by, but it was this: "A skeptical historical scholar, Gerlich nonetheless came to believe in the prophetic powers of a controversial, probably fraudulent, Bavarian stigmatic and found in her a source of the faith that led him to gamble his life on a last-ditch effort to bring Hitler down with his pen and printing press."

What is Rosenbaum talking about? A "Bavarian stigmatic"?

Well, before we get to that, let's talk about Fritz Gerlich and "The Trial of Hitler's Nose."

In July of 1932, an extraordinary photocomposite image of Hitler appeared on the front page of one of Munich's leading newspapers.


The photo shows Hitler in top hat and tails, arm in arm with a black bride in a wedding scene and the headline read: "Does Hitler Have Mongolian Blood?"

It seems that caricatures of Hitler had appeared in many of the opposition papers and on posters for years, but most of these tended to focus on the moustache and forelock or facial exaggeration. This image struck much closer to home and certainly was Gerlich's death warrant.

To publish an attack as vicious as this one, an attack that was more far reaching and deeply wounding in the body of the text than even the sensational photo and headline would indicate, was an act of great personal courage by a desperate and doomed prophet. In his hit piece, Gerlich proposes that the reader apply the "racial science" of one of Hitler's favorite racial theorists, Dr. Hans Gunther - who had prescribed the precise shape and dimension of each and every head and facial feature of "the Nordic type" - to Hitler's own head and face, especially to his nose.

With accompanying photographs, Gerlich proceeds to demonstrate that Hitler was not, in fact, Aryan, but was, rather, of the Mongolian type. Gerlich went further in writing a "brilliant critique which resulted in the devastating conclusion that Hitler - by his own lights - not only lacked Aryan physiognomy, he lacked an Aryan soul."

Rosenbaum writes:

[It gave] great satisfaction that at least here, one anti-Hitler journalist had gone all out, had gone for the jugular, had given vent to the anger and contempt that all felt before they were all silenced. I suspect this no-holds-barred fatal recklessness has something to do with my own fascination with Gerlich. It's surprising to discover, when you look at the literature on Hitler and the Nazi leadership before and after the war, inside and outside Germany, how little outright, heartfelt hatred and loathing is expressed in print.

The tone and tendency of prewar explainers was to condescend to Hitler, to treat him as a phenomenon beneath contempt, much less serious consideration. Rather than urge the necessity of combating Hitler, prewar explainers acted as if he could be wished away with words, belittled into oblivion. They diminished him to the point where he was not even a worthy target for antagonism. Postwar literature tends to diminish Hitler in a different way; knowing well what he wrought, the tendency is to argue it wasn't really him, it was the deeper and more profound forces behind and beneath him, the wave on which he rode....

The rare exception to it like Gerlich throws the absence of passion elsewhere into stark relief. ...The reckless yet exquisitely well-honed hatred beneath the surface of Gerlich's satire ...was more than a howl, it was a razor-edged analytic tool that cut to the heart of Hitler's pathology before anyone else did, before it was too late - if anyone had listened. [Ron Rosenbaum, Explaining Hitler]

So, Ron Rosenbaum, a Jew, has found a heroic standard bearer in the life and work of Fritz Gerlich; but he has a problem. He says that Gerlich was "driven by his obsession with Hitler from the rational to the irrational..." Why does he see the man who performed such acts of journalistic resistance against Hitler - acts that he admires so much, even right to the end, as "irrational"? The same reason that John Kaminski refers to me pejoratively as a "channeler." It's the problem of the "Bavarian Stigmatic" which I'm getting to; be patient.

Fritz Gerlich was born Protestant and received a doctorate in history at university in Munich. By 1923, he was a respected and influential figure in the nationalist movement and was, therefore, an early supporter of Hitler. However, in the spring of 1923, he received a visitor in his apartment, that rising star of the right-wing nationalist forces, Adolf Hitler himself. No one knows what happened at that meeting, but it seems that something said then, connected with things Hitler did later, turned Gerlich into an implacable foe. Apparently, Gerlich had seen something, the "two faces of Adolf Hitler."

Gerlich formed a close-knit group of colleagues who all worked first at the Munchener Neueste Nachrichten, and then later, with Gerlich on his own spin off anti-Hitler paper, Der Gerade Weg. For ten years, from 1923 until 1933, this group was the most outspoken center of anti-Hitler journalism among conservatives in Germany. The Gerlich group members who escaped arrest in the raid on the paper in March of 1933 went on to become the nucleus of the anti-Hitler movement that culminated in Claus von Stauffenberg's failed assassination attempt on Hitler in July of 1944. As you might guess, at that point, they were executed. We go to Rosenbaum now to learn about Gerlich and Neumann:

But something strange happened to Gerlich and this little group in the late twenties: They forged a highly improbably alliance, one that became a source of the faith that fueled their courageous anti-Hitler campaign. Gerlich and his friends became deeply involved with a holy stigmatic - a highly controversial, probably fraudulent, yet widely worshipped Bavarian woman: Therese Neumann.

It still seems remarkable to me that a skeptical, Protestant, rationalist historian such as Gerlich, the no-nonsense newspaper editor with the gimlet eye behind the steel-rimmed glasses, would be taken in by this primitive, bedridden, Catholic mystic whose own church was skeptical...

One of [Therese's] visitors - an aristocratic Catholic conservative, Count Erwin von Aretin, who survived to become Gerlich's postwar biographer - became a believer....

Finally, after repeated urgings from his colleagues, the skeptical Protestant Gerlich decided to pay a visit to the stigmatic. To the surprise of just about everyone, he came back deeply impressed. More than that, he returned repeatedly, found himself drawn deeper and deeper into the peasant girl's circle, would transcribe her visionary utterances, and translate them into warnings and prophecies about the growing crisis in Germany. ...

Dr. Johannes Steiner, Gerlich's colleague, portrays Gerlich first going to Konnersreuth "determined to unmask every fraud he encountered... If there were any to be found." [Ron Rosenbaum, Explaining Hitler]

Yes indeedy, Rosenbaum's hero was hooked up with a real live "channeler." And Rosenbaum, the Jew, simply can't bear it. He goes on for some paragraphs assuring us that Therese Neumann was a fraud, a charlatan, and undoubtedly it was something wrong with Gerlich's mind that led him into this nonsense, never mind that he continued to do excellent work, and was, in fact, among the bravest of those journalists that stood against Hitler. More than this, it seems that the channeler was literally the inspiration for much of Gerlich's work, and Rosenbaum turns impressive cerebral cartwheels trying to talk his way around that!

Now, how can that be?

Rosenbaum can hardly stomach it.

As it happens, it seems that Therese Neumann was NOT a fraud:

Wonder or fake-investigations in the case of the stigmatisation of Therese Neumann von Konnersreuth. Rolf B, Bayer B, Anslinger K. Institute of Legal Medicine, Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universitat, Frauenlobstr. 7 a, 80337, Munich, Germany, We investigated two compresses used by Therese Neumann (T.N.), a woman who lived from 1898 until 1962 in Konnersreuth, Germany. The compresses were soaked with blood during the appearance of stigmata on T.N.'s body on a Friday. T.N. became very popular among the faithful in Germany at this time. The question was whether this blood was from T.N. herself or from a family relative or an animal. The comparison of the HV1 and HV2 mtDNA sequence obtained from the compresses with the sequences from a reference sample from a maternally related niece of T.N. revealed an identity. Furthermore, we obtained a short tandem repeat (STR) profile from the bloodstains that were identical with the STR profile from a gummed envelope. The envelope contained a letter written by T.N. in the 1930s. Therefore, our investigations gave no indication for any manipulation.

Now, let's get down to brass tacks here. Those of you that have read Controversy of Zion are aware that Douglas Reed makes the charge that the World Revolution is intended to "destroy Christianity."

I think the issue is much deeper than just the destruction of "Christianity," though that is a useful tag to put on the intention. But let's look at this a bit more deeply. In Controversy of Zion, Reed takes some time to analyze the Protocols of Zion. Now, we all know that the Protocols were a hoax, that they had nothing to do with the Jews, but it is certainly clear to anyone with two neurons firing that there is something mysterious about those Protocols. As a matter of fact, they describe perfectly the situation we see in our world today. But these conditions are not just "Jewish," or even just Zionist; the conditions are created by pathological deviants that infected Judaism and Christianity and Islam. In every area of life, they penetrate every group; they are the bad apples that spoil every barrel. If you have never read the Protocols, now might be a good time to do so, substituting "pathocrat" for the authors of the Protocols and "normal people" or "ordinary people" for references to "goyim". You will then understand that we are dealing with individuals with unlimited power, resources, and, it seems, a whole lot more psychological knowledge about human beings than most psychologists and psychiatrists even dream of; specialized knowledge at that. So, let me quote a bit of what Reed had to say about the Protocols because some interesting little tidbits about our theme emerge there:

It is informed by a mass of knowledge (particularly of human weaknesses) which can only have sprung from the accumulated experience and continuing study of centuries, or of ages. It is written in a tone of lofty superiority, as by beings perched on some Olympian pinnacle of sardonic and ancient wisdom, and of mocking scorn for the writhing masses far below ("the mob" . . . "alcoholized animals" . . . "cattle" . . . "bloodthirsty beasts") who vainly struggle to elude the "nippers" which are closing on them; these nippers are "the power of gold" and the brute force of the mob, incited to destroy its only protectors and consequently itself. [Controversy of Zion ]

Andrzej Lobaczewski describes the essential psychopath in a similar way:

In spite of their deficiencies in normal psychological and moral knowledge, they develop and then have at their disposal a knowledge of their own, something lacked by people with a natural world view. They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them. They also become conscious of being different from the world of those other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, like a para-specific variety.

Natural human reactions - which often fail to elicit interest to normal people because they are considered self-evident - strike the psychopath as strange and, interesting, and even comical. They therefore observe us, deriving conclusions, forming their different world of concepts. They become experts in our weaknesses and sometimes effect heartless experiments. The suffering and injustice they cause inspire no guilt within them, since such reactions from others are simply a result of their being different and apply only to "those other" people they perceive to be not quite conspecific. Neither a normal person nor our natural world view can fully conceive nor properly evaluate the existence of this world of different concepts.

A researcher into such phenomena can glimpse the deviant knowledge of the psychopath through long-term studies of the personalities of such people, using it with some difficulty, like a foreign language. As we shall see below, such practical skill becomes rather widespread in nations afflicted by that macrosocial pathological phenomenon wherein this anomaly plays the inspiring role. A normal person can learn to speak their conceptual language even somewhat proficiently, but the psychopath is never able to incorporate the world view of a normal person, although they often try to do so all their lives. The product of their efforts is only a role and a mask behind which they hide their deviant reality. [Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]

The items in the Protocols that relate to my theme of Fritz Gerlich and the Bavarian stigmatic, and how that relates to the pejorative manner in which John Kaminski referred to me as a "channeler" and promoter of knowledge that "scares" him are in the following passage from Reed's book, in bold text:

The resemblance to Weishaupt's documents is very strong in the passages which relate to the infiltration of public departments, professions and parties, for instance:

"It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness".

The allusions to the permeation of universities in particular, and of education in general, also spring directly from Weishaupt, or from whatever earlier source he received them:

". . . We shall emasculate the universities . . . Their officials and professors will be prepared for their business by detailed secret programmes of action from which they will not with immunity diverge, not by one iota. They will be appointed with especial precaution, and will be so placed as to be wholly dependent upon the Government"

This secret permeation of universities (which was successful in the German ones in Weishaupt's day, as his documents show) was very largely effective in our generation. The two British government officials who after their flight to Moscow were paraded before the international press in 1956 to state that they had been captured by Communism at their universities, were typical products of this method, described by the Protocols early in this century and by Weishaupt in 1787.

Weishaupt's documents speak of Freemasonry as the best "cover" to be used by the agents of the conspiracy. The Protocols allot the function of "cover" to "Liberalism":

"When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness, blood-poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony".

The term "utopian dreamers", used more than once, is applied to Liberals, and its original source probably resides in the Old Testamentary allusion to "dreamers of dreams" with "false prophets", are to be put to death. The end of Liberalism, therefore, would be apparent to the student even if the Protocols did not specify it:

"We shall root out liberalism from the important strategic posts of our government on which depends the training of subordinates for our State structure".

The "Big Brother" regimes of our century, are accurately foretold in the passage,

"Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler".

Republicanism, too, is to be a "cover" for the conspiracy. The Protocols are especially contemptuous of republicanism, in which (and in liberalism) they see the weapon of self-destruction forged out of "the mob":

". . . then it was that the era of republics became possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a government, by a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves. This was the foundation of the mine which we have laid under the peoples".

Then the unknown scribes of some time before 1905 describe the position to which American presidents have been reduced in our century. The passage begins, "In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents".

This, as the sequence shows, means personal responsibility, as distinct from responsibility curbed by constitutional controls; the president is to become one of the "premier-dictators" earlier foreseen, whose function is to be to break down the constitutional defences of states and thus prepare "unification under our sovereign rule".

During the First and Second World Wars the American presidents did in fact become "premier-dictators" in this sense, claiming that "the emergency" and the need for "victory" dictated this seizure of powers of personal responsibility; powers which would be restored to "the people" when "the emergency" was past. Readers of sufficient years will recall how inconceivable this appeared before it happened and how passively it was accepted in the event. The passage then continues:

"The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands. . .

Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need. . . It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands. and that no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation. . .

The president will. at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so, besides this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare of the state.

By such measures we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of states to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every government into our despotism".

This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly deserves Lord Sydenham's tribute of "deadly accuracy". American presidents in the two wars of this century have acted as here shown. They did take the right of declaring and making war, and it has been used at least once (in Korea) since the Second World War ended; any attempt in Congress or outside to deprive them of this power, or curb them in the use of it meets with violently hostile attack.

So the Protocols continue. The peoples, on their progress "from one disenchantment to another", will not be allowed "a breathing-space". Any country "which dares to oppose us" must be met with war, and any collective opposition with "universal war". The peoples will not be allowed "to contend with sedition" (here is the key to the furious attacks of the 1790's, 1920 and today on all demands for "investigation", "Witch-hunting", "McCarthyism" and the like).

In the Super-State to come the obligation will fall on members of one family to denounce dissident s within the family circle (the Old Testamentary dispensation earlier mentioned). The "complete wrecking of the Christian religion" will not be long delayed. The peoples will be kept distracted by trivial amusements ("people's palaces") from becoming troublesome and asking questions. History will be rewritten for their delusion (another precept since fulfilled in communized Russia), for

"...we shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the national governments".

"All the wheels of the machinery of all States go by the force of the engine, which is in our hands, and that engine of the machinery of States is Gold".

And the end of it all:

"What we have to get at is that there should be in all the States of the world, beside ourselves, only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police and soldiers. . . The recognition of our despot. . . will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence. . . of their rulers, will clamour: 'Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of discords, frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts, who will give us peace and quiet, which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives' ".

In two or three of these passages I have substituted "people" or "masses" for "Goyim ", because the use of that word relates to the unproven assertion contained in the book's title, and I do not want to confuse the issues; evidence about the identity of the authors of the conspiracy must be sought elsewhere than in an unsupported allegation. The authors may have been Jewish, non-Jewish or anti-Jewish. That is immaterial. When it was published this work was the typescript of a drama which had not been performed; today it has been running for [over] fifty years and its title is The Twentieth Century. The characters depicted in it move on our contemporary stage, play the parts foretold and produce the events foreseen.

Only the denouement remains, fiasco or fulfillment. ... But it has existed for at least 180 years and probably for much longer, and the Protocols provided one more proof in a chain of proofs that has since been greatly lengthened. The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfillment or failure. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the dénouement comes. [...]

Notice that Reed points out the Old Testamentary allusion to "dreamers of dreams" and "false prophets" being slated for death. Now, let's have a look at an excerpt from another text, Red Symphony, which purports to be a 1938 Stalinist police (NKVD) interrogation of a founder of the Communist International, Christian G. Rakovsky, 65, who was facing execution for plotting to overthrow Stalin.

The 50-page transcript of his interrogation, dubbed "The Red Symphony," was never intended to be made public. It discusses the idea that there is an evil cabal (not necessarily Jewish, but certainly with some Jewish members as well as Gentile - the only qualification seems to be to be a pathological deviant) that plans to use World Revolution to establish a Global dictatorship of the deviants.

The Rakovsky interrogation reveals that the Cabal not only put Hitler in power, they then found that their Frankenstein escaped their control and it was necessary to destroy him.

Christian Rakovsky was a veteran Communist insider. Born Chaim Rakeover in 1873, he studied medicine in France before becoming a revolutionary. He was the leader of a terror group that attacked government officials.

In 1919, Lenin put him in charge of the Soviet Ukraine government. He successfully kept the area for the Bolsheviks during the Civil War. Stalin appointed him Russian ambassador to Paris in 1925.

Rakovsky belonged to the powerful Trotskyite faction that took their orders from the Rothschilds. Many of this group were shot in Stalin's 1937 Communist Party purge.

So, here is the segment of the interrogation that has an item in it (and I have included a longer excerpt for context) of great significance to my theme:

Rakovsky-Owing to the fact that I was in a hurry I did not express myself quite correctly and you did not understand me well. If it is true that"They" financed Hitler, then that does not mean that they disclosed to him their existence and their aims. The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his race; he also lied regarding whose representative he was. He told him that he had been sent by the financial circles of Wall Street who were interested in financing the National-Socialist movement with the aim of creating a threat to France, whose governments pursue a financial policy which provokes a crisis in the USA.

G.-And Hitler believed it?

Rakovsky-We do not know. That was not so important, whether he did or did not believe our explanations; our aim was to provoke a war ... and Hitler was war. Do you now understand? [...]

Rakovsky-If I had the time in order to explain their full scheme, then you would already know about the reasons for their approval. At the present moment I shall condense them to three:

G.-Just which ?

Rakovsky-One is that which I had already mentioned.

Hitler, this uneducated and elementary man, has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind. Being illiterate in all economic theories and being guided only by necessity he removed, as we had done it in the USSR, the private and international capital. That means that he took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the State. He exceeded us, as we, having abolished it in Russia, replaced it merely by this crude apparatus called State Capitalism; this was a very expensive triumph in view of the necessities of pre-revolutionary demagogy...

Here I give you two real facts for comparison. I shall even say that Hitler had been lucky; he had almost no gold and for that reason he was not tempted to create a gold reserve. Insofar as he only possessed a full monetary guarantee of technical equipment and colossal working capacity of the Germans, his "gold reserve" was technical capacity and work ..., something so completely counter-revolutionary that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers.

G.-Thanks to increased re-armament.

Rakovsky-What does your re-armament give? If Hitler reached this despite all the bourgeois economists who surround him, then he was quite capable, in the absence of the danger of war, of applying his system also to peaceful production... Are you capable of imagining what would have come of this system if it had infected a number of other States and brought about the creation of a period of autarky... For example the Commonwealth. If you can, then imagine its counter-revolutionary functions...

The danger is not yet inevitable, as we have had luck in that Hitler restored his system not according to some previous theory, but empirically, and he did not make any formulations of a scientific kind. This means that insofar as he did not think in the light of a deductive process based on intelligence, he has no scientific terms or a formulated doctrine; yet there is a hidden danger as at any moment there can appear, as the consequence of deduction, a formula. This is very serious. Much more so that all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism. We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this so decisive economic doctrine. There is only one solution-war.

G.-And the second motive?

Rakovsky-If the Termidor triumphed in the Soviet revolution then this happened as the result of the existence of the former Russian nationalism. Without such a nationalism bonapartism would have been impossible. And if that happened in Russia, where nationalism was only embryonic in the person of the Tsar, then what obstacles must Marxism meet in the fully developed nationalism of Western Europe? Marx was wrong with respect to the advantages for the success of the revolution. Marxism won not in the most industrialized country, but in Russia, where the proletariat was small. Apart from other reasons our victory here is explained by the fact that in Russia there was no real nationalism, and in other countries it was in its full apogee. You see how it is reborn under this extraordinary power of fascism, and how infectious it is. You can understand that apart from that it can benefit Stalin, the need for the destruction of nationalism is alone worth a war in Europe.

G.-In sum you have set out, Rakovsky, one economic and one political reason. Which is the third?

Rakovsky-That is easy to guess. We have yet another reason, a religious one. Communism cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still living Christianity. History speaks very clearly about this: the permanent revolution required seventeen centuries in order to achieve its first partial victory-by means of the creation of the first split in Christendom. In reality Christianity is our only real enemy, since all the political and economic phenomena in the bourgeois States are only its consequences. Christianity, controlling the individual, is capable of annulling the revolutionary projection of the neutral Soviet or atheistic State by choking it and, as we see it in Russia, things have reached the point of the creation of that spiritual nihilism which is dominant in the ruling masses, which have, nevertheless, remained Christian: this obstacle has not yet been removed during twenty years of Marxism. Let us admit in relation to Stalin that towards religion he was not bonapartistic. We would not have done more than he and would have acted in the same way. And if Stalin had dared, like Napoleon, to cross the Rubikon of Christianity, then his nationalism and counter-revolutionary power would have been increased a thousandfold. [ Red Symphony]

The question is, of course, what kind of Christianity is it necessary to destroy in order to institute a New World Order under Talmudic Judaism? Certainly not what passes for Christianity today. No, it must be some other Christianity, something older, older even than Jesus...

Boris Mouravieff, author of the three volumes Gnosis, remarked about Gurdjieff:

People interested in esoteric matters will probably have read the book by P.D. Ouspensky, published posthumously, titled In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching. The ideas in that book were presented to Ouspensky by Georges Gurdjieff. Gurdjieff indicates the basis of his teaching: "for the benefit of those who know already, I will say that, if you like, this is esoteric Christianity." [Mouravieff, Gnosis]

I would like to note here that the work of Mouravieff provides that ineluctable bridge between the works of Gurdjieff, the Sufi Shaykh, Ibn al-'Arabi, the esoteric Christianity that I have conjectured to have existed during megalithic times and of which we only have ancient Siberian Shamanism as a shadow of a relic, hermeticism/alchemy, and the Cassiopaean Transmissions - my own "channeling." It should be noted that the Cassiopaeans - us in the future - have definitively supported the existence and work of a man around whom the Jesus legend formed - though they tell us that the story in the Bible that is supposed to be history is a myth - and from the other sources mentioned, we are able to assemble a body of teachings that lends background to this view, as well as supplemental information that elucidates the many clues offered by the Cassiopaeans - us in the future.

This view received unexpected support from New Testament Scholar, Burton Mack, in his book The Lost Gospel. Mack's discussion shows how the Jesus movement was a vigorous social experiment that was generated for reasons other than an "originating event" such as a "religious experience" or the "birth of the son of God."

The Jesus movement seems to have been a response to troubled and difficult times. Mack outlines and describes the times, and shows how the pressures of the milieu led to thinking new thoughts about traditional values and experimenting with associations that crossed ethnic and cultural boundaries. The Jesus movement was composed of novel social notions and lifestyles that denied and rejected traditional systems of honor based on power, wealth, and place in hierarchical social structures. Ancient religious codes of ritual purity, taboos against intercourse across ethnic boundaries, were rejected. People were encouraged to think of themselves as belonging to the larger, human family. Q says: "If you embrace only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?"

The Jesus people not only rejected the old order of things, they were actively at work on the questions of what ideal social order they wanted to manifest and promote. The attraction of the Jesus people to its followers was not at all based on any ideas to reform a religious tradition that had gone wrong, nor was it even thought of as a new religion in any way. It was quite simply a social movement that sought to enhance human values that grew out of an unmanageable world of confusing cultures and social histories. It was a group of like-minded individuals that created a forum for thinking about the world in new ways, coming up with new ideas that included the shocking notion that an ethnically mixed group could form its own kind of community and live by its own rules. Mack writes:

At first no one was in charge of the groups that formed around such teachings. Conversation and mutual support were enough to encourage an individual to act "naturally," as if the normal expectations of acquiescence to social conventions did not apply. As groups formed in support of like-minded individuals, however, loyalty to the Jesus movement strengthened, a social vision for human well-being was generated within the group, and social codes for the movement had to be agreed upon. Why not ask when in need and share what one had when asked, they wondered? Eventually, therefore, the Jesus movement took the form of small groups meeting together as extended families in the heady pursuit of what they called God's kingdom.

To explore human community based on fictive kinship without regard to standard taboos against association based on class, status, gender, or ethnicity would have created quite a stir, and would have been its own reward. Since there was no grand design for actualizing such a vision, different groups settled into practices that varied from one another. Judging from the many forms of community that developed within the Jesus movement, as documented in literature that begins to appear toward the end of the first century, these groups continued to share a basic set of attitudes. They all had a certain critical stance toward the way life was lived in the Greco-Roman world. They all struggled not to be determined by the emptiness of human pursuits in a world of codes they held to be superficial. [...] Despite these agreements, however, every group went its own way and drew different conclusions about what to think and do. [The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack]

In addition to reconstructing the times in which the Jesus people lived, Mack presents the Q document itself, showing that it was built up in three layers, each layer being additions made in response to external pressures on the group. What is most interesting is the analysis of the first layer, the one that must be composed of the actual teachings of the man called Jesus. It seems that Jesus' challenge to his followers was to take a deeper look at their world and challenge it in how they lived their lives.

Seven clusters of teachings, or sayings, emerged from the study of Q, and each of these express a coherent set of issues. These sayings comprise a comprehensive set of sage observations that delight in critical comment on the everyday world and unorthodox instructions that recommend unconventional behavior! The ever-present theme of Jesus' teachings was a review of life and conventional values that promoted the idea that customary pretensions are hollow: wealth, learning, possessions, secrets, rank, and power are meaningless in terms of the true value of a human being. Jesus was promoting the idea that the Emperor is naked, though in no way did he propose any idea of changing the system. Implicit in his critique is the idea that there is a better way to live. The challenge was to be able to live without being consumed with worry even if one was fully aware that the world "out there" was a dangerous jungle that required care to navigate.

(to be continued next post)


FOTCM Member
When fully analyzed and compared with other norms of the time, Jesus emerges as a man living the life of the popular philosophy of the Cynic. This is striking because the Cynics are remembered as distinctly unlovable because they promoted biting sarcasm and public behavior that was designed to call attention to the absurdity of standard conventions. Cynics were:

"...critics of conventional values and oppressive forms of government. [...] Their gifts and graces ranged from the endurance of a life of renunciation in full public view, through the courage to offer social critique in high places, to the learning and sophistication required for the espousal of Cynic views at the highest level of literary composition. Justly famous as irritants to those who lived by the system and enjoyed the blessings of privilege, prosperity, and power, the Cynics were rightly regarded for their achievement in honing the virtue of self-sufficiency in the midst of uncertain times.

The crisp sayings of Jesus in Q show that his followers thought of him as a Cynic-like sage. [...]

These popular philosophers of a natural way of life did not wander off to suffer in silence. Their props were a setup for a little game of gotcha with the citizens of the town. [...] The Cynic's purpose was to point out the disparities sustained by the social system and refuse to let the system put him in his place. [...] The marketplace was the Cynic's platform, the place to display a living example of freedom from social and cultural constraints, and a place from which to address townspeople about the current state of affairs. [...] The challenge for a Cynic was to see the humor in a situation and quickly turn it to advantage. [...]

In our time there is no single social role with which to compare the ancient Cynics. But we do recognize the social critic and take for granted a number of ways in which social and cultural critique are expressed. These compare nicely with various aspects of the Cynic's profession. For example, we are accustomed to the social critique of political cartoonists, standup comedians, and especially of satire in the genre of the cabaret. All of these use humor to make their point. We are also accustomed to social critique in a more serious and philosophical vein, such as that represented by political commentary. And there is precedent for taking up an alternative lifestyle as social protest, from the utopian movement of the nineteenth century, to the counterculture movement of the 1960s, to the environmentalist protest of the 1980s and 1990s. The list could be greatly expanded, for much modern entertainment also sets its scenes against the backdrop of the unexamined taboos and prejudices prevailing in our time. Each of these approaches to critical assessment of our society (satire, commentary, and alternative lifestyle), bears some resemblance to the profession of the Cynic sage in late antiquity. [...]

Noting the Cynic's wit should not divert our attention from their sense of vocation and purpose. Epictetus wrote that the Cynic could be likened to a spy or scout from another world or kingdom, whose assignment was to observe human behavior and render a judgment upon it. The Cynic could also be likened to a physician sent to diagnose and heal a society's ills. [...] The Stoics sometimes claimed the Cynics as their precursors. [...]

[The Cynics] were much more interested in the question of virtue, or how an individual should live given the failure of social and political systems to support what they called a natural way of life. They borrowed freely from any and every popular ethical philosophy, such as that of the Stoics, to get a certain point across. That point was the cost to one's intelligence and integrity if one blindly followed social convention and accepted its customary rationalizations. [...]

What counted most, they said, was a sense of personal worth and integrity. One should not allow others to determine one's worth on the scale of social position. One already possessed all the resources one needed to live sanely and well by virtue of being a human being. Why not be true to the way in which the world actually impinges upon you [objectively]? Say what you want and what you mean. Respond to a situation as you see it in truth, not as the usual proprieties dictate. Do not let the world squeeze you into its mold. Speak up and act out. The invitation was to take courage and swim against the social currents that threatened to overwhelm and silence a person's sense of verve. [...]

The Jesus people are best understood as those who noticed the challenge of the times in Galilee. They took advantage of the mix of peoples to tweak the authorities of any cultural tradition that presumed to set the standard for others. They found a way to encourage one another in the pursuit of sane and simple living. And they developed a discourse that exuded the Cynic spirit. [...]

Beliefs were not a major concern. Behavior was what mattered and the arena for the action was in public. The public sphere was not subjected to a systematic analysis, however, as if society's ills had been traced to this or that particular cause. The social world was under review, to be sure, for the behavior recommended was intentionally non-conventional, mildly disruptive, and implicitly countercultural. But there is no indication that the purpose of this behavior was to change society at large. The way society worked in general was taken for granted, in the sense of "What more can one expect?" Instead, the imperatives were addressed to individuals as if they could live by other rules if they chose to do so. [...] It is important to see that the purpose of the change was not a social reform. The Jesus people were not organizing to fight Roman power or to reform Jewish religion. [The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack]

Apparently many responded to the movement and associations of like-minded people began to form. And then, something very interesting happened... Suddenly, in the next layer of Q, a heightened sense of belonging to a movement becomes obvious because injunctions given as aphorisms now become rules supported by arguments. At this point, the idea of the "Kingdom of God" enters the picture. This "Kingdom" was, apparently, a realm or domain in which the rule of God is actualized. The rule of God is what the Q people said they were representing in the world. For the Jesus people, this meant something quite different from what Christians now assume it to mean. First of all, there was nothing at all apocalyptic about it (all that came later). For the Jesus people, the Kingdom of God was compared repeatedly to the natural process of growth as witnessed in Nature. Everything about this "Kingdom of God" was practical, having to do with things that can be accomplished in contrast to the conventional life.

The match between the Cynics and the Jesus people is not exact in all cases because the Jesus people did have an interest in the "Divine" aspect of "God." Unfortunately, there is little in the Q document that explains this Divine source other than the fact that the Jesus people represented it as a "Father", and those who could successfully resist the ruin of social evils were the "children of God." The way the Jesus people referred to God was a bit more serious than the way the Cynics referred to such ideas. The Q people were concerned with the care of their members as a "family." I would suggest that there was a perception of differences in human beings among the Q people, though Mack does not make a special point of analyzing that issue.

The question is, of course, what happened? The document doesn't tell us, though it hints at the nature of the problem by virtue of the additional text that dealt with the issues. There were, obviously, painful experiences that were turned to a lesson. Mack suggests that the formation of Jesus people "families" must have seriously offended certain authorities. He writes:

This concern for loyalty to the movement is matched by signs of social distress. Tensions within the movement are indicated by the saying on scandals and the instruction to forgive a brother if he has a change of heart. But changes of heart have apparently not been the rule. Families have been torn asunder and the divisions have been rationalized as fully in keeping with the importance and purpose of the movement. Painful? Yes, but to be expected.

It seems that families were being split, and ethnic conventions were being personally challenged over loyalty to the movement. The evidence indicates that this occurred in relation to Judaism.

The story of the Beelzebub accusation is about rejection, conflict, and labeling Jesus and his followers as agents of a foreign (Syrian) god. Jesus' retort about "your sons" turns the challenge back upon his questioners and directs the issue of conflict to the social world that Jesus shares with them. There are instructions about what to do in case one is called before the village authorities. [...]

The people of Q2 had not organized their movement to become a society with membership requirements and officers, much less with rites of entrance. But the rule of God that they represented was certainly in the process of being reconceived as a discrete domain or kingdom, and there was now a great deal of talk about "entering into" the kingdom or being excluded from it. [...] Loyalty to the Jesus movement had run up against the challenge of Jewish propriety and the question of belonging to the people of God as the children of Abraham, or Israel. And the Jesus people had taken this challenge seriously. The evidence for this includes the repeated appeals to biblical traditions, the preaching of John about the children of Abraham, the import of the Beelzebub accusation, and the list of counter charges leveled against Pharisees and lawyers. [The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack]

Here we find the most fascinating twist of all in the development of Christianity. If the Jesus people had not been attacked by the Jewish authorities, they would not have sought to justify their movement in terms of the Jewish religion. It was only in defense that they did this. They ran afoul of the Pharisaic code, probably because they had Jewish members whose families were horrified at the participation of their children or relatives in the new movement. The issue of loyalty came to be phrased as a "Jewish" question, and the Jesus people felt they had to answer it in Jewish terms.

The charges against the Pharisees and lawyers are especially interesting in this regard. The issues under debate were just what one might expect - washings, giving to charity, tithes, justice, honor, and knowledge. The list combines items typical for the Pharisaic code of ritual purity with items for which scribal representatives of the temple system of courts and taxation would be known. Such standards had apparently been held up as exemplary by families and village leaders seeking to chide their Jesus people into postures of propriety. Apparently the people of Q were not impressed. [...]

True to their Cynic heritage, the Jesus people were still capable of engaging in a bit of caustic riposte. The Pharisees were like tombs (so much for their desire to be honored), and the lawyers treated people like beasts of burden (so much for their claims to know the law and administer justice). [...]

Lo and behold, the people of Q linked the Pharisees and lawyers to the history of what their fathers did to the prophets. ...

That is some ante. ...

It is clear that the offense had registered and that the defense would be to beat the Jewish exemplars at their own game. [The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack]

As it happens, Douglas Reed discusses the other side of this issue, the obvious anxiety that the Jews had about Christianity and the steps they took to combat it. In Controversy of Zion, he writes:

The Talmud was essentially the hostile answer to Christianity, the order-of-battle revised in the light of "the enemy's" new dispositions. The lay encyclopaedias (which in our generation have been made untrustworthy on subjects related to Judaism) disguise this fact from Gentile readers. The one now before me, for instance, says, "The Talmud has been attacked by Christians at times - quite unfairly - as anti-Christian". The insertion of two suggestive words by some partisan Scribe causes this volume to purvey demonstrable untruth and to convert a factual statement into a propagandist one. The attack on Christianity gave the Talmud its distinctive tone and is indeed the only new thing in the Talmud. Its other teaching remains that of Ezekiel and the Pharisees.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, "It is the tendency of Jewish legends in the Talmud, the Midrash" (the sermons in the synagogues) "and in the Life of Jesus Christ (Toledoth Jeshua) that originated in the Middle Ages to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic and a shameful death". He is generally alluded to as "that anonymous one", "liar", "impostor" or "bastard" (the attribution of bastardy is intended to bring him under The Law as stated in Deuteronomy 23.2: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord"). Mention of the name, Jesus, is prohibited in Jewish households.

The work cited by the Jewish Encyclopaedia as having "originated in the Middle Ages" is not merely a discreditable memory of an ancient past, as that allusion might suggest; it is used in Hebrew schools today. It was a rabbinical production of the Talmudic era and repeated all the ritual of mockery of Calvary itself in a different form. Jesus is depicted as the illegitimate son of Mary, a hairdresser's wife, and of a Roman soldier called Panthera. Jesus himself is referred to by a name which might be translated "Joey Virgo". He is shown as being taken by his stepfather to Egypt and there learning sorcery.

The significant thing about this bogus life-story (the only information about Jesus which Jews were supposed to read) is that in it Jesus is not crucified by Romans. After his appearance in Jerusalem and his arrest there as an agitator and a sorcerer he is turned over to the Sanhedrin and spends forty days in the pillory before being stoned and hanged at the Feast of the Passover; this form of death exactly fulfils the Law laid down in Deuteronomy 21.22 and 17.5, whereas crucifixion would not have been in compliance with that Judaic Law. The book then states that in hell he suffers the torture of boiling mud.

The Talmud also refers to Jesus as "Fool", "sorcerer", "profane person", "idolator", "dog", "child of lust" and the like more; the effect of this teaching, over a period of centuries, is shown by the book of the Spanish Jew Mose de Leon, republished in 1880, which speaks of Jesus as a "dead dog" that lies "buried in a dunghill". The original Hebrew texts of these Talmudic allusions appear in Laible's Jesus Christus im Talmud. This scholar says that during the period of the Talmudists hatred of Jesus became "the most national trait of Judaism", that "at the approach of Christianity the Jews were seized ever and again with a fury and hatred that were akin to madness", that "the hatred and scorn of the Jews was always directed in the first place against the person of Jesus" and that "the Jesus-hatred of the Jews is a firmly-established fact, but they want to show it as little as possible". [...]

This vilification of the founder of another religion sets Judaism apart from other creeds and the Talmud from other literature published in the name of religion. Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, Christians and others do not hate other creeds or their founders as such. They are content to differ and to believe that the paths may one day meet, God deciding the meeting-point.

For instance, the Koran describes Jesus as "strengthened with the Holy Spirit" and the Jews are reproached with rejecting "the Apostle of God", to whom was given "the Evangel with its guidance and light". Of his mother, the Koran says, "O Mary! verily hath God chosen thee and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the world", and, "Jesus, the son of Mary, illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God".

The central message of the Talmud, the newest "new Law", is plain: it specifically extended the Law to apply to Christianity and left no doubt about the duty of a Jew towards it. ...

[T]he Jewish Encyclopaedia says, "The Talmudists made the Torah into a penal code". For once, in this painstakingly accurate work, the meaning is not quite clear; the Torah already was a penal code (as perusal of it today will show), and its penalties had sometimes been applied (by Ezra and Nehemiah against the Jews; and for that matter by the Romans, at the behest of the Sanhedrin, against the "prophet and dreamer of dreams", Jesus). Possibly the meaning is that, under the Talmudists, the penal code was regularly enforced, and its provisions strengthened. [...]

The command, "destroy", forms the very basis of the Law which the Levites made. If it be deleted, what remains is not "the Mosaic Law", or the same religion, but something different; the imperative, "destroy", is the mark of identity. It must have been deliberately chosen. Many other words could have been used; for instance, conquer, defeat, vanquish, subdue; but destroy was chosen, It was put in the mouth of God, but obviously was the choice of the scribes.

This was the kind of perversion which Jesus attacked: "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men."

Reed has a great deal to say about Jesus and Christianity and the particular mind set that Christianity represents, which deviants of all types seek to destroy:

In few words he swept aside the entire mass of racial politics, which the ruling sect had heaped on the earlier, moral law, and like an excavator revealed again what had been buried. The Pharisees at once recognized a most dangerous "prophet and dreamer of dreams".

The fact that he found so large a following among the Judeans shows that, even if the mass of the people wanted a militant, nationalist Messiah who would liberate them from the Romans, many among them must subconsciously have realised that their true captivity was of the spirit and of the Pharisees, more than of the Romans. Nevertheless, the mass responded mechanically to the Pharisaic politicians' charge that the man was a blasphemer and bogus Messiah.

By this response they bequeathed to all future generations of Jews a tormenting doubt, no less insistent because it must not be uttered (for the name Jesus may not even be mentioned in a pious Jewish home): Did the Messiah appear, only to be rejected by the Jews, and if so, what is their future, under The Law?

What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that "Jesus was a Jew", whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or "interfaith" audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political reasons).

This public assertion, "Jesus was a Jew", is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour.

The English abbreviation, "Jew", is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for "Judahite" or "Judean", which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun "Jew" cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as "A person of Hebrew race"); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).

If the statement, "Jesus was a Jew", has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously "a Jew", if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time.

Race, residence, religion, then.

This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus' racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question.

The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy.

As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah's prophecy that "a ruler" would "come out of Bethlehem".

The Jewish Encyclopaedia insists that Nazareth was Jesus' native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of "a foreign country" (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus' birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.

Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans. [As Burton Mack points out, Jesus probably wasn't a Jew at all; he was probably a Celt.]

Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called "a Jew"? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue. It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no "Jewish" (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their "oral traditions" of what God had said to Moses.

If today the Zionists are "the Jews" (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes, but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foe of God and man and that he used an especial scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today's Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.

Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.

None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about "the bastard" which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes.

What is much more significant, he had known no rabbinical schools or priestly training. His enemies, the Pharisees, testify to that; had he been of their clan or kind they would not have asked, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works".

What gives the teaching of this unlettered young man its effect of blinding revelation, the quality of light first discovered, is the black background, of the Levitical Law and the Pharisaic tradition, against which he moved when he went to Judea. Even today the sudden fullness of enlightenment, in the Sermon on the Mount, dazzles the student who has emerged from a critical perusal of the Old Testament; it is as if high noon came at midnight. The Law, when Jesus came to "fulfill" it, had grown into a huge mass of legislation, stifling and lethal in its immense complexity. The Torah was but the start; heaped on it were all the interpretations and commentaries and rabbinical rulings; the elders, like pious silkworms, spun the thread ever further in the effort to catch up in it every conceivable act of man; generations of lawyers had laboured to reach the conclusion that an egg must not be eaten on the Sabbath day if the greater part of it had been laid before a second star was visible in the sky. Already the Law and all the commentaries needed a library to themselves, and a committee of international jurists, called to give an opinion on it, would have required years to sift the accumulated layers.

The unschooled youth from Galilee reached out a finger and thrust aside the entire mass, revealing at once the truth and the heresy. He reduced "all the Law and the Prophets" to the two commandments, Love God with all thy heart and thy neighbour as thyself.

This was the exposure and condemnation of the basic heresy which the Levites and Pharisees, in the course of centuries, had woven into the Law.

Leviticus contained the injunction, "Love thy neighbour as thyself", but it was governed by the limitation of "neighbour" to fellow-Judeans. Jesus now reinstated the forgotten, earlier tradition, of neighbourly love irrespective of race or creed; this was clearly what he meant by the words, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill". He made his meaning plain when he added, "Ye have heard that it hath been said . . . hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemy". (The artful objection is sometimes made that the specific commandment, "Hate thine enemy", nowhere appears in the Old Testament. Jesus' meaning was clear; the innumerable injunctions to the murder and massacre of neighbours who were not "neighbours", in which the Old Testament abounds, certainly required hatred and enmity).

This was a direct challenge to The Law as the Pharisees represented it, and Jesus carried the challenge further by deliberately refusing to play the part of the nationalist liberator and conqueror of territory for which the prophecies had cast the Messiah. Probably he could have had a much larger following, and possibly the support of the Pharisees, if he had accepted that role.

His rebuke, again, was terse and clear: "My kingdom is not of this world . . . The kingdom of Heaven is within you . . . Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth. . . but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal".

Everything he said, in such simple words as these, was a quiet, but direct challenge to the most powerful men of his time and place, and a blow at the foundations of the creed which the sect had built up in the course of centuries.

What the entire Old Testament taught in hundreds of pages, the Sermon on the Mount confuted in a few words. It opposed love to hatred, mercy to vengeance, charity to malice, neighbourliness to segregation, justice to discrimination, affirmation (or reaffirmation) to denial, and life to death. It began (like the "blessings-or-cursings" chapters of Deuteronomy) with blessings, but there the resemblance ended.

Deuteronomy offered material blessings, in the form of territory, loot and slaughter, in return for strict performance of thousands of "statutes and judgments", some of them enjoining murder. The Sermon on the Mount offered no material rewards, but simply taught that moral behaviour, humility, the effort to do right, mercy, purity, peaceableness and fortitude would be blessed for their own sake and receive spiritual reward. Deuteronomy followed its "blessings" with "cursings". The Sermon on the Mount made no threats; it did not require that the transgressor be "stoned to death" or "hanged on a tree", or offer absolution for non-observance at the price of washing the hands in the blood of a heifer. The worst that was to befall the sinner was that he was to be "the least in the kingdom of heaven"; and most that the obedient might expect was to be "called great in the kingdom of heaven".

The young Galilean never taught subservience, only an inner humility, and in one direction he was consistently and constantly scornful: in his attack on the Pharisees.

The name, Pharisees, denoted that they "kept away from persons or things impure". The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, "Only in regard to intercourse with the unclean and the unwashed multitude did Jesus differ widely from the Pharisees". Echo may answer, "Only!" This was of course the great cleavage, between the idea of the tribal deity and the idea of the universal god; between the creed of hatred and the teaching of love. The challenge was clear and the Pharisees accepted it at once. They began to bait their traps, in the very manner described by Jeremiah long before: "All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him".

The Pharisees watched him and asked, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners" (a penal offence under their Law). He was equally their master in debate and in eluding their baited traps, and answered, swiftly but quietly, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick . . . I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance".

They followed him further and saw his disciples plucking ears of corn to eat on the Sabbath (another offence under the Law), "Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day". They pursued him with such interrogations, always related to the rite, and never to faith or behaviour; "why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders, for they wash not their hands when they eat bread?". "Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophecy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men".

This was the lie direct: The Law, he charged, was not God's law, but the law of the Levites and Pharisees: "the commandments of men"!

From this moment there could be no compromise, for Jesus turned away from the Pharisees and "called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man".

With these words Jesus cast public scorn on one of the most jealously-guarded of the priestly prerogatives, involving the great mass of dietary laws with the whole ritual of slaughter, draining of blood, rejection of "that which dieth of itself", and so on. All this was undoubtedly a "commandment of man", although attributed to Moses, and strict observance of this dietary ritual was held to be of the highest importance by the Pharisees, Ezekiel (the reader will recall) on being commanded by the Lord to eat excrement "to atone for the iniquities of the people", had pleaded his unfailing observance of the dietary laws and had had his ordeal somewhat mitigated on that account. Even the disciples were apparently so much under the influence of this dietary tradition that they could not understand how "that which cometh out of the mouth" could defile a man, rather than that which went in, and asked for an explanation, remarking that the Pharisees "were offended, after they heard this saying". The simple truth which Jesus then gave them was abominable heresy to the Pharisees: "Do not ye understand, that what whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man".

This last remark was another penal offence under the Law and the Pharisees began to gather for the kill. They prepared the famous trick questions: "Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk". The two chief questions were, "To whom shall we render tribute?" and "Who then is my neighbour?" A wrong answer to the first would deliver him to punishment by the foreign ruler, Rome. A wrong answer to the second would enable the Pharisees to denounce him to the foreign ruler as an offender against their own Law, and to demand his punishment.

This is the method earlier pictured by Jeremiah and still in use today, in the Twentieth Century. All who have had to do with public debate in our time, know the trick question, carefully prepared beforehand, and the difficulty of answering it on the spur of the moment. Various methods of eluding the trap are known to professional debaters (for instance, to say "No comment", or to reply with another question). To give a complete answer, instead of resorting to such evasions, and in so doing to avoid the trap of incrimination and yet maintain the principle at stake is one of the most difficult things known to man. It demands the highest qualities of quick wittedness, presence of mind and clarity of thought. The answers given by Jesus to these two questions remain for all time the models, which mortal man can only hope to emulate.

"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" (the affable tone of honest enquiry can be heard). "But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? . . . Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they heard these words, they marveled, and left him and went their way".

On the second occasion, "a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" In his answer Jesus again swept aside the great mass of Levitical Law and restated the two essentials: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . and thy neighbour as thyself".

Then came the baited trap: "And who is my neighbour?"

What mortal man would have given the answer that Jesus gave? No doubt some mortal men, knowing like Jesus that their lives were at stake, would have said what they believed, for martyrs are by no means rare. But Jesus did much more than that; he disarmed his questioner like an expert swordsman who effortlessly sends his opponent's rapier spinning into the air. He was being enticed to declare himself openly; to say that "the heathen" were also "neighbours", and thus to convict himself of transgressing The Law. In fact he replied in this sense, but in such a way that the interrogator was undone; seldom was a lawyer so confounded.

The Levitical-Pharisaic teaching was that only Judeans were "neighbours", and of all the outcast heathen they especially abominated the Samaritans. The mere touch of a Samaritan was defilement and a major "transgression" (this continues true to the present day). The purpose of the question put to him was to lure Jesus into some statement that would qualify him for the major ban; by choosing the Samaritans, of all peoples, for the purpose of his reply, he displayed an audacity, or genius, that was more than human: He said that a certain man fell among thieves and was left for dead. Then came "a priest" and "likewise a Levite" (the usual stinging rebuke to those who sought the chance to put him to death), who "passed by on the other side". Last came "a certain Samaritan", who bound the man's injuries, took him to an inn, and paid for his care: "which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?"

The lawyer, cornered, could not bring himself to pronounce the defiling name "Samaritan"; he said, "He that showed mercy on him" and thereby joined himself (as he probably realized too late) with the condemnation of those for whom he spoke, such as "the priest" and "the Levite". "Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise". In these few words, and without any direct allusion, he made his interrogator destroy, out of his own mouth, the entire racial heresy on which the Law had been raised.

One moderate Judaist critic, Mr. Montefiore, has made the complaint that Jesus made one exception to his rule of "love thine enemies"; he never said a good word for the Pharisees.

Scholars may debate the point. Jesus knew that they would kill him or any man who exposed them. It is true that he especially arraigned the Pharisees, together with the scribes, and plainly saw in them the sect responsible for the perversion of the Law, so that the entire literature of denunciation contains nothing to equal this: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in . . . ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves ..... ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith. . . ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess . . . ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. . . ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have partaken with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers. . ."

(continued next post)


FOTCM Member
These last words of Jesus seem to be quite harsh, and according to Mack, were part of the layer of "sayings" that were added later after significant negative interactions with the Pharisees by the people who followed the social program of the cynic-like sage around whom the Jesus legend accreted. What is clear, however, is that this passage does reflect something real about the innovative ideas of those early "Jesus people" and their awareness of pathological deviants.

Now, to get back to my theme, the interesting thing about all of this is that when I read John Kaminski's disparaging dig at me, I just wondered "huh? What is up with that? I've never been anything but nice to the guy; supported him emotionally and financially when everyone else was turning against him, and he does that?" So, certainly I was hurt and puzzled.

It was almost immediately afterward that I began reading the Rosenbaum book and noted that odd connection between Fritz Gerlich and Therese Neumann as well as Rosenbaum's defamatory dismissal of Neumann as a fraud - a typically Jewish stance. Let me explain what I mean. Some years back when I was researching channeling, I noticed a very odd thing: it seems that it is Judaism that has "rationalized" our world and destroyed the very roots of Western/Celtic civilization, i.e. the source of Esoteric Christianity - our very spiritual natures.

When one tracks back through all of the ancient "matters" and studies the different groups, trying to follow them as they moved from place to place, studying the genetic morphology in order to keep track of who is who, and comparing linguistics and myth and archaeology, one comes to the startling realization that there were significant polarities throughout space and time. I have tentatively identified these polarities as the Circle People and the Triangle - or Pyramid - People. In a general sense, one can see the broad brush of the triangle people in the Southern hemisphere, in the pyramids and related cultures and artifacts. For the most part, their art is primitive and stylistically rigid. In the northern hemisphere, one sees the circle makers, the spirals, the rough megaliths, the art of Lascaux and Chauvet and the many other caves. One can note a clear difference between the perceptions and the response to the environment between the two trends and groups. Of course, there are areas where there was obvious mixture of both cultures and styles, and ideological constructions, but overall, there is a very distinct difference.

There are many books on "alternative science" being published in the present time about the purported ancient civilizations. One assumption that they all seem to hold in common is that everything was all hunky dory, sweetness and light among all the people, and the only thing that happened was that a nasty cataclysm came along and brought it all to an end. They keep forgetting the issue of the Vedas and Plato's Timaeus where an ancient war was described, and it was at that point in time, or immediately after, that the cosmic catastrophe occurred. It would then be only reasonable to suspect that the same differences between the warring parties would be carried over into the post cataclysmic world. And it seems to be a reasonable assumption that the "southern influence," including Egypt, was that of the "Atlanteans" of Plato, and that the "northern influence," including the builders of Stonehenge, were the "Athenians" of Plato, the "Sons of Boreas," or the North Wind, keeping in mind that these "Athenians" were obviously not from Athens as we know it today, though we are beginning to suspect that we know who they were.

We should also like to note that the so-called "civilizing influence" of the South, of the creators of agricultural civilizations, the instigation of writing and the wheel and so forth, is always connected in some way to "scaly" critters like Fish Gods or Serpents. It isn't until fairly late that the Serpent makes his appearance among the archaeological finds of Europe and central Asia. Before the serpent appeared there, there were only goddesses, birds, and wavy lines representing water and cosmic energy. I think that it is dangerous to confuse the issues. Again and again we see currents of two completely different processes, two factions, two ways of perceiving and interacting with the cosmos: one that wishes to conceal, and one that wishes to reveal, one that wishes to dominate, one that wishes to share.

We notice that many megalithic sites are located a certain points that correspond with a certain geometry. But, if we look even closer, if we discard the current so-called "Sacred Geometry" and just look at the sites themselves and let them speak - all of them - instead of leaving this one or that one out because it doesn't quite fit, or only is "very close" to fitting, we may discover another relationship that is suggested by the sites, rather than working to fit the sites into an assumption.

So many bizarre ideas are being propagated at the present time, including the preposterous one about the megaliths being set up to absorb the energy of human sacrifices and that the stones "drink blood," that it is quite discouraging to realize how easily people are misled by nonsense. If such writers cannot figure out that the megaliths were demonized by the church because they were revered by the nature religions, which we theorize are carriers of ancient scientific knowledge, and the nature religions themselves were also demonized, then there isn't much chance that they will figure anything else out either. Such people also tend to be convinced that the Holy Grail is the cup from the Last Supper, too, and I won't even comment on that.

Regarding the Celts: We are taught almost nothing about them in school, though they seem to be considered as the ancestors of most Europeans, thus also Americans. Why is it that the religion and culture of the Mesopotamian region dominates our lives and our culture when it is, in effect, "foreign"?

Celtic vernacular literature, including myths, stories and poems, in its written form, dates mainly from the Middle Ages. It is based on oral transmission that goes far beyond the Christian Era. It is very difficult to get a clear picture of the pre-Christian Celts from the transmitted texts, not only because of the typical mixture of myth and reality, and the lapse of time, but also because the Roman empire sought to stamp it out starting with Caesar and continuing with the Roman church.

However, studying what is available closely, one gets the impression of a dynamic, somewhat undisciplined people. The Celts were proud, imaginative, artistic, lovers of freedom and adventure, eloquence, poetry, and arts. You can always discern the Celtic influence by the great artistic talents of these peoples.

The Celts were very suspicious of any kind of centralized "authority," and this is, in the end, what brought about their downfall. They could not stand against the hierarchical war machine of the Roman empire. In a sense, you could almost say that this is how Hitler nearly conquered Europe, most especially France. Gauls take the principles of liberty and equality very seriously - right down to the common man on the street who in no way considers himself inferior to the Prime Minister.

One of the principal historians of the Roman era, Julius Caesar, tells us that the Celts were ruled by the Druids. The druids "held all knowledge." The Druids were charged with all intellectual activities, and were not restricted to religion, per se, which suggests to us that "religion" and "knowledge" in a more or less scientific approach, were considered essential to one another - symbiotic.

It is later writers who began to vilify the Celts by accusing them of the usual things that people get accused of when someone wants to demonize them: human sacrifice, homosexuality, and so on. Most of that nonsense goes back to Posidonius, who has been quoted as an "authority" by every other "authority" on the Celts since. Unfortunately, when one checks Posidonius, one finds that he really didn't have a clue and was probably making stuff up to fulfill an agenda.

The lack of written texts by the Celts has been the greatest problem for historians and students of the Celts. A lot of ideas are "supposed" or ancient sources with agendas have been relied on, and some of them even propose that there was a "taboo" by the Celts on putting things into writing.

Well, I suppose that, if our civilization came to an end and all our records on magnetic media were destroyed, people might say that we didn't put anything in writing either.

There has been a lot of nonsense written about why the Celts didn't write things down, and the most nonsensical, considering what we do know about their culture, is that this was how the Druids "kept their power" or that they believed something silly like: "if the sacred myths were revealed, they would become profaned and thus lose their mystic virtues."

What Caesar said was that the reason for the ban on writing was that the Druids were concerned that their pupils should not neglect the training of their memories, i.e. the Frontal Cortex, by relying on written texts. I discussed the production of ligands and their potential for unlocking DNA in my book Secret History of the World. It seems to be very interesting that the very things that we have learned from the Cassiopaeans, from alchemical texts, from our own experiences, and from research - that "thinking with a hammer" is the key to transformation - was noted as an integral part of the Druidic initiation.

It is worth noting that, in the nineteenth century, it was observed that the illiterate Yugoslav bards, who were able to recite interminable poems, actually lost their ability to memorize once they had learned to rely on reading and writing. Although the Druids prohibited certain things from being written down, it's clear that they did write. Celtic writings in Ogamic script have been found on many ancient stones. Caesar tells us that the Celts were using the Greek alphabet when the Romans arrived in Gaul in the first century BC.

However, the knowledge of the initiates was transmitted entirely orally, and with the information about ligands and receptors, we are beginning to understand why.

The destruction of Celtic culture was so complete that we know very little about their religion. We do know that they celebrated their "rites" in forests and by lakes without erecting any covered temples or statues of divinities. Tacitus tells us:

They do not think it in keeping with the divine majesty to confine gods within walls, or to portray them in the likeness of any human countenance. Their holy places are woods and groves and they apply the names of deities to that hidden presence which is seen only by the eyes of reverence.

Plato had doubts about the Greek origins of Homer's work because not only do the physical descriptions in his poems not correspond to the Greek world, but also the Homeric philosophy is very different from the mainstream Greek philosophy we know about today. The latter is based on the dualism of two opposing elements, thesis/antithesis, good/evil, life/death, body/soul, etc. omitting the idea of the Third Force. Since Plato's times, many have sought to derive "synthesis" from these opposing elements, with little success. The "third force" of Gurdjieff has been brought up many times with little satisfaction in the attempts to understand it, and perhaps it is in what we can derive from the Celtic teachings will help us here.

According to Homer, the philosophy of the ancient world was that there was a third element that linked the opposing elements. Between the body and the soul, there is the spirit. Between life and death there is the transformation that is possible to the individual, between father and mother there is the child who takes the characteristics of both father and mother, and between good and evil there is the specific situation that determines which is which and what ought to be done.

In other words, there are three simultaneous determinants in any situation that make it impossible to say that any list of things is "good" or "evil" intrinsically, and that the true determinant is the situation. In any event, the symbol of this philosophy is the triskele, representing three waves joined together. The simultaneous existence of the third element does not mean that the notion of "good" and "evil" did not exist or was not reflected in the Celtic law. What was clear was that it was understood that nothing could be "cut and dried" in terms of law, that each situation was unique and the circumstances had to be carefully weighed. Aristotle considered Gaul to be the "teacher" of Greece and the Druids to be the "inventors of philosophy." The Greeks also considered the Druids to be the world's greatest scholars, and whose mathematical knowledge was the source of Pythagoras' information.

It seems that all "primitive" or preliterate cultures had some form of codified communication between "spirits" and the living. Again, let me reiterate that I consider this nomenclature to be simply convention. This phenomenon seems to be universal in the ancient world, and only came under condemnation with the inception of monotheism around 1000 BC. When Yahweh spoke through his channels, they were called prophets and the activity was "divine inspiration". When anybody else did it, it was necromancy or demonic possession, or even just out and out deception. This was because, obviously, since Jehovah/Yahweh was the only god, those other "gods" did not exist, therefore, anyone who claimed to be communicating with them was lying. Of course that begs the question as to why people were put to death for lying about communicating with gods that were claimed not to exist? And, if they did actually exist, and were actually communicating, as Yahweh was also, then what status does that suggest about Yahweh, since he was the one who claimed to be the only god and that this was true simply because Yahweh said so via channeling? Most curious.

In the sixth century BC the Thracian Dionysiac cults were known to be using shamans as trance channels to communicate with the spirits, or what were then known as theoi or gods that were said to be discarnate immortal beings with superhuman powers. Some scholars suggest that rationalist philosophy was born out of the Dionysiac, Orphic, and Eleusinian mystery cults devoted to the channeling of these gods; certainly much ancient Greek philosophy, especially that of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Plato, was saturated with these mysteries. In Plato's Theagetes Socrates confesses, "By the favour of the Gods, I have since my childhood been attended by a semi-divine being whose voice from time to time dissuades me from some undertaking, but never directs me what I am to do."

The most interesting item of all is the fact that Pythagoras used something like a Ouija board as early as 540 BC: a "mystic table" on wheels moved around and pointed toward signs that were then interpreted by the philosopher himself, or his pupil Philolaus. Even down to the present day, the mysteries of the Pythagoreans are subjects of intense interest to scientists and mystics alike. And here there seems to be evidence that the advanced knowledge of Pythagoras may have been obtained via a Ouija board!

This brings us back to the question, of course, as to how "channeled" information, which is most certainly what formed the basis of what was later twisted and contorted in Judaism, could have been the basis of the Rationalist philosophy that there was nothing to channel? Could it be merely a progression of the idea of Yahweh/Jehovah that there was only one god, and he was it? Just another step in stripping away any spiritual support from the lives of human beings? From "many gods", i.e. our "higher selves," we were reduced to one, and only one God, and this god was the God of the Jews, or the Judeans as they were known then. Yes, there are variations on this theme, and both Christianity and Islam claim to represent the same god, the one the priests of the Judeans invented as the "only god". More than that, there was only one way to "approach" God, and that was through the duly authorized priest or ritual or both. By the time the Romans had conquered Greece, the rationalist movement was turning against spirit-channeling.

Cicero, the Roman rationalist whom the early Church Fathers highly revered, railed against spirit-channeling or necromancy on the grounds that it involved ghastly pagan rituals. Perhaps, by that time, it did. Just look at the whole New Age/Spiritualist movment today. What a morass.

What seems to have happened is that, eventually, rationalism bit the hand that fed it and began to devour its father, monotheism, by further extending the argument to the idea that there is no god, there are no spirits, nothing survives the death of the physical body, so there is really nobody for us to talk to on the "other side," so why bother? Science took the view that the whole thing was a con game, and that's pretty much the current mainstream scientific opinion of the phenomenon today. And science is, as it happens, in many ways dominated by Jews. Moreover, they are proud of the fact of their great intellectual achievements, so stating it is no attack on them.

We come back now to consider the passage quoted from Rosenbaum about Gerlich and Therese Neumann, that part of Rosenbaum's contempt for her was that even her own church did not accept her as a true stigmatic. That may, of course, have had something to do with her politics and perhaps even her philosophy as it was delivered in her channeling. What is certainly true is that Therese Neumann, a channeler, was the inspiration behind one of the bravest journalists in Germany during the times in which Hitler rose to power. Even after Gerlich's murder in Dachau, the circle around Therese Neumann continued their participation in the morally significant resistance to Hitler. It was the mystical source of Gerlich's strength that infused his incisive, surgical dissection of Hitler's mentality. And it is this legacy he has left behind for all of us: Gerlich's prescient, blood spattered spectacles, inspired by Therese Neumann's bloody stigmata and channeled messages. Gerlich had seen too much and knew too much; his spectacles were "a token of how much his vision - the vision of Therese von Neumann - was feared and hated by the Hitler inner circle, for having seen through them."

Throughout history, extending back and back before any written records, people obtained much strength from mystical sources. As we have seen in this article, such sources came under attack with the rise of the monotheistic religions. The connection between an emotional knowledge of the world and an intellectual knowledge of the world was snapped. We live under the horrific conditions that are the result of this break. A large part of mankind is now slave to his intellect. The apprehending of the world via the emotions, the intuition, inspiration, which I suggest are the basis for mystical experiences and genuine channeling -- that is, a link with the higher centers discussed by Gurdjieff and Mouravieff and part of the Tradition taught by the historical personage who later became transformed into the Jesus of the New Testament -- go outside of the hierarchical structures the rational mind has built to imprison us, be it materialistic science on the one hand or the need to communicate with the divine via priests and other representatives on the other hand. In the people of the circle, everyone had his or her own link to the center point, at least potentially. In the people of the triangle or pyramid, the base must pass through all the intermediate layers to reach the peak. Monotheism is the ideal representation of this structure. The direct connection with the divine was killed; it had to be killed.

This death of our own divinity is the true legacy bequeathed to us by the priests who built the walls around the people of Judea.

I began by citing John Kaminski's attack on me and his pejorative reference to channeling. It is ironic, but ultimately sad, that a man who has fallen into such rabid anti-Semitism should himself be held captive and enchained by a legacy that has its origins with those he sees as his bitterist enemies.


FOTCM Member
Looks like someone else is saying the same things - and he happens to be an expert AND a Jew!

"The Wandering Who?"

Gilad Atzmon
Tue, 02 Sep 2008

Tel Aviv University historian, Professor Shlomo Sand, opens his remarkable study of Jewish nationalism quoting Karl W. Deutsch:

A nation is a group of people united by a common mistake regarding its origin and a collective hostility towards its neighbours" [1]

As simple or even simplistic as it may sound, the quote above eloquently summarises the figment of reality entangled with modern Jewish nationalism and especially within the concept of Jewish identity. It obviously points the finger at the collective mistake Jews tend to make whenever referring to their 'illusionary collective past' and 'collective origin'. Yet, in the same breath, Deutsch's reading of nationalism throws light upon the hostility that is unfortunately coupled with almost every Jewish group towards its surrounding reality, whether it is human or takes the shape of land. While the brutality of the Israelis towards the Palestinians has already become rather common knowledge, the rough treatment Israelis reserve for their 'promised soil' and landscape is just starting to reveal itself. The ecological disaster the Israelis are going to leave behind them will be the cause of suffering for many generations to come. Leave aside the megalomaniac wall that shreds the Holy land into enclaves of depravation and starvation, Israel has managed to pollute its main rivers and streams with nuclear and chemical waste.

"When And How the Jewish People Was Invented" is a very serious study written by Professor Shlomo Sand, an Israeli historian. It is the most serious study of Jewish nationalism and by far, the most courageous elaboration on the Jewish historical narrative.

In his book, Sand manages to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jewish people never existed as a 'nation-race', they never shared a common origin. Instead they are a colourful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion.

In case you follow Sand's line of thinking and happen to ask yourself, "when was the Jewish People invented?" Sand's answer is rather simple. "At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people 'retrospectively,' out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people." [2]

Accordingly, the 'Jewish people' is a 'made up' notion consisting of a fictional and imaginary past with very little to back it up forensically, historically or textually. Furthermore, Sand - who elaborated on early sources of antiquity - comes to the conclusion that Jewish exile is also a myth, and that the present-day Palestinians are far more likely to be the descendants of the ancient Semitic people in Judea/Canaan than the current predominantly Khazarian-origin Ashkenazi crowd to which he himself admittedly belongs.

Astonishingly enough, in spite of the fact that Sand manages to dismantle the notion of 'Jewish people', crush the notion of 'Jewish collective past' and ridicule the Jewish chauvinist national impetus, his book is a best seller in Israel. This fact alone may suggest that those who call themselves 'people of the book' are now starting to learn about the misleading and devastating philosophies and ideologies that made them into what
Khalid Amayreh and many others regard as the "Nazis of our time".

Hitler Won After All

Rather often when asking a 'secular' 'cosmopolitan' Jew what it is that makes him into a Jew, a shallow overwhelmingly chewed answer would be thrown back at you: "It is Hitler who made me into a Jew". Though the 'cosmopolitan' Jew, being an internationalist, would dismiss other people's national inclinations, he insists upon maintaining his own right to 'self determination'. However, it is not really he himself who stands at the core of this unique demand for national orientation, it is actually the devil, master-monster anti-Semite, namely Hitler. Apparently, the cosmopolitan Jew celebrates his nationalist entitlement as long as Hitler is there to be blamed.

As far as the secular cosmopolitan Jew is concerned, Hitler won after all. Sand manages to enhance this paradox. Insightfully he suggests that "while in the 19th century referring to Jews as an 'alien racial identity' would mark one as an anti-Semite, in the Jewish State this very philosophy is embedded mentally and intellectually" [3]. In Israel Jews celebrate their differentiation and unique conditions. Furthermore, says Sand, "There were times in Europe when one would be labelled as an anti-Semite for claiming that all Jews belong to a nation of an alien type. Nowadays, claiming that Jews have never been and still aren't people or a nation, would tag one as a Jew hater". [4] It is indeed pretty puzzling that the only people who managed to maintain and sustain a racially orientated, expansionist and genocidal national identity that is not at all different from Nazi ethnic ideology are the Jews who were, amongst others, the leading targeted victims of the Nazi ideology and practice.

Nationalism In General and Jewish Nationalism In Particular

Louis-Ferdinand Celine mentioned that in the time of the Middle Ages in the moments between major wars, knights would charge a very high price for their readiness to die in the name of their kingdoms, in the 20th century youngsters have rushed to die en masse without demanding a thing in return. In order to understand this mass consciousness shift we need an eloquent methodical model that would allow us to understand what nationalism is all about.

Like Karl Deutsch, Sand regards nationality as a phantasmic narrative. It is an established fact that anthropological and historical studies of the origins of different so-called 'people' and 'nations' lead towards the embarrassing crumbling of every ethnicity and ethnic identity. Hence, it is rather interesting to find out that Jews tend to take their own ethnic myth very seriously. The explanation may be simple, as Benjamin Beit Halachmi spotted years ago. Zionism was there to transform the Bible from a spiritual text into a 'land registry'. For that matter, the truth of the Bible or any other element of Jewish historical narrative has very little relevance as long as it doesn't interfere with the Jewish national political cause or practice.

One could also surmise that the lack of clear ethnic origin doesn't stop people from feeling an ethnic or national belonging. The fact that Jews are far from being what one can label as a People and that the Bible has very little historical truth in it, doesn't really stop generations of Israelis and Jews from identifying themselves with King David or Terminator Samson. Evidently, the lack of an unambiguous ethnic origin doesn't stop people from seeing themselves as part of a people. Similarly, it wouldn't stop the nationalist Jew from feeling that he belongs to some greater abstract collective.

In the 1970's, Shlomo Artzi, then a young Israeli singer who was bound to become Israel's all-time greatest rock star, released a song that had become a smash hit in a matter of hours. Here are the first few lines:

All of a sudden A man wakes up In the morning He feels he is people And he starts to walk And to everyone he comes across He says shalom

To a certain extent Artzi innocently expresses in his lyrics the suddenness and almost contingency involved in the transformation of the Jews into people. However, almost within the same breath, Artzi contributes towards the illusionary national myth of the peace-seeking nation. Artzi should have known by then that Jewish nationalism was a colonialist act at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian people.

Seemingly, nationalism, national belonging and Jewish nationalism in particular create a major intellectual task. Interestingly enough, the first to deal theoretically and methodically with issues having to do with nationalism were Marxist ideologists. Though Marx himself failed to address the issue adequately, early 20th century uprising of nationalist demands in eastern and central Europe caught Lenin and Stalin unprepared.

"Marxists' contribution to the study of nationalism can be seen as the focus on the deep correlation between the rise of free economy and the evolvement of the national state." [5] In fact, Stalin was there to summarise the Marxist take on the subject. "The nation," says Stalin, "is a solid collaboration between beings that was created historically and formed following four significant phenomena: the sharing of tongue, the sharing of territory, the sharing of economy and the sharing of psychic significance." [6]

As one would expect, the Marxist materialist attempt to understand nationalism is lacking an adequate historical overview. Instead it would be reliant upon a class struggle. For some obvious reasons such a vision was popular amongst those who believe in 'socialism of one nation' amongst them we can consider the proponents of a leftist branch of Zionism.

For Sand, nationalism evolved due to the " rapture created by modernity which split people from their immediate past" [7]. The mobility created by urbanisation and industrialisation crushed the social hierarchic system as well as the continuum between past, present and future. Sand points out that before industrialisation, the feudal peasant didn't necessarily feel the need for an historical narrative of empires and kingdoms. The feudal subject didn't need an extensive abstract historical narrative of large collectives that had very little relevance to the immediate concrete existential need. "Without a perception of social progression, they did well with an imaginary religious tale that contained a mosaic of memory that lacked a real dimension of a forward moving time. The 'end' was the beginning and eternity bridged between life and death." [8]In the modern secular and urban world, 'time' had become the main life vessel which illustrated an imaginary symbolic meaning. Collective historical time had become the elementary ingredient of the personal and the intimate. The collective narrative shapes the personal meaning and what seems to be the 'real'. As much as some banal minds still insist that the 'personal is political', it would be far more intelligible to argue that in practice, it is actually the other way around. Within the post-modern condition, the political is personal and the subject is spoken rather than speaking itself. Authenticity, for the matter, is a myth that reproduces itself in the form of symbolic identifier.

Sand's reading of nationalism as a product of industrialisation, urbanisation and secularism, makes a lot of sense when bearing in mind Uri Slezkin's suggestion that Jews are the 'apostles of modernity', secularism and urbanisation. If Jews happened to find themselves at the hub of urbanisation and secularisation it shouldn't then take us by surprise that the Zionists were rather creative as much as others in inventing their own phantasmic collective imaginary tale. However, while insisting on their right to be 'like other people' Zionists have managed to transform their imagined collective past into a global, expansionist, merciless agenda as well as the biggest threat to world peace.

There Is No Jewish History

It is an established fact that not a single Jewish history text had been written between the 1st century and early 19th century. The fact that Judaism is based on a religious historical myth may have something to do with it. An adequate scrutiny of the Jewish past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably the lack of a need of such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer most relevant questions having to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Shlomo Sand puts it, "a secular chronological time was foreign to the 'Diaspora time' that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah".

However, in the light of German secularisation, urbanisation and emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening Jewish intellectuals. The emancipated Jew wondered who he was, where he come from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening European society.

In 1820 the German Jewish historian Isaak Markus Jost (1793-1860) published the first serious historical work on Jews, namely "The History of the Israelites". Jost avoided the Biblical time, he preferred to start his journey with the Judea Kingdom, he also compiled an historical narrative of different Jewish communities around the world. Jost realised that the Jews of his time did not form an ethnic continuum. He grasped that Israelites from place to place were rather different. Hence, he thought there was nothing in the world that should stop Jews from total assimilation. Jost believed that within the spirit of enlightenment, both the Germans and the Jews would turn their back to the oppressive religious institution and would form a healthy nation based on a growing geographically orientated sense of belonging.

Though Jost was aware of the evolvement of European nationalism, his Jewish followers were rather unhappy with his liberal optimistic reading of the Jewish future. "

>From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a 'kingdom', expelled into 'exile', became a wandering people and ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace." [9]

For the late Moses Hess, it was a racial struggle rather than a class struggle that would define the shape of Europe. Accordingly, suggests Hess, Jews better return and reflect on their cultural heritage and ethnic origin. For Hess, the conflict between Jews and Gentiles was the product of racial differentiation, hence, unavoidable.The ideological path from Hess's pseudo scientific racist orientation to Zionist historicism is rather obvious. If Jews are indeed an alien racial entity (as Hess, Jabotinsky and others believed), they better look for their natural homeland, and this homeland is no other than Eretz Yizrael. Cleary, Hess's assumption regarding a racial continuum wasn't scientifically approved. In order to maintain the emerging phantasmic narrative, an orchestrated denial mechanism had to be erected just to make sure that some embarrassing facts wouldn't interfere with the emerging national creation.

Sand suggests that the denial mechanism was rather orchestrated and very well thought out. The Hebrew University decision in the 1930's to split Jewish History and General History into two distinct departments was far more than just a matter of convenience. The logos behind the split is a glimpse into Jewish self-realisation. In the eyes of Jewish academics, the Jewish condition and Jewish psyche were unique and should be studied separately. Apparently, even within Jewish academia, a supreme status is reserved for the Jews, their history and their self-perception. As Sand insightfully unveils, within the Jewish Studies departments the researcher is scattering between the mythological and the scientific while the myth maintains its primacy. Yet, it often gets into a stalling dilemma by the 'small devious facts'.

The New Israelite, the Bible and Archaeology

In Palestine, the new Jews and later the Israelis were determined to recruit the Old Testament and to transform it into the amalgamate code of the future Jew. The 'nationalisation' of the Bible was there to plant in young Jews the idea that they are the direct followers of their great ancient ancestors. Bearing in mind the fact that nationalisation was largely a secular movement, the Bible was stripped of its spiritual and religious meaning. Instead, it was viewed as an historical text describing a real chain of events in the past. The Jews who had now managed to kill their God learned to believe in themselves. Massada, Samson and Bar Kochva became suicidal master narratives. In the light of their heroic ancestors, Jews learned to love themselves as much as they hate others, except that this time they possessed the military might to inflict real pain on their neighbours. More concerning was the fact that instead of a supernatural entity - namely God - who command them to invade the land and execute a genocide and to rob their 'promised land' of its indigenous habitants, within their national revival project it was them as themselves, Herzl, Jabotinsky, Weitzman, Ben Gurion, Sharon, Peres, Barak who decided to expel, destroy and kill. Instead of God, it was then the Jews killing in the name of Jewish people. They did it while Jewish symbols decorate their planes and tanks. They followed commands that where given in the newly restored language of their ancestors.

Surprisingly enough, Sand who is no doubt a striking scholar, fails to mention that the Zionist hijacking of the Bible was in fact a desperate Jewish answer to German Early Romanticism. However, as much as German philosophers, poets, architects and artists were ideologically and aesthetically excited about pre-Socratic Greece, they knew very well that they were not exactly Hellenism's sons and daughters. The nationalist Jew took it one step further, he bound oneself into a phantasmic blood chain with his mythical ancestors, not before long he restored their ancient language. Rather than a sacred tongue, Hebrew had become a spoken language. German Early Romanticist never went that far.

German intellectuals during the 19th century were also fully aware of the distinction between Athens and Jerusalem. For them, Athens stood for universal, the epic chapter of humanity and humanism. Jerusalem was, on the contrary, the grand chapter of tribal barbarism. Jerusalem was a representation of the banal, non-universal, monotheistic merciless God, the one who kills the elder and the infant. The Germanic Early Romantic era left us with Hegel, Nietzsche, Fichte and Heidegger and a just a few Jewish self-haters, leading amongst them, Otto Weininger. The Jerusalemite left us with not a single master ideological thinker. Some German Jewish second-rate scholars tried to preach Jerusalem in the Germanic exedra, amongst them were Herman Cohen, Franz Rosenzveig and Ernst Bloch. They obviously failed to notice that it was the traces of Jerusalem in Christianity, which German Early Romanticists despised.

In their effort to resurrect 'Jerusalem', archaeology was recruited to provide the Zionist epos with its necessary 'scientific' ground. Archaeology was there to unify the Biblical time with the moment of revival. Probably the most astonishing moment of this bizarre trend was the 1982 'military burial ceremony' of the bones of Shimon Bar Kochva, a Jew rebel who died 2000 years earlier. Executed by the chief military Rabbi, a televised military burial was given to some sporadic bones found in a cave near the Dead Sea. In practice suspected remains of a 1st century Jew rebel was treated as an IDF casualty. Clearly, archaeology had a national role, it was recruited to cement the past and the present while leaving the Galut out.

Astonishingly enough, it didn't take long before things turned the other way around. As archaeological research become more and more independent of the Zionist dogma, the embarrassing truth filtered out. It would be impossible to ground the truthfulness of the Biblical tale on forensic facts. If anything, archaeology refutes the historicity of the Biblical plot. Excavation revealed the embarrassing fact. The Bible is a collection of innovative fictitious literature.

As Sand points out, the Early Biblical story is soaked with Philistines, Aramaeans and camels. Embarrassingly enough, as far as excavations are there to enlighten us, Philistine didn't appear in the region before the 12th century BC, the Aramaeans appears a century later and camels didn't show their cheerful faces before the 8th century. These scientific facts lead Zionist researchers into some severe confusion. However, for non-Jewish scholars such as Thomas Thompson, it was rather clear that the Biblical is a "late collection of innovative literature written by a gifted theologian." [10] The Bible appears to be an ideological text that was there to serve a social and political cause.Embarrassingly enough, not much was found in Sinai to prove the story of the legendary Egyptian Exodus, seemingly 3 million Hebraic men, women and children were marching in the desert for 40 years without leaving a thing behind. Not even a single matzo ball, very non-Jewish one may say.

The story of the Biblical resettlement and the genocide of the Canaanite which the contemporary Israelite imitates to such success is another myth. Jericho, the guarded city that was flattened to the sounds of horns and almighty supernatural intervention was just a tiny village during the 13th century BC.

As much as Israel regards itself as the resurrection of the monumental Kingdom of David and Salomon, excavation that took place in the Old City of Jerusalem in the 1970's revealed that David's kingdom was no more than a tiny tribal setting. Evidence that was referred by Yigal Yadin to King Solomon had been refuted later by forensic tests made with Carbon 14. The discomforting fact has been scientifically established. The Bible is a fictional tale, and not much there can ground any glorifying existence of Hebraic people in Palestine at any stage.

Who invented the Jews?

Quite early on in his text, Sand raises the crucial and probably the most relevant questions. Who are the Jews? Where did they come from? How is it that in different historical periods they appear in some very different and remote places?

Though most contemporary Jews are utterly convinced that their ancestors are the Biblical Israelites who happened to be exiled brutally by the Romans, truth must be said. Contemporary Jews have nothing to do with ancient Israelites, who have never been sent to exile because such an expulsion has never taken place. The Roman Exile is just another Jewish myth.

"I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land" says Sand in an Haaretz interview [11], "but to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled."

Indeed, in the light of Sand's simple insight, the idea of Jewish exile is amusing. The thought of Roman Imperial navy was working 24/7 schlepping Moishe'le and Yanka'le to Cordova and Toledo may help Jews to feel important as well as schleppable, but common sense would suggest that the Roman armada had far more important things to do.

However, far more interesting is the logical outcome: If the people of Israel were not expelled, then the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah must be the Palestinians.

"No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years" says Sand. [12] "But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'"

In his book Sand takes it further and suggests that until the First Arab Uprising (1929) the so-called leftist Zionist leaders tended to believe that the Palestinian peasants who are actually 'Jews by origin' would assimilate within the emerging Hebraic culture and would eventually join the Zionist movement. Ber Borochov believed that "a falach (Palestinian Peasant), dresses as a Jew, and behaves as a working class Jew, won't be at all different from the Jew". This very idea reappeared in Ben Gurion's and Ben-Zvi's text in 1918. Both Zionist leaders realised that Palestinian culture was soaked with Biblical traces, linguistically, as well as geographically (names of villages, towns, rivers and mountains). Both Ben Gurion and Ben-Zvi regarded, at least at that early stage, the indigenous Palestinians as ethnic relatives who were holding close to the land and potential brothers. They as well regarded Islam as a friendly 'democratic religion'. Clearly, after 1936 both Ben-Zvi and Ben Gurion toned down their 'multicultural' enthusiasm. As far as Ben Gurion is concerned, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians seemed to be far more appealing.

One may wonder, if the Palestinians are the real Jews, who are those who insist upon calling themselves Jews?

Sand's answer is rather simple, yet it makes a lot of sense. "The people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a converting religion. Contrary to popular opinion, in early Judaism there was a great thirst to convert others." [13]

Clearly, monotheist religions, being less tolerant than polytheist ones have within them an expanding impetus. Judaic expansionism in its early days was not just similar to Christianity but it was Judaic expansionism that planted the 'spreading out' seeds in early Christian thought and practice.

"The Hasmoneans," says Sand, [14] "were the first to begin to produce large numbers of Jews through mass conversion, under the influence of Hellenism. It was this tradition of conversions that prepared the ground for the subsequent, widespread dissemination of Christianity. After the victory of Christianity in the 4th century, the momentum of conversion was stopped in the Christian world, and there was a steep drop in the number of Jews. Presumably many of the Jews who appeared around the Mediterranean became Christians. But then Judaism started to permeate other regions - pagan regions, for example, such as Yemen and North Africa. Had Judaism not continued to advance at that stage and had it not continued to convert people in the pagan world, we would have remained a completely marginal religion, if we survived at all."

The Jews of Spain, whom we believed to be blood related to the Early Israelites seem to be converted Berbers. "I asked myself," says Sand, "how such large Jewish communities appeared in Spain. And then I saw that Tariq ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Muslims who conquered Spain, was a Berber, and most of his soldiers were Berbers. Dahia al-Kahina's Jewish Berber Kingdom had been defeated only 15 years earlier. And the truth is there are a number of Christian sources that say many of the conquerors of Spain were Jewish converts. The deep-rooted source of the large Jewish community in Spain was those Berber soldiers who converted to Judaism."

As one would expect, Sand approves the largely accepted assumption that the Judaicised Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe, which he calls the Yiddish Nation. When asked how come they happen to speak Yiddish, which is largely regarded as a German medieval dialect, he answers, "the Jews were a class of people dependent on the German bourgeoisie in the east, and thus they adopted German words."

In his book Sand manages to produce a detailed account of the Khazarian saga in Jewish history. He explains what lead the Khazarian kingdom towards conversion. Bearing in mind that Jewish nationalism is, for the most part, lead by a Khazarian elite, we may have to expand our intimate knowledge of this very unique yet influential political group. The translation of Sand's work into foreign languages is an immediate must. (It is forthcoming in French, as reported in Are the Jews an invented people?, by Eric Rouleau).

What Next?

Professor Sand leaves us with the inevitable conclusion. Contemporary Jews do not have a common origin and their Semitic origin is a myth. Jews have no origin in Palestine whatsoever and therefore, their act of so-called 'return' to their 'promised land' must be realised as an invasion executed by a tribal-ideological clan.

However, though Jews do not constitute any racial continuum, they for some reason happen to be racially orientated. As we may notice, many Jews still see mixed marriage as the ultimate threat. Furthermore, in spite of modernisation and secularisation, the vast majority of those who identify as secular Jews still succumb to blood ritual (circumcision) a unique religious procedure which involves no less than blood sucking by a Mohel.

As far as Sand is concerned, Israel should become "a state of its citizens". Like Sand, I myself believe in the same futuristic utopian vision. However, unlike Sand, I do grasp that the Jewish state and its supportive lobbies must be ideologically defeated. Brotherhood and reconciliation are foreign to Jewish tribal worldview and have no room within the concept of Jewish national revival. As dramatic as it may sound, a process of de-judaification must take place before Israelis can adopt any universal modern notion of civil life.

Sand is no doubt a major intellectual, probably the most advanced leftist Israeli thinker. He represents the highest form of thought a secular Israeli can achieve before flipping over or even defecting to the Palestinian side (something that happened to just a few, me included). Haaretz interviewer Ofri Ilani said about Sand that unlike other 'new historians' who have tried to undermine the assumptions of Zionist historiography, "Sand does not content himself with going back to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back thousands of years." This is indeed the case, unlike the 'new historians' who 'unveil' a truth that is known to every Palestinian toddler i.e., the truth of being ethnically cleansed, Sand erects a body of work and thought that is aiming at the understanding of the meaning of Jewish nationalism and Jewish identity. This is indeed the true essence of scholarship. Rather than collecting some sporadic historical fragments, Sand searches for the meaning of history. Rather than a 'new historian' who searches for a new fragment, he is a real historian motivated by a humanist task. Most crucially, unlike some of the Jewish historians who happen to contribute to the so-called left discourse, Sand's credibility and success is grounded on his argument rather than his family background. He avoids peppering his argument with his holocaust survivor relatives. Reading Sand's ferocious argument, one may have to admit that Zionism in all its faults has managed to erect within itself a proud and autonomous dissident discourse that is far more eloquent and brutal than the entire anti-Zionist movement around the world.

If Sand is correct, and I myself am convinced by the strength of his argument, then Jews are not a race but rather a collective of very many people who are largely hijacked by a late phantasmic national movement. If Jews are not a race, do not form a racial continuum and have nothing to do with Semitism, then 'anti-Semitism' is, categorically, an empty signifier. It obviously refers to a signifier that doesn't exist. In other words, our criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.

Once again I may say it, we are not and never been against Jews (the people) nor we are against Judaism (the religion). Yet, we are against a collective philosophy with some clear global interests. Some would like to call it Zionism but I prefer not to. Zionism is a vague signifier that is far too narrow to capture the complexity of Jewish nationalism, its brutality, ideology and practice. Jewish nationalism is a spirit and spirit doesn't have clear boundaries. In fact, none of us know exactly where Jewishness stops and where Zionism starts as much as we do not know where Israeli interests stop and where the Neocon's interests start.

As far as the Palestinian cause is concerned, the message is rather devastating. Our Palestinian brothers and sisters are at the forefront of a struggle against a very devastating philosophy. Yet, it is clearly not just the Israelis whom they fight with rather a fierce pragmatic philosophy that initiates global conflicts on some gigantic scale. It is a tribal practice that seeks influence within corridors of power and super powers in particular. The American Jewish Committee is pushing for a war against Iran. Just to be on the safe side David Abrahams, a 'Labour Friend of Israel' donates money to the Labour Party by proxy. More or less at the same time two million Iraqis die in an illegal war designed by one called Wolfowitz. While all the above is taking place, millions of Palestinians are starved in concentration camps and Gaza is on the brink of a humanitarian crisis. As it all happens, 'anti-Zionist' Jews and Jews in the left (Chomsky included) insist upon dismantling the eloquent criticism of AIPAC, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power posed by Mearsheimer and Walt. [15]

Is it just Israel? Is it really Zionism? Or shall we admit that it is something far greater than we are entitled even to contemplate within the intellectual boundaries we imposed upon ourselves? As things stand, we lack the intellectual courage to confront the Jewish national project and its many messengers around the world. However, since it is all a matter of consciousness-shift, things are going to change soon. In fact, this very text is there to prove that they are changing already.

To stand by the Palestinians is to save the world, but in order to do so we have to be courageous enough to stand up and admit that it is not merely a political battle. It is not just Israel, its army or its leadership, it isn't even Dershowitz, Foxman and their silencing leagues. It is actually a war against a cancerous spirit that hijacked the West and, at least momentarily, diverted it from its humanist inclination and Athenian aspirations. To fight a spirit is far more difficult than fighting people, just because one may have to first fight its traces within oneself. If we want to fight Jerusalem, we may have to first confront Jerusalem within. We may have to stand in front of the mirror, look around us. We may have to trace for empathy in ourselves in case there is anything left.


[1] When And How The Jewish People Was Invented? Shlomo Sand, Resling 2008, pg 11


[3] When And How The Jewish People Was Invented? Shlomo Sand, Resling 2008, pg 31

[4] Ibid pg 31

[5] Ibid pg 42

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid pg 62

[8] Ibid


[10] When And How The Jewish People Was Invented? Shlomo Sand, Resling 2008, pg 117


[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid



A Disturbance in the Force
I would like to point out that, on his radio show, investigative writer Michael Collins Piper dedicated this whole week (February 2-6) to exposing Mark Weber and his involvement with agents of the mossad such as Andrew E. Allen in subverting Willis Carto's IHR and destroy Liberty Lobby and The Spotlight.

He wrote in depth about all this in a document he was forced not to publish in The Judas Goats (to get a copy of this document, just ask him).

I know that most of you here do not agree with everything Michael Piper says (he's a Hitler apologist), but this is not of central importance here. The point is that Mark Weber is not a revisionnist but a fraud, he was used by elements of the mossad (such as ADL) to destroy a revisionnist journal. At one point, he tried to convince people at the IHR that they desperately needed the money the ADL would give them if they sold the IHR subcribers lists! This can never be anything close to honesty...



A Disturbance in the Force
Scarlet Letter "D"

When I tell people who have heard I’m a holocaust denier that I believe “During World War II millions of Jews were uprooted from their homes and placed in slave labor camps where they died in droves”, they give me this quizzical look as if they are asking themselves “but I thought he was a holocaust denier?” Apparently, in the popular mind “denying the holocaust” means believing there were no concentration camps and that the Jews had a lovely time in the war. I don’t know anyone who believes that; certainly not any holocaust “denier” I’m familiar with.

If you believe the profession of faith I gave above absolves me from being labeled a holocaust “denier”, then here’s a challenge for you: find someone who denies the chronicle of Jewish suffering I just gave. If you cannot, then isn’t the term meaningless? It might as well refer to a mythical being, like the Golem.

But the term “holocaust denier” is more than just meaningless; it’s slanderous. Whoever came up with it should be charged with slander. It stifles historical inquiry into a tragic period of human history, as well as having dire consequences for those to whom the odious label is applied. Take the case of David Cole, a bright young Jew from Beverly Hills who went to Auschwitz to investigate the gas chamber there. He produced a video about his visit which, to my mind, demolishes the claim that the room shown to visitors as a gas chamber is anything of the sort. Attaining some fame from a 1994 appearance on the Phil Donahue show (such was possible back then), Cole was threatened by the Jewish Defense League in a hate-filled article and recanted his revisionist views (The person to whom Cole addressed his recantation, Irv Rubin, was later charged with plotting to blow up a mosque).

Or consider the fate of Ernst Zundel, a Canadian who ended up in court for publishing the booklet Did Six Million Really Die? Despite being exonerated in two trials, one of which occasioned a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Zundel continued to be so hounded that he moved to Tennessee. Deported back to Canada on a minor visa violation, he was arrested and spent two years in solitary confinement before the Canadians returned him to his native Germany. Today he languishes in Mannheim prison serving out a five-year sentence for holocaust denial. Personally, I do not find Mr. Zundel a particularly likeable fellow, but no one, likeable or not, should be treated as he has been simply for questioning historical “facts”.

It’s a tribute to our country and its laws that we can debate the holocaust story - no matter how rancorously - without anyone going to prison. The same cannot be said in Europe where thousands of people have been prosecuted under the charmingly medieval holocaust denial laws enacted by numerous countries. Even once lauded historians, like the British historian, David Irving, can find themselves in prison. Apparently, there is no Bill of Rights in the European Constitution. Nor do the Europeans feel compelled to abide by the guarantee of freedom of thought proclaimed in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Many holocaust revisionists, aka “deniers”, write under pseudonyms. The reason should be obvious. It’s time to stop smearing decent, honest people, many of whom know much more about the history of the holocaust than the ones doing the smearing. It’s time revisionists felt safe to come out of the closet. It’s time historians felt safe to study the war years without fear of retribution should their research lead to heretical conclusions.

Because revisionists are so silenced and historians so intimidated, how many Americans know that neither Eisenhower, Churchill, nor DeGaulle mentions gas chambers in their memoirs of the war? How many Americans know that the “gas chamber” at Dachau, a room with fake showerheads embedded in a 7 ½-foot high ceiling, was reported by a congressional delegation which visited the camp two days after its liberation as having a 10-foot high ceiling and real showerheads? How many Jews know that the bars of soap supposedly made from Jewish fat solemnly buried in Jewish cemeteries around the world in memoriam are just plain old Ivory?

What other group in America today could be spoken of in such vile terms based on gross misconceptions because the vilified are not allowed to have their voice heard (e.g., the American Jewish Committee is trying to have books by revisionists banned from Amazon in Germany)? We’ve made great progress in the last half century overcoming bigotry and intolerance, but at least one challenge remains. It’s time to ban the “D” word from polite conversation, just like the “N” word. I encourage you to do so; if you do not, YOU should be ashamed. That includes you, Mr. President, for calling me “ignorant” and “hateful” (not me personally; deniers, as he calls them, in general). I charge you with being ignorant and hateful in making that remark. Coming from someone who should know something about ignorance and hate, it is especially reprehensible. We await an apology.


A Disturbance in the Force
Re: Scarlet Letter "D"

Hi Kiask, since this is your first post on the forum, it would be appreciated if you introduced yourself in the Newbies section and tell us how you found the forum and what brought you here. No personal information is necessary, just a general introduction that might give us an idea of what material you are familiar with from the forum and its associated web pages. Thanks and welcome!
Top Bottom