Paul Eisen

Paul Eisen

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

What a surprise!


From The New Observer

There's quite a bit of controversy, even amongst revisionists, around whether Treblinka and similar camps were or were not places of mass-killing. 

But one thing's for sure: The fact that this kind of thing, as outlined below, could happen is cast-iron proof of the complete absurdity of the Holocaust narrative

Smithsonian Red-Faced after “Treblinka Star of David Tiles” Shown to be Not Jewish At AllPosted by TNO Staff— on April 13, 2014

The Smithsonian Institutes’ TV documentary division has been severely embarrassed with the revelation that its recently-released “Treblinka: Hitler’s Killing Machine” documentary—which claimed to have “proved” the existence of “gas chambers” at Treblinka because of the discovery of “tiles with Stars of David,” is an extremely amateurish hoax.

The Smithsonian advertised the documentary on its YouTube Channel by saying that “The watershed discovery of Star of David tiles confirms the existence of Treblinka’s gas chambers and becomes the key to reconstructing the death camp’s sinister workings.”


The Smithsonian YouTube Channel announcement that “Star of David” tiles have been found at Treblinka which “prove” the “gas chambers” at the camp.

The documentary follows British forensic archaeologist, Dr. Caroline Sturdy Colls, from Staffordshire University and her colleagues as they carry out diggings on the Treblinka camp site in eastern Poland in an attempt to refute Holocaust revisionists who say that the camp was only used as a transit area and not as an extermination center.

The complete lack of any physical evidence that the camp was used for exterminating hundreds of thousands of people, has long been a great source of concern for orthodox historians, to the point where the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper admitted in a 2014 article that the “absence of physical evidence allowed Holocaust deniers to maintain that Treblinka II was a transit, not death, camp.” (“Uncovering the Remains of Treblinka,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 27, 2014.)

The Smithsonian documentary showed Colls and her colleague Ivar Schute digging in a ditch and finding four pieces of ceramic tile.

The narrator of the documentary then announces that “Dutch archaeologist Ivar has just uncovered an orange tile with a Star of David on the base.”

The camera then moves to a close-up of Colls and Schute handling the tiles. Schute tells Colls that he has uncovered “four tiles, three yellow ones and one red one.

“As you see, the Star of David on the bottom, which is quite remarkable,” Schute tells Colls and the camera, then asks her, “But have you ever seen the tiles?”

Colls replies “No” and then Schute goes on to say that these tiles “fit in with the idea that we are in the area of the gas chambers.”

Colls then says what “immediately springs to my mind is that witnesses who were allowed in the gas chamber and the area talked about the Star of David on the outside of the gas chamber building to build up the illusion that people were going to somewhere that was safe.”

On this basis—that tiles had “Stars of David” on them—the narrator of the video then asserts that “Treblinka eye-witnesses have identified tiles just like these.

“Now for the first time, Caroline and her team have hard evidence confirming the existence of the gas chambers,” the narrator adds.

Unfortunately for the Smithsonian, Colls and Schute, the “Star of David” to which they refer is nothing of the sort.

Firstly, the symbol—a six pointed solid star, with a dot in its center, surrounded by a circle, and with a clear “D” letter to its right, is imprinted on the back of the tile—which means that wherever it would have been placed, the symbol would have been cemented onto the floor, and would not have been visible.

This makes Colls’s claim that the symbol was there to “make people think they were going somewhere safe” complete nonsense.


The terracotta tile excavated by Ivar Schute at the Treblinka camp, and wrongly identified by him, Colls and the Smithsonian as a “Star of David.” The symbol is in fact a brand mark of the 125-year-old old Dziewulski i Lange porcelain factory in Poland.

Furthermore, no “eye-witness” has ever claimed that there were Stars of David “inside a gas chamber” at Treblinka—only that there was a large Star of David over the “front door” of the gas chamber.



But, even worse for Colls, Schute, and the Smithsonian, the symbol which they all claim to be a “Star of David” is nothing of the sort.

It is in fact a brand mark of the 125-year old Dziewulski i Lange porcelain factory in Poland. That factory still exists, although it was renamed the Opoczno Terracotta Products Factory in 1950 and is today just called Opoczno S.A.

The company’s symbol is known in the heraldic world as a pierced mullet star, as is not unusual for porcelain marks and coats of arms around Europe.


An early advertising poster for the old Dziewulski i Lange porcelain factory in Poland, showing the brand mark. It is in fact known in the heraldic world as a pierced mullet star, and is not uncommon in pottery and porcelain marks.


An early advertising poster for the old Dziewulski i Lange porcelain factory in Poland, showing the brand mark. It is in fact known in the heraldic world as a pierced mullet star, and is not uncommon in pottery and porcelain marks.


An early advertising poster for the old Dziewulski i Lange porcelain factory in Poland, showing the brand mark. It is in fact known in the heraldic world as a pierced mullet star, and is not uncommon in pottery and porcelain marks.

Below: Some other examples of Dziewulski i Lange terracotta tiles which use the same brand mark wrongly identified by Colls and Schute as a “Star of David.”





It borders on the grossly amateurish for so-called “specialist archaeologists” like Colls and Schute to make such a basic error—and for the Smithsonian to then broadcast it to the world as “proof” of a “gas chamber.”

To make matters worse, Colls also knew that the tile was made by Dziewulski i Lange—because she mentioned that on her official website dealing with the excavations.

The farcical documentary does not end there: After excavating for hours on end, the “specialist archaeologists” finally earthed what they claimed were 40 bone fragments, which they immediately pronounced as evidence of “three mass graves.”

The “specialists” then quickly decide to rebury the bone fragments because, as Colls asserts, all they will do is “find more” (an incredibly poor reason to stop the digging). She then claims that these bone fragments and tiles “prove that [the] Treblinka I camp [was] more than just labor camp.” Of course, it shows noting of the sort, and is merely a concoction of a series of ignorant mistakes and ungrounded assumptions.

A few hours later, digging in another spot, this time in the alleged “Treblinka II” camp, some brick and mortar foundations are discovered, and, without any further ado, the Smithsonian narrator announces that the team has “Confirmed the existence of the gas chambers and [has] confirmed their location.”

In reality, nothing of the sort has happened.

All that happened was that the “specialist archaeologists” have completely misidentified a tile brand mark, found what they claimed to be 40 bone fragments, a handful of assorted personal items and some foundations.

These finds do not “prove” anything—and this very poor “scholarship” has not only placed a large question mark over the team’s ability to intelligently interpret data of important historic significance, but will also have added fuel to fire of the revisionists who question the Treblinka story.

Monday, 22 September 2014

The Palestinian Beagles

This is from Ynet News.com and is about Israel sending aid to Ebola-ravaged Africa

You can moan all you like, but the fact remains that despite everything, Israel has quite a record for lending a hand when catastrophe strikes. Whenever there's an earthquake, flood or pestilence, who's first on the scene and, with all the latest in life-saving technology? 

Sure, it's Hasbara but it's damn good Hasbara.

A story springs to mind. Nearly twenty years ago, long before I knew enough to put the words 'Deir Yassin' and 'Yad Vashem' into the same sentence, my friend and colleague: Deir Yassin Remembered founder Dan McGowan was in Palestine. 

He'd got himself an audience with the late President Arafat and had with him four projects for the President to consider. One was something about using some currency shenanigans as a weapon of resistance (Dan is an Economics Professor by trade), another was about some kind of Intifada museum and another was Deir Yassin Remembered (the only one that got done, by the way).

But it's the fourth idea which I want to tell you about. Dan, noticing how much political capital was being made by Israel from its 'humanitarian aid' suggested that the Palestinians get hold of some beagles (you know how cute these little dogs are - and how good they are at sniffing things out) and then take them to disaster areas such as earthquakes to locate survivors under rubble. He said they could be called "The Palestinian Beagles" and even suggested they could wear special collars and coats in the Palestinian colours. 

Anyway, all the while Dan was making his proposal, President Arafat visibly liking the idea, was getting more and more excited until he could contain himself no longer.

"Excellent idea Professor McGowan! But we won't use beagles..we'll use.....Alsatians!

I think there's a lot to be learned from that.

Israel sends experts, aid to Africa to fight Ebola

Doctors, medicine and medical supplies sent to Africa in effort to assist fight against Ebola virus, which has killed thousands. 'Every country has a role in the struggle,' says Israel's envoy to UN.

Itamar Eichner

Joining international effort to combat the raging Ebola epidemic, Israel has announced it will send medical aid and experts to Africa to treat patients who have tested positive for the virus that has claimed the lives of 2,600 people so far.

Nearly 5,300 people have become ill from Ebola in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Nigeria and Senegal since it was first recorded in March. Doctors Without Borders says that figure could rise to more than 20,000 and end up costing nearly $1 billion to contain.

The Foreign Ministry has already sent two doctors to Cameroon, who will help in preventing the spread of the virus. Additional doctors will be deployed in the near future. Later on this week, Israel will also send a shipment of medicine and medical equipment to the affected countries.

Stressing the country's commitment to help Africa fight the virus, Israel's UN Ambassador Ron Prosor stated during a UN Security Council emergency session on Ebola earlier this week that "the international community holds the tools and knowledge to save thousands of lives, yet so far the global response has proved itself to be insufficient.


"As soon as a new treatment facility opens, it immediately fills to overflowing," Prosor said, adding that "patients and families are lining up outside begging for help.

"From Haiti to Ghana and more recently the Philippines, Israel has lent a helping hand to dozens of countries," he further stated.

"The time for global action is now. Tens of thousands of lives and the future of West Africa hang in the balance. Every country, no matter how small, has a role to play in combatting the Ebola epidemic," the Israeli ambassador said.


Five Ebola species

The Israeli aid group IsraAid will also be sending two teams of medical experts to Sierra Leone and Liberia. One team will assist in launching a trauma treatment program which aims to help the population cope with fears of the disease and stress caused as a result of the outbreak.

Another medical team will advise residents on how to maintain personal hygiene in order to prevent the spread of the virus.

There are five known distinct species of Ebola, and the outbreak raging in west Africa stems from the Zaire species.

That species caused the world's first known Ebola outbreak in DR Congo in 1976, which until now was the deadliest on record, with 280 deaths.

The current DR Congo outbreak meanwhile is believed to come from two separate species, the Zaire and the Sudan species, which first surfaced in Sudan, also in 1976.

What is Left Over by Gilad Atzmon

From Gilad's website




WHAT IS LEFT OVER

By Gilad Atzmon 


The following is a collection of excerpts from a young Seattle radical’s call for action against an ‘anti- Semitic’ gathering in Seattle yesterday. The urgent call was from Matt Hamilton, who was apparently alarmed by my views. In perfect conformity with the ignorant attitude of the New Left, Matt has not read a single paper by me. The extracts below convey the depth of Judeo-centrism and crippled intellectual ability that are, sadly, embedded in whatever is left of the radical discourse.

Upset by my scheduled appearance in Seattle, our modern day Bolshevik tried to persuade his friends to debate the new Satan, me. Of course I warmly welcome such a development. Until now, not a single detractor of mine has had the ‘balls’ to challenge me openly in public. For some reason they prefer to implement the Talmudic herem (excommunication) practice. Maybe the growing popularity of my thoughts and the fact that a new discourse of alternative dissent is rapidly emerging, have started to trouble the half a dozen Red minds left in our midst.

“Hi folks, I'm writing to raise some concerns about one of the speakers at an anti-Israel event tonight, Gilad Atzmon…. Would any of you be willing to come with me to debate Atzmon at this event tonight?”

It didn’t take more than a few lines before he had to admit that he was not sure of Atzmon’s positions. He adopted an embarrassing gossipy manner of speech.

“It sounds like Atzmon, and possibly some of the other speakers (Ibrahim Soudy, Henry Hershkovitz and Greg Felton), are suggesting that Palestinians and Americans should unite in a struggle against Jewish identity itself.”

This is simply not accurate. I am offering criticism and analysis of Jewish Identity politics. I also argue that the Jewish Left and their Sabbos goyim attempt to block such criticism, as Matt himself, perhaps inadvertently, proves.

“In contrast,” Matt says, “I believe we should build alliances against Zionism, racism, and white supremacy - not against Jews - and that anti-Zionist Jews should be welcomed in these alliances.”

Do these modern days Bolsheviks really believe that anyone takes their verbal diarrhea seriously? Do they really assume that once they use the words ‘White’ and ‘supremacy’ in close proximity their argument is won? If so, they are wrong. I have never called for Jews or anyone else to be expelled from any movement, let alone Palestine solidarity. In fact it is the ‘Jews in the movement’ and their electronic Abunimah who are in the constant process of purging the ranks, expelling those who do not fit into the stagnated ideological collectivism they insist upon.

Matt further incorrectly argues, “Zionism is not the same as Jewish identity, and contrary to Atzmon's assertions, there are anti-Zionist Jews and non-Jewish Zionists.”

What I argue is that Zionism is just one symptom of Jewish identity politics, and Jewish anti-Zionism is another expression of the same Jewish identity politics. This is easily shown. The Zionist contends that Israel is good for the Jews. The ‘anti’ insists that it is bad for the Jews. In short, both Zionists and the ‘anti’ are committed to the Jews, they just don’t agree amongst themselves what is best for the Jews.

I have never managed to grasp how the Left purports to support Palestinian ‘nationalism’ while advocating anti patriotism and anti nationalism at home. Why is it that the Left always advocates national liberation movements in remote countries, yet despises the nationalist neighbor down the road? Our Seattle revolutionary doesn’t resolve the quandary, he simply shows how confused the Left is. “We should not make any kind of appeal to U.S. nationalism in the name of Palestine solidarity.” What are you afraid of Matt? Is there really a great categorical difference between Gaza and Detroit? Is the notion that we are all Palestinians and oppressed by the same rulers devastating to whatever is left of your moldy ideology? Is it simply the bond between Jerusalem and Washington that you try to conceal? As if you could.

Matt concludes “we need to say clearly: America is not being manipulated by Jews.” Perhaps not. But its foreign policy is certainly dominated by the Jewish lobby and this is a total disaster.

“America itself is a colonial project and the U.S. ruling class is Zionist because of it's own imperial interests in the Middle East. NOT because of the Israeli lobby, Jewish ideology, or any other ‘fifth column’.”

Almost right, Matt. America is indeed a colonial project but Israel is an imperial one and Washington happens to be Israel’s most subservient colony. It is the Jewish Lobby that has made young Americans into Zionist mercenaries. It is done in the open, and it has brought America down.

Matt was brave enough to show up at the Seattle meeting. He spread the usual embarrassing pamphlets - a mixture of lies that, more than anything else, reveal the paucity of the so called ‘Left’. He was keen to challenge me as he had promised; he raised his hand throughout the Q&A. I insisted that he be given the chance to speak his mind. He had very little to say. In the name of the revolution, he ordered us to drop the ‘J word.’ I politely told him that we have no intention of complying. We will talk about Jewish politics and the Jewish State and the Jewish Lobby and the Holodomor and the Yiddish Speaking International Brigade in Spain (1936) and, of course, Jewishness. We will address and discuss any topic that crosses our minds because this is the meaning of true dissent and the First Amendment.

But I can secretly inform you that if and when the Jewish state stops being the biggest threat to world peace and America finds the legal means to restrain the Jewish Lobby and Jewish power, we may have to move on and take care of some other issues.

Hilaire Belloc's "The Jews" (Part 3 of 3)


By Andrew Joyce from The Occidental Observer


As Belloc moves into the second half of his book, I personally feel that the work becomes weaker. His characteristic style remains powerful, but it is in the second half of the book that Belloc’s attempt to come across as balanced goes too far. The sixth chapter examines “The Causes of Friction upon Our Side.” Here Belloc neglects to concede that the great mass of Europeans has never urged the Jews to settle among them, that they have never held them captive, and certainly never sought out conflict with them. As Martin Luther once so insightfully pointed out:
Now behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when they complain about being captives among us. … [W]e do not know to this day which Devil brought them into our country. We did not fetch them from Jerusalem! On top of that, no-one is holding them now. Land and highways are open to them; they may move to their country whenever they wish to do so.
This is a fundamental issue in the history of Jewish-European relations that Belloc fails to recognize. Purposeful or not, the presence of a powerful but separate foreign, political entity exerting influence to its own ends in the elite strata of a given society amounts to one thing and one thing only: colonialism. In such a scenario, one would be hard-pressed to find fault with the colonized. Jews have remained in European society out of choice and with purpose and goals; not out of captivity. There are no passive partners. We are not locked into a fateful and unceasing struggle with all exits blocked. But instead Belloc strains to keep a balance which loses touch with the reality of the situation. He argues that “it is certain that we play a part ourselves in this quarrel between us and the Jews (124).” While certain actions on our part may escalate tensions, I would argue you that no fully accurate assessment of the situation can be made without having as a foundation an acknowledgement of the scenario I have just outlined.

This aside, Belloc has some insightful comments on how the European peoples deal with Jews. He argues that only two types of people show perfect honesty in their dealings with Jews: “the completely ignorant dupe who can hardly tell a Jew when he sees one and who accepts as a reality the old fiction of there being no difference except a different of religion,” and “the person called an ‘anti-Semite’ (126).” Both these types are rare, says Belloc. The majority of men “are grossly disingenuous in all their dealings with the Jews (127).” In this camp Belloc would place the likes of John Derbyshire, who on the one hand concedes and shows awareness that Jews as a group hold incredible levels of influence and power within his own profession, but who levels heavy criticism against those who dare to speak explicitly on the subject. Belloc describes such activity as “the great fault of our side which corresponds to the fault of secrecy upon theirs (127).”

Both types inhibit the ultimate goal of achieving openness and honesty. Jews, of course, are aware of the disingenuous nature of much of the contact they have with non-Jews. Afraid that at any second that hidden awareness may be made explicit, his infamous sense of insecurity grows and he becomes ever more paranoid. His paranoia breeds further friction. Only with the dupe and the so-called “anti-Semite” do Jews think “At least I know where I am.” For this reason, Belloc argues, “in their heart of hearts the Jews are grateful to both (126).”

This may well be the case, but I’m not holding my breath for a thank you card from Abe Foxman. Belloc also astutely recognizes that the great vice of disingenuous dealings with the Jews is “particularly rife among the wealthy and middle classes,” being far less common among the working class and the poor (131).

Falsehood also extends to the historical record of the Jews among us. Belloc writes that “we throw the story of these relations, which are among the half-dozen leading factors in history, right into the background even when we do mention it (131).” The vast and omnipresent nature of this subject “is deliberately suppressed (132).”
There took place in Cyprus and in the Libyan cities under Hadrian a Jewish movement against the surrounding non-Jewish society far exceeding in violence the late wreckage of Russia, which to-day fills all our thoughts. The massacres were wholesale and so were the reprisals. The Jews killed a quarter of a million of the people of Cyprus alone, and the Roman authorities answered with a repression which was a pitiless war. One might pile up instances indefinitely. The point is, that the average educated man has never been allowed to hear of them (132).
These epoch-defining events, unless they can be adapted in some fashion to clearly show the Jew as victim, are relegated to mere footnotes or insignificant details in the vast catalogues of our history. The same falsehood then extends into our contemporary record in the media reports, produced by knowing non-Jews, which insist on describing Jonathan Pollard as an American, or which portray the activities of the ADL or SPLC as in any way consistent with “American” values.

Belloc pours scorn on this falsehood not only because it “corrodes the souls of those who indulge in it (134),” but also because it “produces in the Jew a false sense of security and a completely distorted phantasm of the way in which he is really received in our society (134).” The more this falsehood is pursued, “the more the surprise which follows upon its discovery and the more legitimate the bitterness and hatred which that surprise occasions in those of whom we are the hosts (134).”

This is a good point. Studying Jewish reactions to the rising tide of inter-ethnic friction in Central Europe at the start of the twentieth century, one is indeed struck by the “profound shock, the utter disbelief, among the Jews.”[1]

Aside from falsehood on our part, Belloc also condemns the “unintelligence of our dealing with the Jews (134).” We stand at a particular disadvantage because “their dealings with us are always intelligent. They know what they are driving at in those relations, though they often misunderstand the material with which they deal (135).”

This unintelligence manifested in a number of ways in Belloc’s lifetime in the form of inept defenses of the Jews. He particular loathed the masking of Jewish immigration under the title of “the alien question,” or “Russian immigration.” He also castigated authors who, having been scolded for including less than positive Jewish characters in their novels, rushed to put “imaginary Jew heroes in their books.” Using the example of Dickens and the Fagin of Oliver Twist, and later his Riah of Our Mutual Friend, Belloc writes:
He disliked Jews instinctively; when he wrote of a Jew according to his inclination he made him out a criminal. Hearing that he must make amends for this action, he introduced a Jew who is like nothing on earth — a sort of compound of an Arab Sheik and a Family Bible picture from the Old Testament, and the whole embroidered on an utterly non-Jewish — a purely English character (136).
This unintelligence can generally be summed up in the idea that we too readily read ourselves into others, becoming shocked and acting stupidly when we discover otherwise. Rather “we ought to take it for granted that the Jew is nomadic, international, and spread all over the world (137).” We need to become attuned to the reality that “the Jew feels among us, only with far greater intensity, what we feel when we are in a foreign country — a sense of exile, a sense of irritation against alien things, merely because they are alien; a great desire for companionship and for understanding, yet a great indifference to the fate of those among whom he finds himself; an added attachment, no, indeed, to his territorial home, for he has none, but to his nation (138).” The modern reader can accept such a thesis, though obviously with the acknowledgment that a steady loyalty to the Israeli state has now been woven into the mentality of the Diaspora Jew.

With the close of this chapter, the book moves toward progressively shorter sections on ‘The anti-Semite,’ ‘Bolshevism,’ ‘The Position in the World as a Whole,’ ‘Zionism,’ and some concluding remarks. Belloc’s chapter on ‘The anti-Semite’ is particularly weak, based as it is on the assumption that there is in fact a sizeable portion of men who “hate Jews in themselves (147).” Belloc subscribes to the Jewish notion that the motives of those they label ‘anti-Semites’ are not related to a “hatred of concealment, falsehood, hypocrisy, corruption and all the other incidental evils of the false position. These things, indeed, irritate him, but they are not his leading motive. His leading motive is a hatred of the Jewish people (148).”

The bankruptcy of Belloc’s adoption of such weak analysis is nowhere more evident than in the reception of his book, and the manner in which history has recorded him and his works. For, despite what he may have thought, his focus on attempting to achieve an extreme level of balance and a focus on those “evils of the false position,” did not prevent him from being labelled an “anti-Semite” in his own lifetime and in mainstream history since his death.[2] This is perhaps the greatest condemnation of his theories on the “anti-Semite,” and I will offer no further comment on the subject other than to remark that an “anti-Semite” has been, and always will be, any individual deemed by Jewry to be in opposition to Jewish interests.

Belloc’s chapter on Bolshevism has been superseded in more recent decades by more insightful works on the Russian catastrophe. It remains, however, a coherent and concise contribution to honest discussion of Jewish involvement in those events. Belloc describes the rise of Bolshevism as “a field in which we can study the evil effect of secrecy, and one in which we can analyse all the various forces which tend to bring Israel into such ceaseless conflict with the society around it (167).” His general theory of the Bolshevik explosion can be summed up in his description of the destruction of old Russian society as “an act of racial revenge (169).”

In his thoughts on “The Position in the World as a Whole,” Belloc points out that “the Jew has collectively a power today, in the white world, altogether excessive. It is not only an excessive power, it is inevitably a corporate power and, therefore, a semi-organized power (191).” This power has been acquired
out of all proportion to his numbers, out of all proportion to his ability; certainly out of proportion to any right of his to interfere in our affairs. It was a Jew who produced the divorce laws in France, the Jew who nourished anti-clericalism in that country and also in Italy; the Jew who called in the forces of Occidental nations to protect his compatriots in the East, and the Jew whose spirit has so largely permeated the Universities and the Press(199).
Belloc observed that the “regular and organized Jewish emigration” to the United States was having an effect. He noted “the growth of the financial monopoly and of monopolies in particular trades (202).” He noted a corresponding “clamour for toleration in the form of ‘neutralizing’ religious teaching in schools; there was the appearance of the Jewish revolutionary and of the Jewish critic in every tradition of Christian life (202).” The United States was ultimately left more prone because here “this Liberal tradition or convention, this conception that the Jew must be treated as a full citizen, was far stronger even than it was in the West of Europe. It was in the very soul of the Constitution, and, what is more important, in the very soul of the people (206).”

In terms of viable opponents to the growth of Jewish power and influence, Belloc posited only the Catholic Church. He argued that “the Catholic Church is the conservator of an age-long European tradition, and that tradition will never compromise with the fiction that a Jew can be other than a Jew. Wherever the Catholic Church has power, and in proportion to its power, the Jewish problem will be recognized to the full. … The Catholic Church will always maintain reality, including the reality of that sharp distinction between the Jew and his hosts (210).”

Here we encounter another of Belloc’s great and unfortunate errors. The Catholic Church was not invulnerable to Jewish influence. Nor, contrary to the opinion of those who wish to make a fetish of the link between the Church and our way of life, has it ever explicitly or implicitly been a protector of European traditions or peoples. The Catholic Church and Christianity in general are concerned solely with the fate of the “faith.” When Christianity came to Scandinavia, did it respect the existing culture? Did it accommodate those perfectly upstanding European folk who declined to kneel before the Nazarene? As I have written previously, it was Europe and Europeans that gave life and success to Christianity and not the other way around. It was we who took it to the four corners of the earth, on routes long since established by the pagan and the heathen. As the heart of Catholicism moves slowly south of the equator, we need only look at the shift of power and demography within Catholicism to see that it has, and always has had, a life distinct from our racial vitality.

Belloc returns to form in his chapter on Zionism, which is prophetic to say the least. With the creation of a Jewish state not yet a reality, he was left to ponder solely theoretical scenarios. He begins by asking “whether the Zionist experiment will tend to increase or to relax the strain created by the presence of the Jew in the midst of the non-Jewish world (231).” Pondering the creation of a Jewish state, Belloc was particularly interested in “the status of the Jew outside this territorial unit, which he had chosen to be much more than a symbol of his national unity — its actual seat and establishment (232).” He correctly predicted that the majority of Jews would continue to live outside such a state because they live “and desire to live the semi-nomadic life, the international life, which has becomes theirs by every tradition, and which one might now almost call instinctive to them (233).”

The new Zion, then, is to be “no more than a fixed rallying point, an established but small territorial nationhood (234).” Faced with the questioning of their political character, diaspora Jews would cling to insisting that he is “to be regarded as the full national in the nation in which he happens to be for a time (234).” In an astonishingly clear prediction of modern Jewry’s relationship with Israel, Belloc argues that “He shall in every respect be regarded, by a legal fiction, as identical with the community in which he happens to be settled for the moment, but at the same time he is to have some special relation with the Jewish State (234).” [Italics in original]. Belloc also heavily doubted that a Jewish state would rely upon its own military strength to ensure its security (241).

The conclusion of the book commences with an account of “Our Duty.” Here Belloc urges non-Jews to rid ourselves of the Liberal conventions and the falsehoods by which the Jewish problem is obscured. The author acknowledges that this is not easy. The greatest obstacle in this respect, he argues, is fear. There is first the European’s fear of breaking convention. He is secondly faced with fear of social and economic consequences. Belloc writes that “Men dread lest hostility to the Jewish Domination should bring them into the grip of some unknown but suspected world-wide power which can destroy the individual who shall be so rash as to challenge it (262).” There are “innumerable men who would express publicly on Jews what they continually express in private, but who conceal their feelings for fear that their salaries may be lost or their modest enterprises wrecked, their investments lowered, and their position ruined (263).” Jews, of course, are aware of this fear, and are adept at manipulating it. I’ve noted precisely this behavior in my recent article on Jewish Hollywood’s show of strength over Gaza.

However, Belloc correctly points out that the “fear strategy” will only work for so long, and that in the longer-term Jews are pursuing a very dangerous course of conduct. Based on a false sense of power and relative security, the use of fear only “dams up and enormously increases the latent force of anger against Jewish power. … It is like the piling up of a head of water when a river valley is obstructed, or like introducing of resistance into an electric current (263).” It is a “fierce irritant and accounts for the high pressure at which attack escapes when once it is loosened (263).”

Essentially, Belloc is questioning the rationality and wisdom of Jews who would seek the oppression of a grumbling peasantry, only to be later expelled en masse by a king; or who would shout down and intimidate a von Treitschke, only to be confronted later by a Hitler. In all cases, this elaborate game of “chicken” is taken too far.

The author argues that Jews too have a duty to perform in ceasing the ethnic conflict. They must end their “foolish and dangerous habit of secrecy and the irritating expression of superiority (271).” They may remain among us, but must form Jewish institutions that openly speak for Jewish interests, with no claims or pretensions to any other interests or values (273). They should permit open scrutiny of their interests if they wish to participate in the national, political and economic life of their host nation. Special courts of mixed character should be established to deal with conflicts and disputes between Jews and non-Jews, and these courts should be founded on acknowledgment of the mutual causes of friction between the two peoples. To ensure the endurance of this state of affairs, these developments should arise from a social movement before they are made law. It should not be imposed from above, but arise from the will of the people.

Are Belloc’s proposals practical? That remains to be seen. But The Jews, his general assessment of the longest ethnic conflict engaged in by the European peoples, is, almost a century after it was written, a prophetic, informative, concise and powerful summary of issues which retain a painful relevance. It deserves more recognition and deeper study. For my part, I have been inspired by Belloc’s work to produce a kind of companion book, which will offer greater detail, and some correctives to the original, in light of the century which has since passed.

End of Part 3 of 3.

[1] Y. M. Bodemann, Jews, Germans, Memory: Reconstructions of Jewish Life in Germany (University of Michigan Press, 1996), p.266.

[2] See for example R.S. Levy, Antisemitism: An Historical Encyclopaedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Vol. 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2005), p.65.

Saturday, 20 September 2014

Hilaire Belloc's "The Jews (Part 2 of 3)


By Andrew Joyce and from The Occidental Observer


Part 1



After discussing denial among non-Jews on the issue of the “Jewish problem,” Belloc moves in the third chapter to his thoughts on how that problem had manifested in his lifetime. He describes Jewry as a “political organism” which, like any independent organism, seeks after its own interests. The author writes (44):
It is objected of the Jew in finance, in industry, in commerce — where he is ubiquitous and powerful out of all proportion to his numbers — that he seeks, and has already reached, dominion. It is objected that he acts everywhere against the interests of his hosts; that these are being interfered with, guided, run against their will; that a power is present which acts either with indifference to what we love or in active opposition to what we love. Notably it is said to be indifferent to, or in active opposition against our national feelings, our religious traditions, and the general cultural and morals of Christendom which we have inherited and desire to preserve: that power is Israel.
Although these objections had, for the most part, merely simmered under the surface of Western liberal convention, Belloc argues that the Bolshevik revolution shocked Europeans. The leading role of Jews in the Russian catastrophe “struck both at the benevolent who would near no harm of the Jews, and those who had hitherto shielded or obeyed them as identified only with the interest of large Capital (45).” Although liberal convention on the Jews officially held the field, the Bolshevik menace “compelled attention. Bolshevism stated the Jewish problem with a violence and an insistence such that it could no longer be denied either by the blindest fanatic or the most resolute liar (46).”

However, the Bolshevik shock was only part of a gradual change in the Jewish interaction with Europe. Belloc describes early modern Jewish settlement in the West as involving very small numbers of Jews in a given location. These Jews belonged to classes which kept them out of direct competition with the poor of the large towns. They were absent from the countryside. They refrained from interference in politics or in the press. It was relatively easy to admit such a collection of non-descript characters to equal citizenship. But changes were afoot. Religion declined and with it some of the last barriers to certain professions and avenues to power. This small number of Jews now entered the liberal professions, but still in numbers too small to dominate or influence. Conflicts were minimal. But with time, even this small group acquired influence vastly out of proportion to its numbers. Between 1830 and 1870,
the weight and position of the Jew in Western Civilization increased out of all knowledge and yet without shock, and almost without attracting attention. They entered the Parliaments everywhere, the English Peerage as well, and the Universities in very large numbers. A Jew became Prime Minister of Great Britain, another a principal leader of the Italian insurrection; another led the opposition to Napoleon III. They were present in increasing numbers in the chief institutions of every country. (47) 
Within the same period, the Papal States were broken up, and the Pope confined to the Vatican. “Within a few years Rome was to see a Jewish Mayor who supported with all his might the unchristianizing of the city and especially of its educational system (48).” Jews like Paul Reuter began to take the lead in international news transmission and became owners, editors, and journalists of many European newspapers.

The perennial friction between Jews and non-Jews had increased to intolerable levels. The first writings on the increasing friction — what would today be called “hate speech” — emerged in Germany and France in the 1870s. In 1879 the famous and respected German historian Heinrich von Treitschke complained publicly about “the unjust influence of the Jews in the press,” but was shouted down as an anti-Semite. Belloc states that men like von Treitschke had their writings denounced as “the extravagancies of fanatics (49).” But, argues Belloc, “fanatics” like von Treitschke frustrated their opponents “by the quotation of an immense quantity of facts which could not but remain in the mind (49).” The object of many of these early writers was to expose “crypto-Judaism,” and the conscious secrecy which lay behind Jewish networking in Europe’s corridors of power.

Such work was necessary given the increasing number of international Jewish financial scandals. These included a war between the British and the Boers in South Africa in 1899 — a conflict Belloc argues was “openly and undeniably provoked and promoted by Jewish interests (50).” Jewish politicians in France and Britain were also exposed by brave writers as participating in large-scale fraud in conjunction with their cousins in finance:
The Panama scandals in the French Parliament had already fed the movement in France. The later Parliamentary scandals in England, Marconi and the rest, afforded so astonishing a parallel to Panama that the similarity was of universal comment [see also "Free to Cheat: 'Jewish Emancipation' and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood"] They might have passed as isolated things a generation before. They were now connected, often unjustly, with the uneasy sense of a general financial conspiracy. They were, at any rate, connected with an atmosphere essentially Jewish in character. (51)
Then, on top of the rise to power of those Jews already settled in the West, the great Eastern reservoir of the Jewish race was opened up in the 1880s, and the borders of the Western states were pried open with fabricated tales of pogroms and persecution. By the time Westerners became attuned to the fact that those “ignorant Slavs” might have had good reason to resent the “poor innocent victims” now calling for revolution on the streets of New York and London, their mouths had been muzzled. Belloc writes that “The Jews were in every place of advantage: they taught in the Universities of all Europe; they were everywhere in the Press; everywhere in finance. They were continually to be found in the highest places of Government and in the chanceries of Christendom they had acquired a dominant power which none could question (53).” Following this was the Russian catastrophe, which was motivated by the Jewish communists’ “sincere hatred of national feeling, save, of course, where the Jewish nation was concerned (59).” Such was the “Present Phase of the Problem” when Belloc penned his work, and with this he concludes his third chapter.

Having discussed the immediate context of his own times, Belloc moves in his fourth chapter to an examination of the more timeless qualities of conflict: “The General Causes of Friction.” I found this to be one of the better chapters in the book. Here Belloc is careful to point out that the “Jewish Problem” is more than the contemporary context he described in the previous chapter: “The friction between the Jews and the nations among which they are dispersed is far older, far more profound, far more universal (69).” It is a force which has been “permanently at work everywhere and at all times (71).” The causes of this friction, argues Belloc, are both “general” and “special.” The general cause is summed up “in the truth that the whole texture of the Jewish nation, their corporate tradition, their social mind, is at issue with the people among whom they live (71).” The special causes are “the use of secrecy by the Jews as a method of action and the open expression of superiority over his neighbors which the Jew cannot help but feeling but is wrong to emphasize (71).”

Belloc argues that the different ‘texture’ of the Jewish nation from our own is self-evident. He takes three common charges levelled against the Jews — cowardice, avarice and treason — and argues that these have the opposite qualities but with a “special national timbre.” Thus among the Jews you will find “innumerable instances of the highest courage, the greatest generosity and the most devoted loyalty: but courage, generosity and loyalty of a Jewish kind, directed to Jewish ends, and stamped with a highly distinctive Jewish mark (73).” It is upon the non-Jew to realize that the Jew will be courageous on behalf of his own people, that he will be generous toward his own people, and that he will be loyal to his own people. His defects to us, are his virtues to his own. Belloc writes that “there is no race which has produced so few traitors. It is not treason in the Jew to be international. It is not treason in the Jew to work now for one interest among those who are not of his people, now for another. He can only be charged with treason when he acts against the interests of Israel, and there is no nation nor ever has been one in which the national solidarity was greater or national weakness in the shape of traitors less (78).”

Thus, to use an example from the present, Jonathan Pollard is a loyal Jewish hero who has attracted unceasing support from global Jewry since his arrest by the US government for “treason.” Belloc urges us to see that such cases are to be expected. Pollard, as a Jew, did not commit treason. He was in fact very loyal — to his own people. Our crime is in adopting a dog and expecting it not to bark. In permitting loyal Jews, such as Pollard, to positions of power and influence in our society, it is we who harbor the greater amount of traitors, and it is we who commit treason daily by ceding power, influence, and money to a foreign nation.

Belloc moves on to a survey of Jewish traits which again are similar to our own but differ in quality or direction. Thus “his tenacity, which all know and all in a sense admire and which is far superior to our own, is also a narrower tenacity, or at any rate a tenacity of a different kind. He will follow one end where we will follow many. His wonderful loyalty to all family relations we know: but we do not appreciate it because it is outside our own circle. Even his intellectual gifts, which are less affected by this matter of timbre, have something alien to us in them. They are undeniable but we feel them to be used for other ends than ours (80).”

I found this last sentence quite haunting. Bear in mind that Belloc was writing prior to the rise of Jewish intellectual movements, and that ‘Jewish timbre’ was not so clearly evident in academia during his lifetime.

In a further example of the unchanging nature of the friction between Jews and non-Jews, and the observations of difference at the core of that friction, Belloc precedes scholars like Kevin MacDonald in identifying psychological intensity as a background trait of Jewish ethnocentrism and activism. In addition to a marked single-mindedness, Belloc describes “a certain intensity of action which is very noticeable and which again is a cause of friction between himself and those about him. Hear a Jew speaking upon the revolutionary platform, and note the high voltage at which the current is working. … He is not eloquent in our fashion; but he is at any rate astonishingly effective in his own (82).”

This intensity, argues Belloc, is most often employed in “a corporate capacity for hiding or for advertising at will: a power of ‘pushing’ whatever the whole race desires advanced, or of suppressing what the whole race desires to suppress (82).” Such corporate action “will always remain a permanent irritant in its effect upon those to whom it is applied.”

Belloc uses the example of the nausea which is eventually felt following the incessant Jewish propaganda about “the talents of some particular Jew [see, e.g., my series on the promotion of Spinoza, “Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza”], or the scientific discovery of another, or the misfortunes of another (83).” And conversely, when men discover “that some important matter has been suppressed, some bad scandal in the State or some trick in commerce, because Jewry desired it to be suppressed,” they will not suffer the operation as quietly the second time as they did they first.

A final significant cause of friction is also related to the intensity of the Jewish corporate capacity — the strong tendency toward monopoly (94). Belloc contends that “the Jew is international, tenacious and determined upon reaching the very end of his task. He is not satisfied in any trade until that trade is, as far as possible, under his complete control, and he has for the extension of that control the support of his brethren throughout the world (94).”

The increase of Jewish monopolies in various public, political and financial spheres is dangerous for everyone, including Jews. Belloc closes his fourth chapter by prophetically anticipating the rise of a dictatorial mode of government and the backlash against the Jews:
To put an end to this state of affairs is impossible so long as parliamentary government, with its profound corruption, endures. The only force capable of dealing with the plutocratic evil of an alien monopoly upon this scale is a king; but a king we have not among the modern nations. But the parliamentary system will not last forever. It is already in active dissolution among ourselves, and badly hit elsewhere. The king may not be so far off as people think him to be. At any rate, in one way or another the thing will cease, and will probably cease in violence. (96)
The fifth chapter concerns the “special” causes of friction. These are the Jewish reliance upon secrecy, and the Jewish expression of superiority. Belloc states that the centuries-old Jewish habit of secrecy has now almost become an instinct. This is expressed in “secret societies, a language kept as far as possible secret, the use of false names in order to hide secret movements, and secret relations between various parts of the Jewish body (99).” Such behavior should be deplored because it “feeds and intensifies the antagonism already excited by racial contrast (100).” In particular, the author singles out the Jewish habit of denying the influence of his nationality upon his thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Belloc writes:
If a man tells me that he hates the English, and in reply I say, ‘That’s because you are an Irishman,’ he does not fly at my throat. He takes it as a matter of course that the history of the English government in Ireland excuses his expression. So far from being insulted at being called an Irishman he would be insulted if you said he was not an Irishman. And so it is with many another nationality which has suffered oppression and persecution. I can find no rational basis for a contrary policy in the case of the Jews (106).
But the Jews do, of course, pursue a different line of thought altogether. Accuse of Jew of bearing a grudge against Europeans for past conflict, and you will quickly find yourself accused of being a “rabid anti-Semite” or some such nonsense. Your crime has been to pierce the veil of secrecy thrown over Jewish nationality. His membership of the Jewish nation is a matter of private pride, and only the mask of outward patriotism to the goy State is permitted to be up for discussion. Thus, during World War II, New York Jews were protesting as democracy-loving Americans against the Jewish policies of National Socialist Germany. People like Charles Lindbergh, who dared to rip off the mask and describe the situation plainly, were monitored and attacked by the distinctly Hebraic Anti-Defamation League.[1]

Although he concedes that a great deal more could be written on the subject of Jewish secrecy, Belloc moves on to a discussion of expressions of Jewish superiority. He writes that “the Jew individually feels himself superior to his non-Jewish contemporary and neighbour of whatever race; the Jew feels his nation immeasurably superior to any other human community (108).” This fixed idea of superiority, linked to the concept of Jews as “a light unto the nations,” often creates friction.
The Jew will write of our religion, taking for granted that it is folly, and will marvel that we are offended. He will appear in our national affairs, not only giving advice, but attempting to direct policy, and will be puzzled to discover that his indifference to national feeling is annoying. He will postulate the Jewish temperament as something which, if different from ours, must, whether we like it or not, be thrust upon us. He acts in all these things as everyone acts instinctively in the presence of those whom they take for granted to be inferiors. (113)
This superiority also connects with Jewish contempt for the masses of non-Jews, particularly the rural folk.[2] Belloc writes that it is an overwhelming and incontrovertible truth that the bulk of Jewry makes no effort to get in touch with the race in the midst of which he may be living. He is content to remain separate from it, and deludes himself into the belief that he cannot help but remain separate from it. “He associates with the elite, with those who direct, with those who have some sort of special function (114).” But to him it seems, at best, a waste of time to attempt communion with the rest.

Jewish resentment is increased when his sense of superiority is forced to contend with the European’s own sense of superiority. He loathes this as insolence. (One is reminded of the hatred of Franz Boas toward the idea that Europeans were the pinnacle of humanity, a major motivation for his theory of cultural relativism; here, p. 24.) He feels his position and his security threatened. He attempts to gain a more solid position by extending his power, but succeeds only in provoking stronger assertions of superiority by the European, indignant at having to fight for mastery on his own soil. Friction escalates, and sometimes violence ensues.

Belloc concludes the chapter by urging the restraint of the sense of superiority by both parties, and the adoption of more natural and truthful societal positions — that of host and guest — with impermeable boundaries. Only by doing so can we avoid “falling back into the old circle of submission, consequent anger accompanied by shame and violence, and these followed by remorse (119).”

End of Part 2 of 3.

[1] B. Ginsberg, How The Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), p.46.

[2] A good example of the hostility toward rural folk by Jewish intellectuals can be seen in the New York Intellectuals. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with

nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Terry Cooney, The Rise of the New York Intellectuals 1986, 267–268; italics in text)