After the collapse of Communism, in 1991, Jewish intellectuals, all of them, and all over the world, worked tirelessly to set up “democratic” regimes ~ again, all over the world ~ and the constitution of a world government. It is quite obviously always the same plan: building the “Empire of Peace” (shalom), a “world without borders”, where men would be “free and equal”, and in which all identities will have disappeared forever ~ except for theirs.
By Hervé Ryssen
I. The Jewish Identity.................................................................... 5
II. Cosmopolitan Propaganda...................................................... 13
III. The New World Order.......................................................... 24
IV. Historical Traumas................................................................ 31
V. Anti-Semitism......................................................................... 43
VI. The Mafia.............................................................................. 55
VII. The Destruction of the Traditional Family............................... 66
VIII. The Psychopathology of “Anti-Semitism”............................. 72
IX. At Last: Psychoanalysis Explained........................................... 75
X. The Hysterical Sect................................................................ ...81
Judaism is not only not a religion ~ or not only ~ since many Jews declare themselves atheists; and are nonetheless no less “Jewish” for it. Marxist Jews in particular, who form the ruling elite in Western countries, are fanatical militants for atheism, according to the doctrines invented by one of their own: Karl Marx.
What, then, is Judaism? Let us ask Nahum Goldman, founder of the World Jewish Congress. From 1956 to 1968, Nahum Goldman was both President of the World Jewish Congress and President of the World Zionist Organisation. In 1976, he published a book entitled The Jewish Paradox. When someone asked him for his definition of Judaism, Nahum Goldman replied:
All the Jewish intellectuals who have approached the problem respond in the same way: Judaism, they invariably say, is an “enigma”, a “mystery”. These terms reappear regularly in nearly all Jewish writings. “The Jewish people do not know what they are”, wrote the philosopher Alain Finkelkraut (The Imaginary Jew). They are “an enigma to the contemporary mind” (Bernard-Henry Levy); they are a “mystery”, a “deeply distressing phenomenon” (Jean Daniel); “The Jews have been a living question mark to their surroundings for two thousand years” (André Glucksmann).
And all this ~ they think ~ despite the fact that they are supposed to be “God’s Chosen People”. While this doesn’t mean a lot to a goy, it is of utmost importance to a Jew.
In 1968, Bernard-Henry Levy, a well-known “French” philosopher who is very fond of media hype, declared, with regards to his book entitled The French Ideology ~ which was intended to make the French feel guilty ~ that: “I am a “Frenchman and, as a Frenchman, like no other French philosopher, I took the risk of conducting this inquiry into black France”. Twenty years later, in another book entitled “Recidivists”, published in 2004, he wrote that he felt “an extreme attachment to Israel... I am a Jew, of course, through my link to Israel. I am a Jew when, like all the world’s Jews, my heart beats in unison with those of the threatened Israelis”. And he continues: “I am a Jew; I am a Jew through every fibre of my being. I am a Jew through my slips of the tongue. I am a Jew for the alimentary rules which I have imposed upon myself... I am a Jew through my writing style... I am a Jew through this invisible pact which links me to the Jews of the whole world... I am a Jew through my Messianic patience.” Examples of this kind are not hard to find, since nearly all Jewish intellectuals have expressed this same paradox in the same terms. The word “paradox” reappears regularly in the writings of all Jewish intellectuals, all over the world, throughout all history: this is not an accident.
Many Jews change their names or transform their original family names, mimicking the local language. Thus, “Minkowski” becomes “Minc”; “Shapiro” becomes “Chapiraud” or “Chapier”. The make-up job may be exaggerated to a greater or lesser degree: “Aaron” becomes “Nora”, “Nussenbaum” becomes “Rochebrune”.
The actor Kirk Douglas (”Demsky”) preferred a Scottish name. The head of the French diplomatic service under President Sarkozy, Jean-David Levitt, is obviously a “Levi”.
Thus it is that second-rate writers like Philip Roth, Imre Kertesz, Yasmira Reza or Jonathan Littell are elevated to the rank of “geniuses of humanity”, raking in literary prizes in the process. Kafka, of course, becomes “the greatest writer in German history”, while Vassili Grossman becomes “the Tolstoy of the twentieth century”. Ironically, it is precisely through this very tendency to heap exaggerated praise on each other that we infallibly recognise Jewish journalists behind their pilfered cognomens.
The famous writer Elie Wiesel heartily confirms the notion that the Jews are a nation apart, and that it is correct to consider them “strangers” living amongst “other peoples”. In his book, Testament of a Murdered Jewish Poet (1980), he writes explicitly:
“The greatest danger threatening Jewish life comes not from anti-Semitism or persecution, but from assimilation and mixed marriages”. Jewish intellectuals often repeat this slogan: the number of mixed marriages each year amounts to “several trainloads departing for Auschwitz”. Rabbis never tire of warning young Jews against this plague, while attempting to obtain from them the solemn promise to marry only another Jew.
On the other hand, it is very difficult for a goy to convert to Judaism. When a non-Jew wants to convert, it is the custom to discourage him, snub him, make him feel unwelcome. It is always simpler for a goyische woman to marry a Jew.
Jews live in the constant shadow of their own ghetto, associating with fellow Jews almost exclusively.
“The ghetto is historically a Jewish invention”, writes Nahum Goldman. “It is incorrect to say that the goyim forced the Jews to separate themselves from their societies. By the time the Christians even noticed the existence of the ghettoes, the Jews were already living there.” This same truth has been expressed by many other Jews as well (see our History of Anti-Semitism, 2010).
In a book published in 1982 and prefaced by the Grand Rabbi of France, Ernest Gugenheim expresses this feeling of belonging: “Israel forms a united body into which its members are firmly welded”. Nahum Goldman cites the famous verse from the Talmud: “One single Jew is like all of Judaism”. This is why Jewish intellectuals often write “the Jew” to speak of the Jews.
Endogamous marriage is one reason for the amazing similarity in the facial characteristics of Jews all over the world. The very influential Alain Minc, for example, bears a very close resemblance to Paul Wolfowitz, one of the “hawks” in the American government during the Second Iraq War (2003). Elie Wiesel father bore an extraordinary resemblance to that of Bela Kun (Cohen), the leader of the Communist Revolution in Hungary in 1919. This explains the clichés observable in all “anti-Semitic cartoons” ~ particularly, cartoons published before WWII, when there was no plastic surgery and mixed marriages were less common.
In actual fact, however, the lugubrious warnings against mixed marriages issued by Jewish leaders the world over fail to prevent a significant number of Jews from marrying goyim. Sometimes their children are as Jewish as their parents, at least in spirit; but sometimes their Jewishness is lost, sometimes in the very first generation, if not later ~ a fact which fills the rabbis with anguish.
In the perfect world which they believe they are creating, all conflict will have completely vanished from the face of the earth ~ particularly, conflict between nations. That is why, wherever they settle, Jews militate ceaselessly and untiringly for the elimination of all borders and the breakdown of all national identity. Nation states are the cause of war and disorder; they must, therefore, be hollowed out from within and without, and ~ in the long run ~ eliminated entirely, replaced by World Government, solely capable of bringing about the reign of human felicity and endless prosperity on Earth.
The aim is to unify the world by all means possible, levelling all cultural differences, which are believed to be the source of conflict. Jewish intellectuals, all over the world, work without letup for this ideal. Whether Left or Right, Marxist or liberal, believers or atheists, Zionists or “perfectly integrated”, Jews are the world’s most fervent advocates of the Talmudic messianic global empire.
Judaism is, therefore, essentially a universalist political project, the objective of which is the unification of the world, as the prelude to global pacification. It is a long, difficult job, they admit, but the Jews are absolutely convinced that they can succeed in achieving this aim, obsessed, as they are, with the “Mission” entrusted to them by God. Or as the prophet Isaiah puts it: “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them...” (Isaiah, XI, 6-9).
Contrary to Christianity or Islam, the Jews do not intend to convert others to Judaism; rather, the intend simply to persuade them to renounce their religion, their race, their identity, their family and all their traditions, in the name of “Humanity”, and “Human Rights”. This Global Empire, in fact, can only be built upon the ruins of great civilizations, using the human detritus produced by so-called “democratic societies” and the capitalist system.
“Cosmopolitan” (i.e., Jewish) propaganda always aims at the dissolution of all ancestral values and identities, so as to eliminate the supposed “sources of conflict between men”. The Jews militate continually towards this goal. The Jews are a people of propagandists.
This Messianic “Waiting for Godeau” is the driving force of Judaism, since it obliges every Jew to struggle actively to “hasten the coming of the Messiah” (this is a very common expression). It is from this Messianic tension that the Jews derive their strength and energy. It is in fact the Jews themselves who, through their militancy, their untiring egalitarian propaganda in favour of a “world without borders”, are fated to establish the world of “peace” to hasten the arrival of the Messiah.
In his book Five New Lectures on the Talmud (1977) the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas projects Jewish singularity onto a universal level, and speaks of “the suffering of Israel as universal suffering”.
Jacques Attali says the same thing in The Jews, The World and Money (2002): “A misfortune for the Jewish people is a misfortune for all men”, taking the same logic even further: “The disappearance of the Temple was also a tragedy for all non-Jews, since the Hebrews prayed for them: they know not what they have lost”.
Elie Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in late 1986. In his “Oslo Speech”, pronounced on this occasion, he spoke ~ as was his custom ~ of “Hope”, of “Humanity” and “Peace” on Earth: “Jewish suffering should be of concern to all of humanity. The day will come when crimes against the Jews will be considered crimes against humanity and crimes against humanity as crimes against the Jewish people”. Under these conditions, “anti-Semitism” is not just a “Jewish matter”: it is a matter of concern to “Everyone”.
This was the great ambition of Louis Lazaré Zamenhof. A young man descended from the Jewish aristocracy of Poland, his entire life was dedicated, from a very early age, to the invention of a language which was to be understood by everyone, based on common roots from most of the wide-spread languages.
This dream led to the publication of the founding work of Esperanto, Fundamento de Esperanto in 1887. Zamenhof explained: “If I were not a Jew from the ghetto, the idea of uniting humanity either would never have entered my mind, or would not have obsessed me so obstinately throughout my entire life”. And he repeated: “My Jewishness was the principal cause for which I dedicated myself to one idea and to an essential dream, from my youngest childhood, the dream of uniting humanity.”
II: COSMOPOLITAN PROPAGANDA
Jewish intellectuals exhibit a certain characteristic inclination towards enormous untruths. They will tell you, for example, that immigration hasn’t really increased at all; on the contrary, it has never been so low! This inclination to treat the goyim like a load of simple-minded fools is called “chutzpah” (pronounced with a German-style guttural “r”). The demographer Gerard Noiriel, the essayist Guy Sorman, the sociologist Edgar Morin (Nahoum), the philosopher Alain Finkelkraut and diplomat Stephane Hessel, for example, became famous for these little exercises.
To the general public, this unceasing, indefatigable, planetary propaganda is most obvious in film production. All Jewish film producers have released at least one or more films advocating race-mixing and the “multicultural society”. Just watch the films by Claude Longmann, known as “Berri” (One Stays, The Other Leaves); Matthieu Kassovitz (Café au lait, White Nightmare); Claude Lelouch (Itinerary of a Spoilt Child; Smic Smac Smoc), Francois Luciani (The Man Who Came from Somewhere Else) Edouard Molinaro (The Hearts of Men), Gerard Oury ~ at the end of The Adventures of Rabbi Jacob, the Arab Slimane, naturally, marries Pivert’s daughter ~ Robert Guédignan (Where the Heart Is). Guédignan also produced Marius and Jeanette, in which the main character, Jeanette, lives alone in Marseilles with her two children, fathered by two different men. The older daughter has been duped by a cad who deserted her ~ a white man (naturally) ~ while her 12-year old is an African half-caste who “works very well at school”, etc.
Renaud Cohen is a small-time producer, but his film Once We Grow Up (2001) is rather eloquent: the main character, Simon Dadoun, is a thirty-year old Jewish journalist. He breaks up with his girl friend (a goy) and meets a Sephardic Jewess, like himself. The French, by contrast, are depicted as much inclined towards race-mixing: Both of Simon Dadoun’s friends, in fact, are interracially married: one to an Asian, the other to a Senegalese. The same film also defends lesbianism ~ again ~ in a highly “multicultural” context.
Or just watch the films by Bernard Stora (Another Life), Giles Pacquet-Brenner (Gomez and Tavares), Daniel Vignes (Fatou from Mali), Dominique Baron (The Tress of Aminata), Cedric Kahn (Too Much Happiness), Nicolas Ribowski (Perigord Noir), etc. In The Enchanted Parentheses (1999), by Michael Spinosa, the French are once again depicted as fated to mate with Blacks and Orientals. The producer also depicts adultery, Marxism, feminism, etc., with great indulgence.
“American” Jewish film producers are obsessed with these same things as well. You really must see films like Roland Emmerich’s (The Day After Tomorrow, 2004), or Marc Forster’s (Monster’s Ball). In Love Field (1993), Jonathan Kaplan tells the story of a beautiful blonde who leaves her idiot of a husband and falls in love with a Black.
In Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967), a young beauty introduces her husband to her parents. Her husband is a Black, likeable, cultured, and intelligent. His natural charm and niceness overcome the instinctive and vicious mistrust of her bourgeois white parents. The film, by Stanley Kramer, naturally won ten Oscar nominations.
You can go much further back than that if you wish: West Side Story, by Robert Wise (1961), is a musical propaganda film in favour of the “multicultural society”. In 1950, No Way Out told the story of a black intern in a hospital. It was a plea against “racism” by Joseph Mankiewicz.
Today, early in the 21st century, this propaganda is becoming even more extreme. The television series “Life’s So Sweet” shows young white women mating with Blacks, while young white men are depicted as homosexuals.
All the screen plays for the films listed above were written by Olivier Schulzinger; in fact, any time you see a white woman paired off with a Negro on the screen, you can be very sure that you’re watching something produced by the “Chosen Ones”. As we can easily see, the Jews are totally obsessed with race-mixing and ethnic mixing; but one must, of course, bear in mind that this “line of goods” is intended for “export only”.
In “cosmopolitan” Jewish cinema, psychopaths and villains are invariably depicted as possessing typically Nordic traits, complete with blonde hair and blue eyes. This is not an accident. In The Crimson Rivers (2000), for example, Matthieu Kassovitz shows us dangerous “neo-Nazis” torturing and massacring innocent people.
Six-Pack (1999) is a film by Alain Berberian: a Parisian commissioner of police is anxious to capture a serial killer who has already killed and mutilated five young women. The “bad guys” (the chief of police, the psychopath) are played by Nordics, while the “good guys” (Commissioner Nathan, Inspector Saul), are, once again, are played by very typical Mediterranean-types.
“American” film directors are animated by all these same hatreds. In Panic Room (2001), by David Fincher, three criminals break into a house. The gang leader is a white man, a very frightening, unpredictable, highly nervous person, who ends up with a bullet in the head. The second criminal ~ another white man ~ seems very calm, but is, in reality, an extremely dangerous psychopath and “mad-dog killer”. The third, a Negro, is intelligent and humane. None of this is by accident.
See Runaway Jury, by Garry Fleder; The Green Line, by Frank “Darabont”; Fatal Obsession, by Jonathan Kaplan; Ragtime, by Milos Forman; or Barton Fink, by the Cohen Brothers, and you will see that the “bad guys” are systematically depicted as white men, and white men only. In Cop Land (1995), by the extremely sly James “Mangold” (Goldman), the “bad guys” are all white cops, while on the other side of the river, in New York, the “multiracial” police are portrayed with the greatest sympathy.
In the comedy entitled Addams Family Values (1993) the characters whom the audience initially mistakes for the “bad guys” ~ real villains ~ are, in fact, very nice (with very black hair), while the “bad guys” are invariably blonde-haired children. The film is by Barry Sonnenfeld.
Mississippi Burning (1988) by Alan Parker is an attack on the Ku Klux Klan. In a little village in the southern United States, the whites are all bigoted, racially-prejudiced cowards, narrow-minded, evil, and downright contemptible. The women are depicted as intimidated, bullied into submission, dreaming only of escape.
In Alien 3 (1992), a space ship crashes on a planet where the “Company” once built a penitentiary for dangerous criminals: killers, rapists, and psychopaths. The “bad guys” attempting to rape the heroine are, of course, all white, while the “good guy” who rescues her from this terrifying predicament is a huge Negro, the only mentally-balanced person among the prisoners: he’s the boss. This film was also produced by an “alien”: David Fincher.
In the 1960s, Jewish film makers did everything they could to make white people feel guilty. Just watch films like In the Heat of the Night (1967), by Normal Jewison (who won five Oscars for it), The Cardinal (1963), by Otto Preminger or Wild River by Elia Kazan (1960).
In Betrayed (USA, 1989), Constantin Costa-Gavras denounces the paramilitary militia of the American “Extreme Right”: a beautiful young FBI agent, a woman, is ordered to infiltrate them. The main villain, “Gary”, falls quickly in love with her, and reveals his true nature as a dangerous psychopath with blue eyes. The “Right-Wing” militia groups, we learn, are supported by powerful financiers and major political figures!
Harping on this same ridiculous theme of “Fascism in the Service of Big Money” is a characteristic of several other films.
In The Inheritor, by Philippe Labro (France, 1972), the hero (Jean-Paul Belmondo) returns to the USA to inherit an industrial empire. He discovers that his father had been murdered by his father-in-law, the director of an industrial group who is also the financier behind a “neo-Fascist” party. At least that’s what the director ~ (Jacques Lanzmann) would like to have us to believe...
In A Billion Dollars (France, 1981), a journalist discovers that GT1, a multinational corporation, worked for the Nazis. Since his boss refuses to continue the inquiry, the journalist goes into hiding and article is published by a small local newspaper. The big newspapers, of course, are entirely controlled by “fascists”. The film is by Henri Verneuil (Achod Malakian), who was not a “fascist”… This is what is called “accusatory inversion”, i.e., “Freudian projection”.
The Dead Poets Society was filmed in 1990. The film shows us an elite boarding school in the USA, an old and noble institution intended for the sons of high society. A literature professor upsets the lives of the students and dynamites the “dusty old values” of these “narrow-minded Christians”. This film, which invites us to reject traditions and norms, was directed by Peter Weir.
This is also the message of a film called School Ties by Robert Mandel (1992): The main character, “David Greene” joins one of the most prestigious preparatory schools in New England. His athletic and intellectual talents naturally make him the star of the institution in a few weeks. But to be accepted by his wealthy schoolmates, filled with anti-Semitic prejudice, and gain the love of a young girl from a good family, he is compelled to hide his Jewishness... until one day the truth explodes. At this moment, we understand that Christians are truly filthy people.
In the same genre, Marin Karmitz’s film, Blow for Blow (1971) is in the same genre: in a confectionary factory, the workers suffer intolerable and infernal working hours and conditions. A wildcat strike breaks out: the boss, kidnapped, humiliated and intimidated, is forced to capitulate. Like many of his fellow-Jews, Marin Karmitz made the transition from “Far-Left” to “Hard” “Liberal Right” early in the 21st century: the only problem now is how to “consolidate” the “multiracial society”.
The aggressiveness of cosmopolitan Jewish directors against the European world finds expression once again in The Servant (1963): a young English aristocrat, full of arrogance, hires a domestic servant in his service. The aristocrat quickly plunges into alcoholism and decadence, while the servant, highly dignified, comes to exercise an increasingly greater domination over his master. This tendency systematically to gravitate towards “inverted values” is very typical of the Hebraic mentality. The film is by Joseph Losey, based on a screenplay by Harold Pinter (Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005), who succeeded his fellow-Jew Elfriede Jelink.
The Middle Ages are always depicted in the darkest colours. We are told that the lords were always wicked and cruel: see The War Lord (USA, 1965). In the 11th century, the local lord notices a young peasant girl while out hunting. She is engaged to be married, and just as they are about to celebrate their nuptials, the lord enforces his jus primae noctis (an invention of French republicans in the 19th century). The film is by Franklin Schaffner.
The producer Rob Cohen manipulates the same story in his way in a “multicultural” sense in the film Medieval (USA, 2009): this is the story of a monk, a knight, a samurai, a Zulu, an Arab, a gypsy and a Viking ~ all in the Middle Ages!
The same contempt for traditional civilization may also be found in amusing cartoons, like Shrek (USA, 2001), set, once again. “Shrek” is a gentle, lovable ogre who lives in a remote forest. He confronts a dreadful dragon and rescues a beautiful princess. The king is a stubborn, ridiculous nabob (which is not in the European tradition at all) who wants to marry the princess, too, but Shrek, who has fallen in love with her, saves her from the coerced match in the cathedral in which the marriage is to be celebrated. The smashing of the stained glass window of the cathedral by the dragon, who forces his way inside, interrupting the forced nuptials, is supposed to be “symbolic”. Directed by Ted Elliott.
The Truman Show (USA, 1998) is a typical film: Truman is a man who is unaware that he only the unsuspecting star of a TV show. His surroundings are nothing but a set. All the people around him are actors, and he is the only one who doesn’t know it. The director’s intention was attack the papier maché society which serves as the stage set for Truman’s life: its hypocrisy, its false happiness. This hypocritical society is a WASP society in which there are no drugs, no delinquency, and no porn. In escaping from this world which is “closed, fragile, closed on itself”, Truman experiences the joys of indiscriminate sex, drugs and ethnic chaos. One could hardly expect any different from the director of the Dead Poets Society, Peter Weir.
“Cosmopolitan” film makers do not just attack European culture alone. Wherever Jews settle, they set about to undermine, mock, ridicule and attack all local elites so as to replace them.
Here is a “Tamil” film: A Donkey in the Brahmin Ghetto (India, 1977). A donkey sneaks into a village enclave reserved for the superior caste of Brahmins and is adopted as a mascot. The donkey induces miraculous visions in the priests, and the animal quickly becomes an object of veneration. This sarcastic film is signed “John Abraham”, no doubt a pure-blooded “Tamil”.
Or take a look at Ankur [“The Seedling”] (India, 1974): in an Indian village, a peasant woman, servant to a property owner, is seduced by her patron. The patron commits a number of serious crimes against the peasants with impunity, but revolt is brewing... Shyam Benegal, the director, is, of course, a “Hindu”.
Judaism, we see, is a dissolving force in all nations in which it is introduced. The Jews like to “break down barriers”, “shatter taboos”, as they themselves very often say. Nahum Goldman, the founder of the World Jewish Congress, wrote very explicitly, “This is the way it is: Jews are revolutionaries for other peoples, but not for themselves”.
Jean-Jacques Annaud’s beautiful film, The Name of the Rose (France, 1986), is taken from a novel by the world-famous Italian author Umberto Eco: the film is a crime drama set in a monastery in Northern Italy in the early 14th century. The film is littered with medieval clichés: all the monks, without exception, are abnormal. They grease their palms off the peasants who bring them their miserable harvests, while the peasants live in the filth and garbage tossed to them by the monks. The Catholic Church from top to bottom is just a perversion: the monks keep people in servitude and fear of the Devil, while jealously guarding the marvels contained in their Greek books which threaten to destabilise their power. Of course, it all ends up in torture and the stake. The film was produced with the collaboration of Jacques Le Goff, an historian of the Marxist school. If anyone cares to take a non-Marxist glimpse at the magnificent epoch which was the Middle Ages, one should read the short book by Regine Permond entitled Pour en Finir avec le Moyen Age (“Finishing Off the Middle Ages”), (1977). Let us note that at no time during the entire film is there any question of a rose… The title is obviously intended for initiates in the Kabbala; in this regard, we note that the author of this tale, Umberto Eco, in 2005, also wrote the preface to a book entitled Messianic Mystics, in which he establishes a parallel between Hebraic messianism and Marxism.
Among Jewish American directors, anti-Christian hatred is expressed in the same manner. In Seven (1995), a Catholic sex pervert has undertaken to commit seven murders symbolizing his hatred of the seven capital sins: a film by David Fincher.
In The Shawshank Redemption (1994), the prison warden turns out to be the real villain; at the same time, of course, he is a very pious Christian. The film is signed Frank “Darabont”. In The Favour, the Watch and the Very Big Fish (1991), film maker Ben Lewin displays his disgust with Christianity.
In The Last Temptation of Christ, by Martin Scorsese (1998), Christ begins to dream of what his life could have been like with Mary Magdalene. We see Jesus make love to her. This film is an adaptation of a novel by Niko Kazantzakis.
In Agnes of God, by Norman Jewison (1985), The Verdict, by Sydney Lumet (1982), Papillon, by Franklin Schaffner (1973), Elmer Gantry, by Richard Brooks (1960), the Christian characters, priests and nuns, are regularly portrayed as villains.
Jewish film directors also appear to derive pleasure, in their films, from disrupting Catholic ceremonies. In the comedy In and Out (USA, 1997) for example, a marriage ceremony is taking place. At the very moment when they about to say “Yes” before the entire family and assembled congregation, the groom refuses, and announces in a low tone, with an air of resignation, that he is “gay”. Stupefaction. The ceremony breaks up in an uproar, and the couple quarrel violently in public. The film is directed by Frank Oz.
The film Hair (USA, 1979) contains a sacrilegious scene set in a church: a group of long-haired hippies, high on acid, transform a marriage ceremony into a Black Mass, complete with ecstatic dances, as if they were all possessed by the Devil. In actual fact, however, these contortions resemble the ceremonies of Hassidic Jews more than anything else. The film director is the “Czech” Milos Forman.
In The Fifth Element, a film by Luc Besson (1997), the President of the United States is Black. In Deep Impact (USA, 1998), a gigantic asteroid is about to crash into the Earth. The planet is saved in extremis by the American President, who is Black. In Bruce Almighty (USA, 2003), a Black plays the role of God. The film was directed by Tom Shadyac, based on a screenplay by Steve Koren. David Palmer, President of the United States in the TV series 24, is yet again played by a Black actor.
All this propaganda was no doubt intended to pave the way for the forthcoming election, by the American people, in November 2008, of the first Black President of the United States.
In February 2001, the Minister of Research, Roger-Gerard Schwartzenberg, stated: “The races do not exist”. The September 2001 of the UNESCO Courier (publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), contains lengthy claims in this sense: “The human genome has been decoded at last. The endpoint of this project invalidates the myth of races. Genetic research has established that we all descend from one same common ancestor, born in Africa.”
The famous geneticist, Axel Kahn, who was one of the organizers of the World Congress “against racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance”, held in September 2001 at Durban, South Africa, confirmed: “All men are in fact of a great genetic homogeneity, since their common ancestor is very young in terms of the evolution of life; he lived more than 200,000 years ago in Africa.” You gotta believe it!
Men in Black (USA, 1997) is a film which teaches us to welcome foreigners ~ all foreigners ~ even extra-terrestrials. We don’t know it yet, but there are already large numbers of them living among us; they have taken human shape. Members of a special governmental agency are responsible for regulating the flow of this “new kind of immigrant”, and to keep the existence of these extra-terrestrials secret so as to avoid alarming the population. Two super special agents, one Black and one White, are assigned to track down a hostile alien. The film was adapted by Barry Sonnenfeld from a screenplay by Ed Solomon. It was also produced by Steven Spielberg. All these directors and script writers are “extra-terrestrials disguised as human beings” and “agents of the Matrix”.
John Carpenter is the director of They Live (USA, 1988); the hero, Nada, thanks to special eye glasses, discovers that a small proportion of the population are composed of extra-terrestrials who look just like human beings. These aliens form an elite which governs the world through lies and corruption. These special eyeglasses also permit him to read subliminal messages on advertising panels, which order submission of all humans. They are everywhere, they own everything, you just can’t see it!
In Raiders of the Lost Ark (USA, 1980), by Steven Spielberg, we understand that the power of Yahweh is far too tremendous for us even to dream of resisting it.
In 1945, the famous scientist, Albert Einstein, was one of the first major personalities in the modern world explicitly to demand the founding of a world government. This is perhaps one of the reasons why he is the object of such adulation, since his scientific aura has long since been seriously tarnished (cf. Les Esperances Planetaires, by myself, 2005).
In his Dictionary of the 21st Century, Jacques Attali is very explicit. According to him, the New World Order must be capable of exercising an “implacable domination” if necessary. “An international peace organization”, he says, “will begin to be envisaged together with the initial discussions aimed at establishing a world government”. Globalization will finally come to term: “After the creation of European continental institutions, the urgent need for this type of world government will perhaps appear”.
This type of declaration does not prevent Jewish intellectuals, as a whole, from sobbing and screaming vociferously the moment anyone even mentions the famous Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion ~ a “forgery”, according to them, but one which magnificently describes the contemporary world.
This idea is confirmed by the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (Difficult Freedom, 1963), “The very idea of a fraternal humanity, all united in the same destiny, is a Mosaic revelation”.
Jewish intellectuals always insist on the notion that fulfilment of their philosophy of world unification is “inevitable”, as if the program had been appeared in a book of prophecies – except that we don’t know which one; Karl Marx Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolshevik revolutionaries in 1917 all said the same things!
The famous George Soros, a Jewish speculator of Hungarian origin, was also a star of Wall Street. He is one of the richest men in the world, and the symbol of international speculation. His personal fortune is estimated at 70 billion dollars. In 1992 he rose to the pinnacle of his glory by successfully pulling off one of the greatest financial coups of the century. In a few days, sensing the weakness of the British pound, he mobilised some ten billion dollars against the pound sterling. The Bank of England vacillated before his speculative assaults, and was finally compelled to devaluate and withdraw the pound from the European monetary system.
Soros became “The Man who Broke the Bank of England”, pocketing more than a billion dollars in a week.
George Soros is also a “philanthropist”. The Soros foundation “for an open society” teaches “tolerance” and the “democratic values” of an “open society”. The billionaire finances cultural and scientific projects, and subsidises “the independent and democratic press”. In his last book, published in 2006 (The Great World Disorder), the speculator unveils a few bits of information on his role in the various recent “democratic” revolutions: the “Pink Revolution” in Georgia, in 2003; the “Orange Revolution”, in the Ukraine, in 2004; as well as in the bombardments of little nationalist Serbia.
In 1999, the person responsible for the mass bombing of Serbia was none other than Madeleine K. “Albright”, who had been propelled into the State Department by Bill Clinton. “Albright” was in fact the family name of a husband whom she divorced, while the “K” referred to Korbel, a Jewish family from Czechoslovakia. At the Ministry of Defense, there was William Cohen, while a certain Samuel Berger occupied the strategic position of Head of National Security, etc.
Soros also took a position in favour of a military intervention against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, for professing an “obscurantist” religion: “I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, Ben Laden’s country of residence and the location of the Al-Qaeda training camps”.
Soros, who is ~ naturally ~ very much concerned about “European” interests, is naturally the apostle of mass immigration and the entry of Turkey into the European Union: “With an aging population, immigration is an economic necessity”, he writes. “As the prototype of open world societies, Europe must welcome immigration and the adhesion of new members”.
It should furthermore be noted at this point that in 2010, the President of the IMF was a Zionist named Dominique Strauss-Kahn; and that the President of the World Bank is one of his fellow Jews, Robert Zoellick. The Federal Reserve Board, which contributed largely to the “sub-prime” crisis through its lax monetary policies, thus triggering a financial crash, was directed by the Jew Alan Greenspan until 2006, before being relieved by another Jew, Ben Bernanke.
Here is the consortium of the eight private banks which own the Fed, the central bank of the United States. Rotschild, Lazard Brothers, Israel Moses Seaf, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Warburg, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Rockefeller. As for the Rockefellers, who pretend to be descended from Puritan Protestants, they are simply what is known as “synthetic Jews”.
In 2007, a study published by Vanity Fair, a large American magazine, shows that of the one hundred richest people in the country, more than half were Jews. Since they are very well organized and stick together, and since they own all the communications media, their influence over each and every government – one after the other – is incomparably greater than anyone else’s. There are poor Jews, of course, but it remains true nonetheless that Jews are greatly over-represented among the Earth’s billionaires.
An article in the 26 February 2008 issue of the Jerusalem Post informs us that the Jews are “the wealthiest religious group in the USA”, with 46% of them earning six-figure annual incomes, while only 18% of all other Americans earned that much. None of these considerations has ever deterred Jewish intellectuals from regularly complaining of “the odious prejudices of an earlier time”.
Ardent war-mongers like Elie Wiesel never hesitate to drape themselves in the great ideals of “peace and love” so as better to advocate war against Iraq in 1991: “It is not simply a question of helping Kuwait”, he said at the time, “it is a question of protecting the entire Arab world”. All Westerners were therefore to mobilize themselves against the “Butcher of Baghdad”. “Against war, it is imperative to make war. Against the destructive force which it employs against humanity, it is necessary to oppose an even greater force so that humanity may live. It is a question of the security of the entire civilized world, of its right to peace, and not just the future of Israel... Thirst for vengeance? No: thirst for justice. And peace.”
The Jewish lobby has been extremely powerful in all American governments for many decades. Many Jews ~ most of them former Left-wingers, having recently converted to “Neo-Conservativism” ~ were very powerful in the government of George W. Bush: Paul Wolfowitz was Secretary of State for Defense, after which he was appointed to the position of head of the World Bank. Richard Perle headed the management office of the Pentagon; Douglas Feith was the Vice-Secretary of Defense; Michael Rubin was in charge of Iran-Iraq, etc.
The Jerusalem Post of 25 April 2006 gloated: “After appointing Joshua Bolten secretary general of the White House, President George Bush has chosen another Jew, Joel Kaplan, as Bolten’s adjutant”. He also appointed other Jews as collaborators, such as the Secretary of State for the Interior Michael Chertoff, the Adjutant Security Advisor Elliott Abrams and the pillar of the White House, Jay Lefkowitz, etc.
In issue number 1 of The Weekly Standard of 1 October 2001, Zionists Robert Kagan and William Kristol demanded action aimed at “regime change” in Iraq as soon as the Taliban in Afghanistan were defeated. The manipulation of information led the public to believe that Saddam Hussein, the “new Hitler”, constituted a terrible threat.
As soon as the problem of Iraq was settled and Iranian President Ahmadinejad came to be known as the spokesman for world resistance to the globalist empire, the war-mongering of numerous Jewish intellectuals was once again obvious. In France, Bernard-Henri Levy and his fellow Jews denounced the “Islamo-fascists of Teheran”.
Minister Bernard Kouchner, apostle of the “right of intervention”, the dream of sending French soldiers to fight once again to defend Israeli interests. “Bringing democracy”, they call it ~ just another example of Westerners going to war against the “enemies of civilization” and “humanity”.
Israel, in fact, almost never fights its war except with other people’s blood.
Policy objectives are constantly inverted by obvious media propaganda. The famous American writer Norman Mailer, for example, assured us, in his book Why We Are at War (2003), that the only persons responsible for American imperialism were the Neo-con Christians. “Upon the fall of the Soviet Union, the chauvinist conservatives saw their chance to rule the world...” This is a perfect example of Freudian projection and a complete inversion of the truth.
Hollywood is naturally responsible for planetary propaganda. In the 1980s and 90s alone, we counted a at least thirty films showing Arabs attempting to reduce the “free” world to servitude.
In Rules of Engagement by Willian Friedkin (USA, 2000), the American ambassador to Yemen is threatened by a crowd manipulated by Moslems. The latter are so contemptible that the audience applauds when American marines begin to massacre them.
Holy Union by Alexandre Arcady (1989) is pure caricature. The wicked Moslems who threaten democracy are depicted as ferocious animals. All French girls are depicted as seem destined to mate with Jews and Arabs.
Again, in the same genre, we have: Curfew by Edward Zwick (USA, 1998), Delta Force, by Menahem Golan, (USA, 1986), Return to the Future, by Robert Zemeckis (USA, 1985), Black Sunday, by John Frankenheimer (USA, 1977), etc.
In Network (USA, 1976), we understand that the Arabs and their petro-dollars are purchasing America wholesale. An announcer calls upon TV viewers to revolt. This film, by Sydney Lumet, is an accusatory projection.
Since the second Intifada, in September 2000, and the incidents exploding in the French “suburbs” (immigrant slums), the Jews realized that the danger, for them, was no longer a question of “Extreme Right wingers”, but, rather, from Islam and young Afro-Maghrebin immigrants. This is what made many Jewish intellectuals rally to the “hard”, “liberal”, “pro-American” right: Andre Glucksmann, Alexandre Adler, Marc Weitzmann, Pascal Bruckner, Romain Goupil, Alain Finkielkraut, and the “Peruvian” novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, pursuing their objectives in a slightly different way: the problem now of “consolidating our multicultural society” which the Jews have worked so hard to create, but which now threatens to come apart at the seams.
And Wiesel continues: “No war in history had been welcomed with so much passion and fervour. Ready to offer ourselves, to do anything to vanquish the worst enemies of our people and of humanity”.
At this point, we are reminded of a Roman Polanksi film called The Pianist (2001), in which a Polish Jewish family from Warsaw are reunited around an underground radio set, exploding with joy at the announcement of the French and British entry into the war: “Wonderful!”
In the film by Ariel Zeitoun, Navel of the World (1993), we once again see Tunisian Jews delirious with joy at the announcement of the French declaration of war against Germany.
The “pacifist” Albert Einstein was transmogrified into a furious war-monger in 1933, following the accession of Hitler to power. The English, French and Americans were supposed to go off and fight to save “Democracy”. The Jews, as we see, are always working to establish “Permanent World Peace”.
Everything here is a question of vocabulary. Everybody is for “peace”. After crushing their enemies, everybody is for “peace”.
Nevertheless, faced with certain extraordinary testimonies, a logical person can sometimes feel he has the right to ask whether these are not just Hollywood scenarios.
We find for example, a few terrifying anecdotes from the work of the famous Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal. First, there is “Tom Mix”, “whose favourite pastime was to ride through the camp on horseback and shoot and random at the prisoners”. And here we have the SS killing baby Jews by “throwing them against a wall”. And how about this: “Babies were thrown in the air like packages”. “I personally”, writes Wiesenthal, “took the testimony of a man who had seen Mengele throw a living baby into the flames. Another witness said that one day, Mengele killed a 14-year old girl by stabbing her with a bayonet”. The following is an example of the horrors of which Dr. Mengele was capable: “Mengele sacrificed thousands of twins taken all over Europe, giving them painful injections to try to change the colour of their eyes” (The Murderers Among Us”, 1967).
Martin Gray, in For Those I Loved, says that, he removed the bodies from the gas chamber at Auschwitz immediately after the gassings, without even a gas mask, while the highly toxic hydrocyanic acid still impregnated the clothing and bodies of the victims: “Among the warm bodies, we found still-living infants. Just children, huddled against the bodies of their mothers. And we strangled them with our bare hands, before throwing them into the pit: and we risked our lives doing that, since we were wasting time... The butchers wanted everything to happen quickly.” One of his comrades had see “the Germans set fire to what had been a hospital in the ghetto, he saw them fracture the skulls of new-born babies against the walls, slit open the bellies of pregnant women, throw the sick into the flames. He saw it”.
Wladyslaw Szpilman also left a poignant testimony. His book, entitled The Pianist, published in 1946, tells the extraordinary story of a Jewish musician in the Warsaw ghetto. With his own eyes, he described how he saw the bodies of young girls: “They had been murdered according a method which was dear to the hearts of the Nazi occupants: held by the legs and thrown head first against the bricks”.
Elie Wiesel, in Night (1958), tells of his sojourn at Auschwitz between April 1944 and January 1945. In the original first edition, he never mentioned any “gas chambers”, which only appeared in the German version, Die Nacht zu Begraben, Elischa. Every time the word “crematorium” appeared in the original, the translator, Meyer-Clason, translated it as “gas chamber”.
In the absence of any “gas chambers”, Wiesel saw what nobody else ever saw: “Not far from us, flames, huge flames, were rising from a ditch. Something was being burned there. A truck drew close and unloaded its hold. Small children. Babies! Yes, I did see this, with my own eyes... children in the flames.”
What Elie Wiesel saw is simply unheard of. But what he heard is perhaps more so. In Against Silence (1985), he describes the massacres at Babi-Yar, in the Ukraine, where the Germans executed Soviet citizens, including numerous Jews: “Later, I heard from a witness that, during months and months, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood had squirted forth”. You gotta believe it!
In the April 2003 issue of Israel magazine, Fredric Sroussi wrote in all seriousness: “The Latvian Waffen SS officer Herberts Curkurs made a ‘hobby’ of throwing babies into the air and shooting them in the head, like a ball-trap.” Later on, we will see the reason for this obsession with babies and young children.
Edmond Fleg (Flegenheimer), in his book Why I Am a Jew also spoke of these atrocities: “These eviscerated women, old men buried alive, children thrown naked into the flames. I wanted to rise up and cry with all my heart, cry the martyrdom to the whole universe”. This quotation may be found on page 45 of his book... which was published in 1928... that is, eleven years before the beginning of a Second World War!
Simon Wiesenthal also claims that the Germans transformed the Jews into bars of soap: “The crates bore the initials RIF ~ Rein jüdisches Fett... It was in the General Government and the factory was in Galicia, at Belzec. Nine hundred thousand Jews were utilised as the raw material in this factory, from April 1942 until May 1943.” But, curiously, no historian has dared mentioned the “Jewish human soap” on TV and other “lampshades of human skin” since the end of the 1980s.
The Treblinka survivor Yankiel Wiernik proposes other surprising details: “They soaked the bodies with gasoline. This cost considerable sums of money, and the result was not satisfactory: the male bodies simply did not burn... When they incinerate the bodies of pregnant women, their bellies exploded and one could see the embryos catch fire in the bellies of their mothers... The gangsters kept close to the ashes and were shaken by spasms of laughter. Their faces radiated a truly diabolical joy”.
Happily, “survivors” coming back alive from the “death camps” are innumerable. Let us listen once again to Simon Wiesenthal, who wrote, after the liberation of the camps: “The survivors spread over through Europe in an immense measureless tide. People hitch-hiked, stopped jeeps for the short journeys or clung to carriages on the demolished railways, without windows or doors. Some took a seat in the overflowing hay carts, other started off on foot.”
Nahum Goldmann, as President of the World Jewish Congress, conducted negotiations with Germany to estimate the amount of reparations to be paid to the Jews.
“In 1945”, he writes, “there were almost six hundred thousand Jews, survivors of the German concentration camps, whom no country wanted to accept.” We are therefore fully entitled to ask whether these “extermination camps” were really “extermination camps” at all.
The whole world, in any case, is guilty, and must expiate its crimes for what happened during the Second World War. All of humanity is guilty. It is a recurrent theme. It is what Elie Wiesel is so eager to tell us:
Martin Gray, in For Those I Loved, also reveals this same tendency to cast guilt on others: “The whole world allowed us to die... The whole world allowed us to be murdered”.
Note that the near totality of anti-Nazi films on the concentration camps during the Second World War were produced by Jewish film-makers: Sarah’s Key (2010) was directed by Gilles Pacquet-Brenner. In the film Amen, (France, 2002), the actor Matthieu-Kassovitz plays the role of a young Jesuit who, during the Second World War, attempts to awaken the Vatican from its torpor and incite Pope Pius XII publicly to denounce Nazi barbarism. The director, Constantin Costa-Gavras, interpreted the story in his usual style. In the same genre, Costa-Gavras also directed Music Box (USA, 1989).
The Pianist (2001) was directed by Roman Polanski; the film is full of summary executions and atrocities. Lucie Aubrac by Claude “Berri” (1997), is a film about the glory of the Jewish resistance member Lucie “Aubrac”. The Germans are as cruel as usual. Life is Beautiful (1997) was directed by Roberto Benigni. Schindler’s List (USA, 1994) tells the story of a German industrialist who saves deported Jews by employing them in his factory. Here again, the savagery of the Germans is in contrast to the weakness and innocence of the Jews. It is a Stephen Spielberg film.
In Au Revoir, Les Enfants (France, 1987), the story takes place in 1944 in a religious boarding school in the Parisian suburbs. A kitchen boy reports to the police concerning Jewish boys hidden in the school. The bourgeois French are depicted here as hypocritical, bigoted villains. The director, Louis Malle, was nevertheless also a son of the grande bourgeoisie; but a Jew. Louis Malle’s father was the director of a red beet sugar factory owned by his wife’s family; the Beghin family. His film won a Golden Lion award at the Festival of Venice in 1987.
The Boys from Brazil (USA, 1978), tells the story of a Nazi hunter in the 1970s who discovers a plot in Uruguay. The horrible Dr. Mengele, former torture-doctor at Auschwitz, is at the head of this diabolical conspiracy. He lives in a luxurious villa which is sufficiently well isolated to permit him to continue his perverse activities on genetics, and to reign over a troop of abject servants reduced to the status of slaves; this is the symbol of the White Man in all his arrogance. The film is by Franklin Schaffner.
Let us mention Marathon Man (USA, 1976): a Nazi criminal takes refuge in Uruguay and later travels to New York to negotiate a diamond deal (the diamond industry is typically “Nazi”, as everyone knows). We recall a scene in which the Nazi tortures a Jew on a dentist’s chair (there are a lot of Nazi dentists, you know). The film is by John Schlesinger. One might also mention The Old Gun, aka Vengeance One by One by Roberto Enrico (France, 1975), in which German soldiers are unspeakably cruel.
In this third millennium, “Shoah education” becomes the new religion, and humanity is invited to genuflect before the People-Priest.
We also know that in Jewish eschatology, the day of the Redemption and the arrival of the Messiah must be preceded by great wars and catastrophes, which will be accompanied by great sufferings for the Jewish “people”. The Jews always use the same expression here: “the child-birthing pains of the Messiah”, they say. The Shoah, according to them, is therefore sent to confirm their “election”.
The famous Austrian Jewish writer Joseph Roth has expressed this absolute faith in the destiny of Israel (The Wandering Jews, 1927). “The pride of a man who knows that one day he will win... The contempt that the Eastern Jew feels for the unbeliever is a thousand times greater than any that is directed at him”, (p. 30).
The Jews are little inclined to forgiveness and always intend to revenge themselves in one way or another. This, again, is a recurrent theme of Jewish literature, as the Palestinians have occasion to experience every day. The famous Shylock, in the Shakespeare play, incarnates these sanguinary instincts perfectly.
In the American and Soviet POW camps, after the war, German prisoners had ample occasion to experience the same thing as well. In 2009, the American director Quentin Tarantino left us a testimony in Inglorious Basterds: during the war, in Germany, a commando of Jews mercilessly liquidates Germans by stabbing them or beating them to death with baseball bats. Note that in one scene, at the end of the film, the beautiful blonde starlet falls into the arms of the projectionist, a Negro: this is a veritable obsession among the Jews. Tarantino’s film gives us a merely the slightest glimpse of what may well have occurred in the POW camps at the end of the war. Let us not forget that hundreds of thousands of German prisoners never returned from Allied prisoner of war camps ~ something the media never mention. In Hebrew, this is summarised in the formula Laassoth nekama bagoim: “Revenge yourselves upon the Gentiles”. The humiliation of the enemy then precedes the final victory.
But where it is permitted, in the democratic countries, to denounce the horrors of Communism at the beginning of the 21st century, insisting upon the identity of its principal instigators is quite a different matter. Nevertheless, we know that Communism was a Jewish creation: Karl Marx was the grandson of rabbis; Lenin also had Jewish origins on his mother’s side; Trotsky, the head of the Red Army, was really named Bronstein; Kamenev, President of the Soviet of Moscow, was really named Rosenfeld; Zinoviev, the master of Leningrad, was named Apfelbaum; the first president of the Soviet Union was a Jew named Sverdlov; Karl Radek, the spokesman for Moscow in foreign countries, was named Sobelsohn, etc.
On 27 July 1918, just after the execution of the Imperial family, a special law on anti-Semitism was promulgated, the conclusion of which was written by Lenin personally: “The Sovnarkom enjoins all its Soviet deputations to eradicate anti-Semitism. The authors of pogroms, those who propagate them, are declared outside the law”. And at this time, placing anti-Semites “outside the law” meant shooting them purely and simply.
The Cheka, or Extraordinary Commission, instituted the Red Terror as soon as it was created, in September 1917, and pursued it until well after the Civil War. Starting in January 1918, “the death penalty, on the spot, without judgment and or instruction” was the rule. Then came the thousands of police raids in which thousands of perfectly innocent people were abducted and shot during the night or drowned in the rivers by the barge load. The Cheka became the principal nerve centre of the direction of the State.
The lists of prominent Jewish dignitaries under the Bolshevik regime is endless. The revolution that broke out in Berlin in 1918 was led by other Jews: Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg. In Hungary, at the same time, Bela Kun took over as head of a revolutionary government which was composed almost exclusively of Jews. The triumph of Bela Kun encouraged the leftists of Bavaria. At Munich, the revolution had as its spiritual head a Jew named Kurt Eisner, who was himself replaced by an anarchist Jew named Ernst Toller. Then, the Red intellectuals took power, with Eugen Levine at their head, son of a Jewish merchant and a native of St. Petersburg.
Jewish historians always forget to mention the role of their fellow Jews in the atrocities which took place in Russia between 1917 and 1947. The truth nevertheless compels us to point out that the Jewish doctrinaires, Jewish functionaries and Jewish torturers bear a very great responsibility for the destruction of the churches, the pitiless repression against the population and the innumerable massacres which were committed at that time by the forces of the Soviet political police.
At the beginning of the 1930s, the Soviet Union was directed by a triumvirate consisting of Stalin, Molotov and Kaganovich. Molotov, the number two minister in the regime after Stalin, married a Jewess named Polina Karpovskaya, who was a director with full responsibilities and a true Bolshevik.
At this time, the regime planned a famine to liquidate the Ukrainian peasants. The number of deaths resulting from the famine of 1932 amounted to between four and five million, but could be on the order of ten million”, writes the Jewish historian Simon Sebag Montefiore (“Stalin, the Court of the Red Tsar”, 2003). Fifteen million people were deported, and large numbers of them died during the collectivization. Cases of cannibalism were reported in the Ukraine and the Urals.
Lazar Kaganovich was the youngest of five brothers, three of whom were important Bolsheviks. It was he who put together the mechanisms of what became known as “Stalinism”. Lazar, the “Man of Iron”, was in charge of the administration of Central Asia before becoming the “Scourge of the Ukraine”, which he directed in the 1920s, before returning to Moscow in 1928 and becoming a member of the Politburo in 1930. He crushed peasant revolts from the north of the Caucasus to Western Siberia. He succeeded Molotov as First Secretary of Moscow and undertook to create a Bolshevik metropolis by dynamiting historical buildings and churches with the enthusiasm of a born vandal. After Stalin’s death, Lazar Kaganovich was never prosecuted for his participation in the extermination of the peasants, and died peacefully in his comfortable apartment in Moscow in 1991, at the age of 88.
Genrikh (Enoch) Yagoda, the head of the secret police, was another symbolic personage of the Stalinist regime. Half-bald, of short stature, but driven by pitiless ambition, Yagoda, a specialist in the art of poisoning people, was the son of a Jewish jeweller from Nizhny Novgorod. He frequented the house of Gorki, the President of the Writers’ Union. His great achievement, with Stalin’s support, was the creation of the vast economic empire of the gulags, with the use of slave labour. In the years 1931-32, the famous gulag of the “White Sea-Baltic Canal” project engulfed hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian peasants. The great writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn relates that a newspaper edition dated August 1933 and dedicated to the completion of the canal published a list of the award-winning recipients: modest medals for cement workers and carpenters; supreme medals ~ The Order of Lenin! ~ for six persons whose large-scale portrait individual photographs were published in large format. At the head of the collective, there stood Genrikh Yagoda, commissar of the NKVD; Matvei Berman, head of the gulag; Semyon Firin, head of the Belbaltlag camp; Lazar Kogan, head of construction; Yakov Rappoport, second head of construction; Naftaly Frenkel, head of the White Sea work site (and the evil genius of entire archipelago). And here, forty years later, Solzhenitsyn reproduced the portraits of these “Six Rascals” in his book The Gulag Archipelago: “They criticized me for having reproduced the portraits of the heads of the worksite of the famous White Sea-Baltic canal, and they accused me of selecting Jews. But I didn’t select anyone: I reproduced the photos of all the camp directors appearing in compilation published in 1936. Whose fault is it if they were all Jews? I took them as they were, without selecting anything, but the whole world was indignant. Anti-Semitism! And where were they when these same portraits were published in 1933 for the first time? Why didn’t they express their indignation then?”
In 1934, the GPU metamorphosed into the NKVD (People’s Commissariat of Interior Affairs) with Yagoda at the head. Slutsky was at the head of the foreign department of the NKVD; he directed the espionage services. His adjutants were Boris Berman and Sergey Mikhailovich Shpigelglas. Once again, Yagoda supervised the first of the great Moscow show trials in the summer of 1936. Eleven of the sixteen defendants were Jews, but that only reflected their major presence among the old generation of Bolsheviks, whom Stalin had undertaken to liquidate. Genrikh Yagoda is any case, the biggest criminal of the 20th century, since he was responsible for at least 10 million deaths.
Lev Mekhlis was one of Stalin’s most loyal lieutenants. “Even Stalin called him a fanatic”, writes Simon Sebag Montefiore. With his halo of black hair and his pointed, bird-like face, Mekhlis, in his way, played as important a role as Molotov or Beria. Born at Odessa of Jewish parents in 1889, he left school at fourteen, and only joined the Bolsheviks in 1918. Appointed by the sole commissar in the Crimea, he distinguished himself for his cruelty during the civil war by executing thousands of adversaries. He became one of Stalin’s assistants and the confidante of all his secrets, working with a sick frenzy. In 1930, Stalin appointed him editor in chief of Pravda. Mekhlis was then promoted adjutant commissar for Defense and Head of the political administration of the Red Army.
In the years 1920 and 1930, many Russian members of the Central Committee and even of the Politburo had Jewish wives: Molotov (Polina Karpovskaya), Voroshilov (Gold Grobman), Bukharin (Esther Gourvitsch, then Anna Lourie). Stalin’s faithful cabinet director, Alexander Poskrebyshev, married a certain Bronislava Weintraub, a Lithuanian Jewess from an industrialist family who made a fortune in the sugar trade.
In September 1936, Nikolai Yezhov replaced Yagoda as the head of the secret police services and quickly became the most powerful man in the USSR after Stalin. He was one of Kaganovich’s protégés. Nikolai Yezhov was one of the greatest monsters in history. He it was, in fact, who, between 1936 and 1938, became the principal organizer of the Great Terror directed against party members and the “People of the Past”: aristocrats, priests, bourgeois, peasants, who had until then escaped the class terror. In fourteen months, more than seven hundred thousand persons were shot and millions of others were deported. Son of a forestry guard and a servant ~ this Russian ~ was a small, highly nervous man, thin and scrawny, measuring one meter fifty-one. Friend of the Jewish poet Mandelstam, he married a Jewess named Eugenia Feigenberg as his second wife. His wife’s best friend was “Bronka”, the wife of Poskrebyshev, Stalin’s cabinet director. The balance sheet of the Cheka’s victims amounts, pre-war, to at least twenty million deaths.
After his appointment to the post of People’s Commissar for the Interior, Nikolai Yezhov chose Matvei Berman as first adjutant. The latter kept his post at the head of the gulag at the same time. Another Jew, Mikhail Litvinov became the service head of the cadres of the NKVD. Isaac Shapiro, another loyal collaborator, was placed at the head of the secretariat of the NKVD. In December 1936, we find seven Jews among the ten departments of the glorious service of the GUGB of the NKVD (Secret Political Department).
Jewish artists were then praised to the skies by the regime. They regrouped around the writer Mikhoels. Isaac Babel rapidly became one of the most popular authors, with Boris Pasternak, Osip Mandelstam, Ilya Ehrenburg and Vassili Grossman. The hard core of Soviet cinema also consisted of Jews: Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov (Kaufman), Grigori Kozintsev, Leonid Trauberg, Grigori Roshal, etc.
We know that, after 1945, Jews were placed at the head of governments in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Rumania. Matthieu Rakosi, who directed Hungary until 1953, was really named Matthieu Roth. He was the son of a Jewish grocer, and was “one of the most pitiless despots of the 20th century”, writes David Irving.
The four men who held real power in popular Hungary were all Jews. Besides Rakosi, the Jewish quartet consisted of Ernest Gero, who directed the economy of the country. Born Ernest Singer, it was he who charged Ramon Mercader with the assassination of Leon Trotsky in 1940. Michel Farkas was responsible for the army and defense. Born Wolf, he was an NKVD officer at Moscow and a former member of the International Brigades in Spain, like Gero. Joseph Reval, in turn, was appointed to run the nation’s culture. He was also the regime’s minister of propaganda.
The situation was equivalent in Rumania, where Ana Pauker established a fierce dictatorship. It was she who oversaw the first political trials from 1947 to 1949. During the period from 1950-52, she supported Stalin’s project for the “canal of death”: thousands of prisoners were compelled to work under inhuman conditions to construct a canal linking the Danube to the Black Sea. This was a veritable gulag in which 120,000 people died in two years. The historian Stephane Courteois mentions the case of Col. Nicolski, famous for his cruelty: “His real name was Grunberg. He was a KGB agent in Rumania. In 1948 he became the adjutant director of the sinister Securitate ~ the political police ~ personally responsible for thousands of murders, inventor of the terrifying “reeducation” experiment at the prison at Pitesti, Nicolski died peacefully, in his superb villa at Bucharest, on 16 April 1992.”
Stalin’s “anti-Zionist” swing took place in 1948, after the creation of the State of Israel, supported principally by the United States. The Jews were then gradually evicted from the higher spheres of Soviet power. The process accelerated in 1952, with the “Doctors” trial, the dictator’s (enigmatic) death in 1953. Khrushchev had Beria executed, and the regime maintained its “anti-Zionist” line until the end.
It was inevitable that the USSR and the Communist states of Central Europe would be denounced by the Jews of the West. In The Confession (France, 1970), for example, Constantin Costa-Gavras shows the endless interrogations to which an “innocent” Zionist was subjected, at Prague, in 1951. The Jews, as we all know, are never guilty of anything; rather, they are always innocent.
At the Revolutionary Communist League, in the 1970s, the situation was summed up in a joke: “Why don’t they speak Yiddish at the political bureau of the Communist League? Because Ben-said is a Sephardic Jew.” In fact, Daniel Ben-said, a native of North Africa (and a Sephardic Jew), did not understand the Yiddish spoken by the other Trotskyite leaders, who were Ashkenazi Jews, natives of Eastern Europe.
An Israeli historian, Yair Auron, who published a book on this subject entitled Extreme-Leftist Jews in May 1968, confirmed this remark: “Of the twelve members of the political bureau of the League and its beginnings, ten others were Jews from Eastern Europe; there was one single non-Jew, and then there was Ben-said”.
Some people talked of a “shabbos goy”, that is, a goy employed to do minor jobs on the Sabbath, responsible for opening the doors and pushing the light switches on the Sabbath.
After the collapse of Communism, in 1991, Jewish intellectuals, all of them, and all over the world, worked tirelessly to set up “democratic” regimes ~ again, all over the world ~ and the constitution of a world government. It is quite obviously always the same plan: building the “Empire of Peace” (shalom), a “world without borders”, where men would be “free and equal”, and in which all identities will have disappeared forever ~ except for theirs.
In sum, Communism made its appearance a little too early and perhaps a bit too brutally. It is to come about as merely the natural consequence of liberal globalism, of the planetary uniformity engendered by materialist society.
The Marxists philosopher Jacques Derrida writes: “My vigilance, I think I can say, was without rest since the age of six, with regards to racism and anti-Semitism”. He had in him, he said, “a nervous vigilance, an exhausting aptitude in sniffing out signs of racism, in the most discrete configurations and the noisiest denials”.
This obsession is an invariable characteristic of all “cosmopolitan” thinkers. In the Jewish community, there is a hyper-emotiveness, an anguish, even an in-born paranoia, which disposes the leaders of this community to man the battlements at the slightest sign of hostility.
The fact that almost the whole French government attends an annual dinner at the CRIF (Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France) really ought to reassure them; but an atavistic, secular, disquiet appears to be a fundamental characteristic of Judaism, which explains why, throughout history, the Jews can always be heard complaining, once again, of a “renewal of anti-Semitism”.
It is moreover striking to observe that synagogues are the only places of public worship in which the faithful must barricade themselves behind bomb-proof doors. A foreign observer ~ a “Candide” ~ might legitimately ask here, “Hey, these people don’t seem to think that other people like them very much”. Perhaps they have something on their conscience?
Anti-Semitism is useful, too. Disproportionately magnified by the media system, it permits the maintenance among the Jews of the entire world of a fragile identity, constantly under threat of disappearance through assimilation into the host country. Over-sensationalized anti-Semitism thus reinforces the cohesion of the community.
For the Jews, anti-Semitism is quite simply inexplicable. Martin Gray, in For Those I Loved, wonders about this incomprehensible hatred: “Why this hatred against us, why the death, everywhere, threatening? “ The poor Jews live “in the midst of rabid, insane beasts”.
The historian Paul Friedlander denounces “Hitler’s wild imaginings on the Jews”. Why did Adolf Eichmann, a high Nazi official, feel the need to combat Judaism? Here is what Simon Wiesenthal has to say about it? “I was mistaken in searching the events of his early youth for the motivation for his conduct. There was no motive, no hatred. Eichmann was only a product of the regime”.
In his book entitled Discourse of Hatred, published in 2004, the French philosopher Andre Glucksmann writes: “Hatred of the Jews is the enigma of enigmas. This destructive passion, extending over the thousands of years, dresses according to the fashion of the day, is constantly reborn from the ashes of various fanaticisms which appear to motivate it... For the anti-Semite, the object of his aversion is like an unidentified flying object. He doesn’t know who or what he is talking about... the Jew is in no way the source of anti-Semitism; one must think of this passion in itself and by itself, as if the Jew which it pursues, without knowing anything about him, did not even exist”. “One cannot explain anti-Semitism”, confirms Rabbi Josy Eisenberg.
“Auschwitz exceeds my faculties of comprehension and our powers of analysis”, writes Raphael Drai in 1989. “Why the silence or the eclipse of God during this period of horror? Why? I do not know, despite the many books I have studied.”
In his book entitled Hitler’s Willing Executioners, published in 1996, Daniel Goldhagen also pretends to be unable understand. The Holocaust is, according to him, “the most difficult event to understand in all of German history... The Holocaust and the change in sensitivities which it implies, defy explanation... Explaining the manner in which the Holocaust may have occurred is a very difficult task”, he writes in the introduction. “The history of anti-Semitism in the Germany of the 19th century is of a very great complexity”.
“It is one of the most irritating and disconcerting facts of contemporary history”, writes Hannah Arendt in her book entitled On Anti-Semitism. The famous Primo Levi expressed a similar view in If This Is a Man (1958). “A few historians, among the most serious ones (Bullock, Schramm, Bracher), recognize that they do not understand Hitler’s relentless anti-Semitism, and consequently, of Germany. Perhaps because what happened has not been understood, and even, should not be understood, in the measure that to understand is perhaps to justify... In the Nazi hatred, there is nothing rational: is it a hatred which is not in us, which is foreign to man... We cannot understand it”.
The Jews are thus said to be “collectively guilty” ~ all of them, even unborn children ~ for epidemics in the Middle Ages, for Communism, for capitalism, for the Death of Christ, for disastrous wars and equally disastrous peace treaties. All the evils of humanity, the Black Plague and the Atomic Bomb, are the “’fault of the Jews’. We are the eternal scapegoats”. It should be noted here that Jewish intellectuals always pretend to be unable to understand why “anti-Semites” accuse them of promoting both Communism and capitalism simultaneously.
It should first of all be noted that “scapegoat” is a concept originating in the Torah. The “scapegoat” was an animal charged with all the sins of Israel, after which the Jews chased him out and to die in the desert. For a moment, one might almost have been inclined to think that Jewish intellectuals were “projecting” their guilt onto the “anti-Semites”...
Above all, most Jewish intellectuals deny the overwhelming role played by their fellow Jews in the Communist tragedy. In If This Is a Man, Primo Levi writes: “Hitler’s idée fixe, for whom Judaism was confused with Bolshevism, had no objective basis, and even less in Germany, where it was notorious that the overwhelming majority of Jews belonged to the bourgeoisie”.
The historian Arkadi Vaksberg, in turn, calmly affirms (Stalin and the Jews, 2003): “The ‘excessive’ share of the Jews in the revolution, and the resulting consequences, is an idea which owes a great deal to the world of imagination, to myth”.
Jacques Attali in turn attempts to make us believe that the Jews were persecuted in the USSR (The Jews, the World and Money, 2002). As early in 1920, he writes, “the teaching of Hebrew, a ‘reactionary and clerical language’, was prohibited... The annihilation of Russian Judaism is continuing”. For their part, the writers Marek Halter and Samuel Pisar attempt to make us believe that in 1941, their evacuation to the East, in Tashkent, a country vacation spot, was a “deportation” (see The Planetary Hopes).
In his book Two Centuries Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn became indignant about the remarks of this Simon Schwartz, who spoke of “the legend of the influence of the Jews, and the false ideas as to the exaggerated role of the Jews within State bodies”. According to him, the Jews simply had “almost no possibility of survival, except by serving the State”. “One is ashamed to read that”, says Solzhenitsyn indignantly. “What is this situation of oppression and despair which leaves you no possibility of survival except in privileged positions?”
Solzhenitsyn quotes Isaac Stern, who affirms with aplomb that the Jews were the first victories of the regime: “Soviet history”, he says, “is entirely marked by a constant determination to grind out and exterminate the Jews... Soviet power was particularly hard on the Jews”. Louis Ferdinand Celine understood this trick very well: “The aggressor screams as he cuts your throat”, he writes. “The trick is as old as Moses”.
George Tabori, Viennese writer, actor and film director, said the same thing (Jewish Portraits, 1989): “It was the Jews who formulated the laws... the Ten Commandments, the prescriptions of hygiene of Moses and others... these laws are a good thing, a reasonable thing, in a way a perfect moral code. But it is impossible to comply with them to the end. Hence results this feeling of a bad conscience, of permanent irritation against the Jews. They represent the Biblical law, and their very existence reminds Christians of the inaccessible ideal”.
In The Jews, The World and Money, (2002) Jacques Attali expresses this same idea that those who oppose the Jews are showing great ingratitude. “In 325, at the Council of Nice”, he writes, “Christian anti-Judaism was set up, founded on the hatred of those who had brought the Good Word. The hatred of him who had rendered service. We will find this much later in the relationship with money: the hatred of him who lends money to others after having had it supplied by his God”.
For the period of the Middle Ages, Attali attempts to make us believe that the Jews were not permitted to exercise any trade except that of usurers or money lenders, although in reality they practised these same professions from the remotest antiquity: “As they were forced into money lending to start with, they plunged themselves into it completely to their greater misfortune. Once again, they will be useful and they will be hated for the services which they render... The Jews are hated for having supplied them with their God and their money, because [the anti-Semites] hate themselves, because they can no longer do without either one”.
Communist criminals? Silly question: they weren’t really Jews; they were Communists! Saul Friedlander writes this way: “The essential thing, which anti-Semites forgot, was the simple fact that the Soviet Jews, on all levels of the system, were first and foremost Soviet citizens devoted to the ideas and objectives of the USSR and forgetful of their origins”.
The Jewish historian Gabriel Eschenazi in turn explains that the new Jewish leaders of Poland, in 1945, were not really Jews: “The ‘Jewish’ party leaders such as Jakun Berman, Hilary Minc or Roman Zambrowski had broken with their Jewish origins and defined themselves solely as Communists and Poles”. Just because the Jews were “numerous at the top of the Party” and that they “occupied most of the positions in the central party” doesn’t mean that Communism was a Jewish dictatorship; those Jews weren’t really Jews at all! “We find ourselves faced by a new paradox”, writes Gabriel Eschenazi, “in becoming Communists, the Jews ceased to be Jews in the eyes of their milieu, but for the Poles, they became more’ Jewish’ than ever, and ‘Jews’ of the worst kind.”
In this openly twisted genre, we may yet again cite the passage by Jacques Attali (The Jews, The World and Money): “They even accuse the Jews of being indirectly responsible for the Shoah: Hitler, according to certain German historians like Ernst Nolte, was only a response to Marxism and the Soviet Union. It suffices to add that Marxism and the Soviet Union are ‘Jewish Creations’ so that the persecution of the Jew becomes, supreme refinement, responsible for his own persecution!” Which cannot be true, of course, because the Jew, so to speak, is always innocent by nature.
“Why did God persecute the innocent?” demands the psychoanalyst Rudolph Lowenstein.
Stephane Zagdanski (On Anti-Semitism), 1995), does not hesitate to write: “It is even precisely because they are the cause of none of the things of which they are accused that the Jews have been detested for so long and in so many places”.
We see that Solzhenitsyn was therefore right when he became indignant over the refusal of the great majority of Jews to shoulder their share of the responsibility for the Communist experiment. In this difficult exercise, one cannot help but notice the past mastery of every sort of intellectual contortion, each more astonishing than the last. After all, the Barnum, Bailey and Ringling Brothers travelling circuses and side shows will always be there to dazzle the hopelessly stupid goy hayseeds...
For Daniel Goldhagen, the Germans were deeply infected: “The corpus of German anti-Semitic literature of the 19th and 20th centuries with its savage and hallucinatory texts on the nature of the Jews, on their virtually limitless power, their near-total responsibility for almost all the ills afflicting the world, is at this point so far removed from reality that the reader is obliged to conclude that it is quite simply the product of a group of pen pushers in an insane asylum... the beliefs contain elements proper to hallucinations.”
In her study On Anti-Semitism (1951), the famous Hannah Arendt writes: “Anti-Semitism, as an ideology, remained, with rare exceptions, the prerogative of eccentrics in general and a few lunatics in particular”. For her, anti-Semitism is an “insult to good sense”, a phobia of “illuminated people”. The famous Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the best illustration. The document is dismissed as a great forgery, a “grotesque” fantasy, an “incredible fairy tale”.
Norman Cohn confirms this: anti-Semitism was “reanimated and modernised in the 19th and 20th centuries by a handful of eccentric and reactionary Christians”, driven mad by a frenzied text: the famous Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion. The book is a collection of “ludicrous ideas”, of “ridiculous fantasies”. And Cohn adds: “There is a subterranean world in which pathological fantasies disguised as ideas are used by swindlers and half-illiterate fanatics to excite the ignorant superstitious masses”.
In The Fault of the Jews (2002), Guy Konopnicki writes: “One can never simply make the transition from a denunciation of capitalism to a denunciation of occult financial powers fomenting a world conspiracy. The people who trot out this obsession never express a single idea, apart from the most vulgar kind of anti-Semitism. It may be that this error is committed without their knowledge, but that is one of the properties of delirium”.
In 1974, in the last part of his History of the Jewish People, the rabbi Josy Eisenberg wrote (presumably without smiling): “We do not intend here to explain the roots of anti-Semitism. For clinicians, the individual or collective impulses which underlie anti-Semitism are only explained by recourse to psychoanalysis, a recourse which exceeds the limits of this book and our means of investigation”.
In March 2004, Jeff Jacoby, editorialist at the Boston Globe, dedicated a file to the resurgence of the “cancer of anti-Semitism in Europe”. Listen to what Abraham Foxman, the president of the ADL, said about Mel Gibson, director of The Passion of Christ, under the influence of alcohol, before excusing himself before the Jewish community under the effect of we know not what kind of pressure: “That he should seek treatment for his alcoholism is a good thing”, Foxman declared clearly, but “anti-Semitism is a disease of the non-Jewish brain, not of the Jewish brain. We are only the victims”.
For Rudolph Loewenstein (Psychoanalysis of Anti-Semitism) the “frenzied beliefs relating to the Jews” have no basis in fact. One must therefore do everything possible to avoid a repetition of “frenzied crises of anti-Semitism”.
The thing is understood: anti-Semites are insane. Stalin, the tyrant, the executioner, the nationalist, proves quite useful in crystallizing the horrors of the Soviet regime. Stalin becomes the ideal “scapegoat” who can be accused of all evil. Elie Wiesel writes thus in his Memoirs (1994): “Stalin is insane, his hatred renders him insane”.
On the broadcast Everyone is Talking About It (6 May 2006), Elie Wiesel said, with regards to the Iranian President Ahmadinejad: “The religious head of Iran is insane, I mean pathologically sick: he is insane with hatred”. To which he added, logically: “His bomb does not threaten Israel, but the entire world”. You’ve got it right: all those who oppose the plans of the Jews are “insane”.
Raphael Drai, in Jewish Identity, Human Identity, 1995, thinks the same way: “The anti-Semite attributes to Jews precisely those intentions which are truest of themselves... The psychopathological dimension of such a construction is quite remarkable... the Jews depicted in the imagination are only projections... the ‘Judaised’ image is proper to the delirium of anti-Semitism”.
Manes Sperber explains that the anti-Semite hates ~ “in the Other” ~ “precisely those same defects from which he would most like to rid himself. He excuses them and conceals them more easily by imagining them grotesquely magnified in those whom he hates”.
In Anti-Semitism, published in 2006, Jewish “philosopher” Alexis Rosenbaum wonders: “Is anti-Semitism the expression of a neurosis?” before explaining: “The mechanism of projection is regularly accompanied by an accusatory inversion. In fact, the Jews are blamed for precisely the same crimes which others would like to commit, too, or are preparing to commit, against the Jews themselves... From the psycho-analytic point of view, this state of fact is symptomatic of the process of inversion between the victim and the torturer (or ‘projective inversion’). Thus, one persecutes the Jews because he imagines or convinces himself at once that he is exculpating himself and inculpating the target of his hatred.” “Anti-Semitism”, he writes, once again, “is characterised... by a strong tendency to wild fantasy... [anti-Semites] construct theories of a measureless exaggeration... which are often very ingenious, but are in no way disturbed by the fact that none of the great accusations directed at the Jews has ever been supported by any evidence. Whether he is obsessed with the Semites or the Zionists, it is almost impossible to reason with him.”
In 1959, Primo Levi, with regards to Hitlerian anti-Semitism, wrote: “It was no doubt a matter of a personal obsession, the roots of which remain unknown, even if he talked a lot about it. They said he was afraid he had Jewish blood in his veins since one of his grand-mothers got pregnant while working in a house belonging to Jews; he felt this fear all his life; obsessed by purity, he feared he was not pure himself. Other explanations have been offered by psychoanalysts, explanations which explained everything, correctly: they said, they have said, that Hitler was paranoid and perverse, that he projected upon the Jews the characteristics of which he wished to rid himself.”
Daniel Goldhagen writes as follows: “Anti-Semitism tells us nothing about the Jews, but a lot about anti-Semites and the culture which nourishes them”. The “hallucinated accusations” of the anti-Semites are therefore just a mirror of anti-Semitism.
The Jewish intellectual, as we see, projects upon anti-Semites everything he feels guilty for, including his tendency towards “accusatory inversion”. Once we have understood this principle, it suffices simply to switch the terms “Jews” and “anti-Semites” to understand the roots of the problem. To gain a proper understanding of Jewish intellectuals, they must be read with a mirror.
We understand better now why the Nazis, on certain occasions, were permitted to burn the books of all the Jewish intellectuals, each more perfidious and perverted than the last. In the film Raiders of the Lost Ark (USA, 1980), we see a scene of this kind. One must however bear in mind at this point that Orthodox Jews have always burned the books of their adversaries within their own community. Thus the books of Maimonides were burnt by the rabbis in the Middle Ages, just as the books of the Hassidic Jews were burnt in the 18th century. On 20 May 2008, in Israel, New Testaments were burnt by Jewish students of Yehuda.
Here again is a beautiful example of accusatory inversion, from the pen of Stephane Zagdanski (2006). Listen to this: “Anti-Semitic logic is characterised by paranoid inversion”, writes Zagdanski. “...The privileged function of anti-Semitism is paranoid inversion, and the privileged language of inversion is calumny. Which explains why each anti-Semitic idea is the methodical contrary of the truth... Each of the statements made by anti-Semitism”, he continues, “is a great neurosis. It would be a good idea to go see a psychoanalyst... Anti-Semitism gets lost in obsessive calculations for the purpose of learning nothing about its own delirium”. One need only switch the terms “Jew” and “anti-Semite” to understand that Zagadansky is sick himself.
Since the Jews are just like everybody else, hatred of the Jews can only, therefore, be the symptom of a hatred of all of humanity! Here, Jewish intellectuals project onto a universal plane that which is, in reality, of concern solely to themselves. In For Those I Loved, the famous Martin Gray writes: “Here, at Treblinka, it was not just the Jews they killed, it was not just a particular race they were exterminating: the torturers wished to destroy Man”.
“It is this way, and there is nothing anyone can do about it”, writes Elie Wiesel in his Memoirs: “The enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity. And vice versa. In killing Jews, the killer kills more than just Jews. He begins with the Jews: but he inevitably attacks other ethnic groups, religions and social groups... By killing Jews, the killers were attempting to murder all of humanity”.
The analysis of Clara Goldschmidt, wife of the writer André Malraux, is very much in agreement: “Persecution”, she writes, “is less difficult to bear when one knows that it is totally unjustified and that, therefore, the enemy is transforming himself into the enemy of humanity”.
Jacques Attali also recalled the well-known rules of Judaism (The Jews, the World and Money, 2002), “To impose a very strict morality upon oneself, tolerating neither arrogance nor immorality, to create neither jealousy nor pretext for persecution”. It was just about time for somebody to say that, in fact.
The production and distribution of Ecstasy all over the world is entirely in the hands of the Jewish Mafia. In fact, all the dealers who have ever been indicted anywhere in the world ~ without a single exception ~ (see The Jewish Mafia, 2008) ~ have been Jewish criminals. And all of them were in possession of Israeli passports, for the simple reason that the State of Israel almost never extradites Israeli citizens.
Liberation, the daily newspaper, of 23 July 2001, in fact, informs us that the Israeli Mafia has “hijacked the market in synthetic drugs”. The 11 August 2001 issue of Le Figaro confirms this: “Ecstasy is the private hunting ground of the Israeli criminal underground”.
The synthetic drug called “Ecstasy”, which provides a sensation of power and well-being for a few hours is a veritable chemical garbage can. Its effects, long term, are irreversible: memory loss, behavioural disturbances, sleep disturbances, loss of concentration, and brain damage in the children of drug-addicted mothers. But these complications are of no matter in the eyes of the dealers.
Holland is the most important producer in the world. The drug is produced there in dozens of clandestine laboratories. At the head of the traffic, we find Israelis linked to various “Russian” mafias, which organize the networks supplying Europe, the United States, Japan and Australia. Sometimes the dealers use young Orthodox Jews to smuggle the drug past border check points. For a long time, customs agents never even thought of suspecting these religious Jews in their black caftans, black hats and ringlets. Each of these “mules” transported 35,000 to 50,000 tablets per trip. These smugglers, who criss-crossed between Europe and the United States, were paid 1500 dollars per trip.
The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz of 6 April 2003, confirms the role of these “Israeli” criminals: “Israel is the hub of the international Ecstasy traffic, according to a document published by the United States Department of State. These past few years, organized crime in Israel, linked to criminal organizations in Russia, has taken control of distribution of the drug in Europe, according to an official document. This document notes that the Israeli criminal groups have taken control of the Ecstasy traffic in North America. Over the course of the year 2000, 80% of all the Ecstasy sold in the United States originated from Holland, which is the largest centre of production.”
The Arc, known as “the monthly of French Judaism”, published this information in May 2007: ”Zeev Rosenstein, the most famous godfather of the Israeli milieu, has returned from the United States to complete a 12-year prison sentence for drug dealing”. Rosenstein was sentenced for importing 850,000 Ecstasy pills into the United States. The weekly newspaper Marianne, on 18 August 2007, informs us that Rosenstein’s organization was active on four continents, and used “small Latin-American gangs of smugglers for the distribution of his synthetic drug.”
At a cost of production of 20 or 25 cents, one single Ecstasy pill, sold to a distributor for 2 dollars, who himself resells it in a discotheque for 10 or 15 dollars, or even 30-40 dollars, can feed quite a large family. What is more, if the discotheque belongs to you, this makes you “King of the Night”.
The reality of “accusatory inversion” is easily verified, for example, by the 1987 film by Gerard Oury, Levy et Goliath: Moise Levy, a Hassidic Jew and diamond dealer at Antwerp, has fallen out with brother Albert, a Parisian cafe owner, ever since the latter married a goy. Moise takes the train for France, where he is supposed to deliver diamond powder to the Renault factory, but he finds himself involved, despite himself, in a coke trafficking deal. The coke dealers and pimps here are tall, blond-haired “Aryans” with blue eyes, very wicked and very anti-Semitic, while the Jews are always very likeable and innocent.
The film Lethal Weapon (USA, 1987), shows the methods of these horrible drug traffickers.
Two cops ~ one white and one Negro ~ are assigned to arrest the evil-doers. The two cops are atrociously tortured in the basement of a night club owned by one of the dealers. But you shouldn’t be surprised: the bad guys here are Viet Nam vets, white men, as usual, with blond hair and blue eyes. The poor Jews are completely innocent. The film is signed Richard Donner.
The sequel to Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) is even more of a caricature: The two cops, who symbolize the triumphant multicultural society, are, this time, fighting a dangerous gang of South African drug dealers. The villains are all white ~ always Nordic, blond-haired and blue-eyed, and terribly, terribly racist. Richard Donner’s real name, let us note, is Richard Schwarzenberg. This information may be useful in understanding the messages disseminated through his films.
The film Blood Diamonds (USA, 2007) is a good example of media furtiveness whenever a Jewish criminal type is involved. The film only shows the role of the Jews in the diamond industry in one single image: an Orthodox Jew appears on the screen... for one-half second! The viewers are completely hood-winked. In his genre, the director, Edward Zwick, is a magician. You must realize, in fact, that the international diamond business, legal or illegal, is 100% in the hands of Jewish firms or dealers.
In the French film Taxi (1998), the dangerous criminals are Germans of the Nordic type, as stupid as they are wicked: a film by Gerard Pires.
In The Firm (USA, 1993), a young diplomat has just been recruited by a powerful law firm in Memphis. He gradually comes to the realisation that the company managers are in fact working for a terrible mafia gang in Chicago. All the lawyers present ~ about thirty of them ~ are white, Catholic and Nordic. They symbolize the American elite at its hypocritical best. The film is by Sydney Pollack, who also practises the technique of accusatory inversion. Thus it is that the Jews are always portrayed as innocent victims.
We know that since the signature of the Kyoto agreements, by virtue of the principle that “the polluter pays”, all industrialists must acquire “rights” to compensate for the environmental damage caused by their activity. In 2007, the opening of the financial markets to “carbon credits” attracted international swindlers.
In Paris, it was sufficient to supply a photocopy of your identity card to obtain the status of a “broker”. Between the fall of 2008 and 2009, a colossal embezzlement of VAT on the “carbon tax” permitted the crooks to steal 1.4 billion Euros from the French taxpayer. Sitting in Parisian internet cafes, the swindlers, over the BlueNet CO2 exchange system, acquired tons of “CO2 equivalents” for non-existent clients, without paying tax, in foreign countries, with a click of the computer. They then diverted these quotas to different countries to cover their tracks, and then resold their cargoes in France to polluting industries, such as cement plants and electricity producers, invoicing them for VAT at 19.6%, which they never paid over to the state. The money evaporated instantly into accounts in Lithuania, Montenegro, or Hong Kong or Cyprus. The brains of the operation, Gregory Zaoui, had begun his criminal career by fraudulently reselling jeans and portable phones. Justice sent dozens of letters rogatory to Israel. As a result, the Ministry of Finance was compelled to reduce VAT on CO2 to zero per cent to restrict the fraud. Europol estimated the extent of the fraud at 5 billion Euros. Have you ever heard of this gigantic swindle? No, of course not. Which is quite normal, because these same people control our TV channels.
Here’s another recent scandal: In December 2008, it was revealed that approximately 400 complaints had been filed by tradesmen, merchants and associations in a single year. The swindlers solicited electronic listings by fax or telephone. The inquiries led to the indictment of four persons in France in the month of April, followed by about thirty people in Israel by early December, in which 700,000 Euros worth of jewellery and luxury vehicles were also seized. You haven’t heard about this scandal? Perfectly normal.
In March 2008, another gigantic VAT fraud was revealed, the brain of which was a certain Avi Rebibo, “a Franco-Israeli”.
We also recall the Claude Lipsky affair, the “swindler of the century”, who was sentenced in 2007 for embezzling the savings of 450 French soldiers.
In 2006, the swindler Gilbert Chickli, who swindled the banks by telephone, fled to Israel with 23 million Euros.
In 2001-2004, the scope of the “Sentier” money laundering scandal was estimated at one billion Euros. The media, curiously, did not insist on these matters.
There was also the recent case of Jacques Crozmarie, president of the Cancer Research Association, who embezzled money from TV viewers. He was sentenced in 2000. The swindler only repaid 26% of the money entrusted to him by French citizens. He also manifested a classic example of phenomenal chutzpah, declaring before French TV cameras: “If I had pocketed even a single penny I would be a criminal. But look at my representation expenses, they are nothing! I don’t even get my meals reimbursed when I eat at restaurants!”
In the USA, swindles occur in mammoth proportions. In April 2010, for example, a business man was prosecuted for a pyramid scheme. On Wednesday 21 April, the regulatory agency for the American stock market, the SEC, announced that it was bringing proceedings against the President of a Florida investment fund, Nevin K. Shapiro, for a 900 million dollars “Ponzi-type” pyramid scheme.
The year before, in November 2009, another Ponzi-type pyramid scheme, mounted by the lawyer Scott W. Rothstein, amounted to a billion dollars, according to The Wall Street Journal. The star lawyer of Florida was accused of selling shares in extra-judicial agreements to investors, promising 2-digit returns.
In February 2009, a stock market fraud exploded before the London Stock Exchange, for the sum of 600 million dollars. The principal protagonist was a certain Abraham Hochman.
On 18 January 2009, we learn that a Florida business man, Arthur Nadel, disappeared with 350 million dollars he was managing. In 2006, there was the “Abramoff swindle” as well.
All these swindlers were small fry compared to Bernard Madoff. This New York financier was nicknamed “the Jewish Treasury Bond” by members of the Jewish-American community. But the returns which he distributed to his clients were not the result of financial investments: he simply collected funds from new investors and distributed them to old ones. In December 2008, his company went bankrupt, ruining thousands of savers, and, at the same time, numerous influential Jews. He stole the investments of the Stephen Spielberg Foundation and the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Fifty billion dollars disappeared! It was the biggest swindle in the history of the world.
But the Jewish mafia was even more powerful in Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Regime. In the 1990s, a handful of “oligarchs” got their clutches on the near-totality of Russian wealth, creating a reign of terror in the streets of the big cities, while the little people suffered in silence (see the summary in The Jewish Mafia, 2008). It requires an understanding of the actions of these people ~ Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Roman Abramovich and other, Boris Berezovsky ~ to understand the anti-Semitism of many Russians. Starting in 2000, the new Russian President, Vladimir Putin began to clean house. Since then, Khodorkovsky is in prison, and his fellow Jews fled to Israel, London or the Cote d’Azur.
The Pavel Lungin film, Tycoon (2003), of course, shows none of this. This is the scenario: at the end of the 80s, Platon Makovsky and his friends, young brilliant university students, abandon their scientific studies to launch themselves in business. Platon became the richest man in his country. Alas, he is soon killed in an assassination. The people responsible for this cowardly murder ~ stock “bad guys” ~ are all Russian patriots, tall, strong, with blue eyes, who are swindling the people and will stop at nothing to eliminate Platon, the likeable billionaire. There is obviously no need to study “Pavel Lungin”’s family tree to guess which “Mafia” he belongs to...
The collapse of the USSR in 1991 led to a considerable impoverishment of the population. To attempt to escape from the misery and meet the needs of their young families, many young Russian, Ukrainian or Moldovan women answered attractive ads in newspapers. Unfortunately for them, these offers to work abroad proved to be traps laid by international pimps. The media remain extremely discreet on this subject. In the month of May 2000, however, a report by Amnesty International revealed the scope of the phenomenon and pointed the finger at the State of Israel, as the turntable of this traffic.
Here again, we shall only present a few recent incidents: on 20 September 2009, we learned that an international luxury prostitution network had been dismantled in Paris. Three people were charged with “aggravated pimping” and membership in a “criminal organization”. Young women from Eastern Europe had been coerced into relations with business men. The Nouvel Observateur spoke of a “couple from Narbonne”. The head of the network was said to be a 38-year old woman, manager of a clothing store, and “of Moroccan origin”. In the French press, usually, they explain that the persons responsible are “Lebanese”, “Russian”, “Chechen”, or “Armenian”. If the press never gives their names, it is because there is a good reason not to: in fact, one had to read the Egyptian newspaper Al Yom Saabeh to learn that this was the work of the Jewish Mafia.
In December 2008, at Limoges, information was received from an Israeli pimp, Moshe Suissa, adding: “Several thousand women were ‘sold’ to prostitution networks in Israel over the last four years, according to the inquiry of a Parliamentary committee. From 3,000 to 5,000 women were the victims of this traffic, which earned thousands of billions per year. According to a police inquiry, 120 persons were arrested for pimping in the past 15 years and sentenced to from 2 to 15 years in prison”. Let us note that this is a question of 3 to 5 thousand women per year, most of them literally kidnapped in Russia, the Ukraine or Moldova, through deceptive newspaper ads.
Sergio Leone’s beautiful film One Upon a Time in America (1984), tells the story of Jewish gangsters arriving in New York from their native Poland at the beginning of the century. We see them dedicating themselves to smuggling alcohol and all sorts of other sordid rackets. They burglarize a jewellery store, liquidate their competitors, become nightclub owners, and do not hesitate to prostitute women of their own tribe. Later, their leader changes his identity in order to become a Senator.
In L.A. Confidential (USA, 1997), a film by Curtis Hanford, after the novel by James Ellroy, Jewishness is shown with great discretion. The beginning of the film presents the godfather of the local mafia, in the Los Angeles of the 1950s: Meyer Cohen ~ “Mickey C., to his fan club”. He is, we learn, “the king of junk, racketeering and prostitution. He kills a dozen people per year” and makes big headlines.
At the cinema, some cosmopolitan directors have also very classically projected the guilt of their fellow Jews upon others. In Roger Hanin’s film (real name: “Levy”), The Protector (1974), Nathalie, an 18-year old girl, disappears in the middle of Paris. To find her, her father, Samuel Malakian ~ a poor Jew ~ enters the White Slave trade directed by an aristocrat, Baron Metzger.
Take another look at the film Vice Squad, by “Jean Rougeron” (1987); Severine, 18 years old, falls into the hands of a pimp. Alarmed by her disappearance, her loved ones alert the vice squad. The inquiry orients the police to a White Slave network, the “Horsch” network. These villains kidnap girls to resell them to very rich foreigners.
These are all Nazis, Germans, tall, blond, with blue eyes.
In the same register, Steven Spielberg’s film on the slave trade, Amistad (USA, 1997), does not show the dominant role played by Jewish merchants in this tragedy (see the chapter in The Jewish Mafia) and throws all the weight of the ignominy onto Christians.
In January 2004, already, a retired Israeli army officer named Geldaya Tauber Gady was arrested in Brazil for his participation in an international organ trafficking network. He then explained to the court that the operation was financed by the Israeli government. The fact is that the Israelis do not donate their organs for religious reasons. Israel is thus the only country in which the medical profession does not condemn the illegal traffic in organs, and where no action is taken against physicians who engage in the practice.
In 2003, Ilan Peri, 52 years old, was indicted in a network discovered in South Africa. It had performed at least one hundred kidney transplants. The operations, which benefited the Israelis, had taken place at the Saint Augustine clinic in Durban. The donors, in turn, were poor Brazilians from the region of Recife, who were paid up to 100,000 dollars per kidney. But the rates dropped quickly: to 3000 dollars.
Mike Levinski, an Israeli citizen, was the pioneer of the Moldovan network. The 15 February 2002 issue of Le Point, a weekly newspaper, provides some information on this traffic. We learn that the Moldovans, citizens of a small country located between Rumania and the Ukraine, were quite poor, and some of them were reduced to selling a kidney to survive. Israeli racketeers prospected on the spot, offering donors 3000 dollars for their “pound of flesh”. The commission received by the racketeers amounted to 30,000 dollars per kidney, while the surgeon’s fees amounted to 100,000 to 200,000 dollars per operation. Donors and patients found themselves in Turkey in the clinic of Dr. Sonmez, who admitted practicing more than 500 transplants over the past 5 years, without ever being bothered by the Turkish police. The traffic was obviously extremely profitable, judging by the number of small ads of intermediaries published in the Israeli press.
The “donors” were not always aware of what was happening to them. After benign operations, for appendicitis or something similar, performed on young Moldovans, they woke up with scars in the wrong places. They were then informed that it had been necessary to remove a kidney which was not functioning properly, or that, as was the case with Serghei, an X-ray later revealed that their surgeon had simply stolen their kidney.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes, of the University of California, the specialist in this field, visited villages in Moldova where, she wrote, “20% of the adult men had been recruited to be kidney vendors”.
In December 2001, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the Rumanian ambassador in Israel had demanded to be received by the Minister of Social Affairs to discuss the topic of what was beginning to be a scandal in his country. On this occasion, we learn, he demanded explanations and had given the Ministry a list of children born in Rumania who had been brought to Israel to be adopted, “with all their organs inside their bodies”. It therefore seems that the adoption of Rumanian infants in Israel is perhaps not just a work of charity.
The “Rabbi Rosenbaum Affair” reopened the case. At the end of 2009, the Swedish journalist Donald Bolström, after an on-the-spot investigation, accused the Israeli army of taking organs from Palestinian prisoners. On the Internet, tongues loosened. Israeli doctors from the medico-legal legal institute of Abou Kabir were accused of having extracted the vital organs (heart, kidneys, liver) from young Palestinians killed by the Israeli army in Gaza or the West Bank. The bodies were sometimes returned to the families, stuffed with cotton and stitched up from top to bottom, but usually guarded in numbered tombs.
During an interview on the Al-Jazira TV channel, the former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accused the Israelis of murdering infants and young Palestinians so as to collect their vital organs for transplant purposes. “They murdered our children and used their organs like the recycling of spare parts. Why did the world remain silent? Israel benefits from this silence to intensify its oppression and terror against our people”, Arafat charged. Over the course of this interview, which was held on 14 January 2002, Arafat showed photographs of mutilated children.
In early October 2009, it was revealed that the network of rabbi Rosenbaum was also operating in Morocco. Pr. Mustapha Khiarti, president of the National Foundation for the promotion of health and research and development, revealed that the network specialized in kidnapping children in Algeria. The operations were performed in Moroccan clinics located in Oujda. Rabbi Rosenbaum concerned himself with the financing to acquire the necessary equipment for the surgical operations, and the transport of the organs to New York.
In July 2009, we learned that at Bucharest, in Rumania, three persons had been arrested on charge of trafficking in human ova, this time. The two persons responsible for the Sabyc clinic, a father and son, were Israelis. Two other Israelis who worked in this clinic were also booked. The clinic paid the donors sums between 800 to 1,000 lei (approximately 190 to 238 euro), while Rumanian law strictly prohibited the payment for the donation of organs or cells. According to the Rumanian media, most of the recipients were Israelis. They paid between twelve and fifteen thousand euro for the performance of fertilization in vitro. The ovules originated from young Rumanian women in situations of social difficulty.
Accusatory inversion is seen here in a film called Dirty Pretty Things (Britain, 2002): Okwe is a poor black of Nigerian origin who lives in London, England. He is an illegal immigrant, and life is not easy. But he works hard to survive. He works as a taxi driver by day and receptionist at night, in a London hotel. But strange things start happening in the hotel, and Okwe discovers that the hotel where he works is just a front for an organ dealing operation, orchestrated by the person responsible for that floor, who exploits poverty-stricken immigrants. In exchange for a kidney, poor Third World immigrants are promised a passport or a visa: a kidney for a passport. The operation is performed in one of the suites in the hotel by inexperienced physicians. Persecuted by the immigration services (two white Englishmen ~ very evil people), Okwe does not dare report what he knows. So he attempts to dismantle the traffic by other means, assisted by a Turkish cleaning lady, a black prostitute and a Chinaman working in a morgue. The poor clandestine immigrants (“undocumented aliens”) are the victims of blackmail, pressure, rape and crimes, while the bad guys, once again, are whites. The film was produced by the director Stephen Frears, who is a “white man”, as you may have guessed…
See The Believers (USA, 1987). In this film (do doubt you were expecting this): at New York, young children are kidnapped and serve as victims of ritual sacrifice. The psychologist Jamison discovered the existence of a sect, Santeria, practicing a Cuban variant of voodoo. The film is by John Schlesinger, who is not a member of any voodoo sect...
In the film by Peter Webber, Hannibal Lector, the Origins of Evil (2007), which unveils the childhood of the cannibal psychopathic killer of The Silence of the Lambs we see, in one scene, that a child killer can also be a good Christian, who is anxious for his own children to go to church.
It may be a bit easier to understand now why Jewish intellectuals, as a whole, are fiercely opposed to the death penalty. It is not just the fruit of philosophical reflection, but, rather, of a well-understood self-interest...
Bruno (USA, 2009), for example, is an “irritating”, “disturbing” film by Sacha Baron Cohen. It is the fantastic story of an Austrian homosexual journalist who decides to become a “shtar” in Los Angeles...
Spring Fever (China, 2009), a film by the Chinese national Lou Ye, is a “burning film about homosexuality in China”, we are told by the newspaper Le Monde. The film, selected by the Cannes Festival and subsidized by the Region Isle-de-France, was produced by Sylvain Burztejn.
The Comrades (France, 2006), shows a group of friends after the Liberation. They are all communists and members of the Party. Everything is going well, until the homosexuality of one of the “comrades” is discovered by the hierarchy. The declared intention of Sephardic director Francois Luciani was to denounce the intolerance which existed in the Stalinist party at the orders of a USSR which became “reactionary” following the elimination of “cosmopolitan elements”.
Directors like Edouard Molinaro (Mariage Blanc, La Cage aux Folles), Alain Berliner (see the series Clara Scheller, 2004), Cedric Klapisch (The Spanish Apartment, also known as Pot Luck 2002), Olivier Dahan, Sebastien Lifshitz, Dominique Baron, Claude Miller, Jean-Jacques Zilbermann and many others, have contributed to the trivialisation of this phenomenon.
Among the films known to the general public, we may cite Soft Pedal (1996), by Gabriel Aghion: a film on the world of gay and transvestite clubs. Then again, there is French Twist by Josiane Balasko (1994), the story of a lesbian who insinuates herself into the life of a couple: the husband finishes by agreeing to a menage à trois:
Above all, there are the “American” films: see, for example, Far from Heaven (2002): in a bourgeois suburb in the America of the 1950s, a woman discovers “shady areas” in the life of her husband, who turns out to be homosexual. Quite happily, our beautiful American comforts herself with her gardener: a big strong Black who knows how to take care of her ~ according to the magic formula of,
American Beauty (1999) is a well-made film, but exceptional for the extent of its perversion: in a neat little suburb of an American city, a couple are quarrelling violently. So the woman has an affair with a real estate promoter. Their new neighbour, a professional soldier with “Extreme Right Wing” views who regularly beats his son with the greatest brutality, discovers his own latent homosexuality. Homosexuality is once again shown with indulgence in the furtive appearance of another neighbourhood couple, who appear to be the only happy couple in the district. The magic formula in this film is: defense of adultery, drugs, homosexuality, paedophile and incestuous ambiguity; and denunciation of the “Extreme Right”: we are certainly dealing with a “cosmopolitan” film. Directed by Sam Mendes, the film naturally won five Oscars. “Ironic, provocative and disturbing”, we read in other reviews.
Jewish intellectuals actually brag about being “irritating”, “provocative” and “disturbing”, but are astonished and become indignant at the persistence of “anti-Semitism”! This, again, is another “paradox”.
In and Out (1997), is a comedy. A university professor, who wishes to disprove the rumour that he is homosexual, decides to get married quickly to his fiancée. And here is the final scene: during the diploma awarding ceremony, students and parents learn with stupefaction that the professor has been fired. They all get up one by one to declare that they are all “gay”. The film is signed Frank Oz. There are many other examples of this genre. As early as 1962, the famous William Wilder outdid himself with the film The Children’s Hour, in which he denounced Puritanism, and posed as an apostle of the “liberation” of morals.
The ambiguity of identity is found, once again, in the film by the director Arthur Penn, Little Big Man (USA, 1970). It is the story of a white man who has been raised among Cheyenne Indians since the age of ten, and who is thrown back and forth, depending on circumstances, between the camp of the wicked White men and that of the loveable, peaceful Indians. A homosexual Indian character, inverted in more ways than one, is also highly symbolic of the ambiguity of identity in Judaism.
In Russian Dolls (France, 2005), Cedric Klepisch offers us a sequel to The Spanish Apartment. Once again, the film depicts lesbianism (between white women), with the added touch of race-mixing (white man and black woman), cocaine consumption, and a transvestite scene.
Chouchou (2003), is a film by Algerian-born Merzak Allouache: Chouchou, a young Maghrebin, disembarks illegally at Paris in search of his nephew. The latter has become “Vanessa”, a romantic singer in a cabaret. Chouchou decides to become a transvestite as well, during his free time. The film is the product of the imagination of his script-writer, Gad Elmaleh, who plays the main role, and who is not Algerian.
In this genre, we also have All About My Mother, by Pedro Almodovar (Spain, 1999), a story of transsexuals and transvestites. Almodovar is also pleased to show us a very multicultural Spain, which is, yet again, very typical. The film, produced by Michel Ruben, was made available on DVD by Claude Berri (Langmann). Almodovar was naturally rewarded by the Cannes Film Festival in 1999 as “The Best Director”. “I dedicate this reward to Spanish democracy. I experienced religious fundamentalism, police brutality and the hatred of difference”, he explains.
Among famous directors, we must cite Sydney Pollack, with his film Tootsie (USA, 1983): Dorsey, a serious, hard-working comedian, is unemployed. To get a role, he dresses up as a woman and becomes “Tootsie”. As early as 1959, In Some Like it Hot, Billy Wilder told the story of cross-dressers, in an admittedly funny comedy.
Two unemployed jazz musicians, involuntarily mixed up in a feud between gangsters, disguise themselves as female musicians in order to escape. They start out in Florida with a female orchestra, and straight away fall in love with a ravishing woman (Marylene) who wants to marry a billionaire.
Of course, not all films on homosexuality, cross-dressing and transsexuals are the work of Jews exclusively. Evening Dress (1986), for example, was directed by Bertrand Blier, who was not a Jew, but was perhaps heavily influenced by his wife (Anouk Grinberg).
Before the Second World War, the precursor of all modern studies of homosexuals and transvestites was the sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935), founder of the first “gay” political movement, in 1897. In 1920, he founded a “sexology institute” in Berlin which acquired an “international reputation”. A homosexual, Jew and socialist, Magnus Hirschfeld was compelled to flee Germany in 1933.
Once again, this is the egalitarian fanaticism of Judaism: always this same obsession with levelling all differences between human beings. Feminists claim that there are “no differences between the sexes”, just as the Marxists used to assure us that “social classes would be abolished”, and the democracies promised us a “world without borders” which resemble a mixed-race humanity. The objective is always the same: the dissolution of identities, whether sexual, social or national, and the coagulation of the atomic particles so as to unify the world and work for the advent of definitive “peace” on earth, which would be the “peace of Israel”: (solve et coagula); obviously, everything else must be broken down first before anything can be built up.
In the United States, the four most important figures in radical feminism since World War Two were Jewish women: Betty Friedan, who founded the first large-scale feminist movement in the United States (NOW: National Organization for Women): Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinhem, and Gloria Allred. In France, Jewish women also headed the movement after the war: Anne Tristan (Zelansky) created the association Feminine-Masculine-Future in 1968; Gisele Halimi was also one of the leading figures of militant feminism. Born in Tunisia in 1927, her real name was Zeilza Gisele Elise Taieb. A lawyer, she cut her teeth on Communism, demonstrated for Algerian independence, untiringly denouncing the French army and colonialism. In 1971, she founded the feminist movement with Simone de Beauvoir and militated with Simone Veil for “abortion rights for French women”. She was also one of the founders of the world globalization movement Attac. In 2006, she was promoted to the Légion d’Honneur.
These militants played a primary role in the adoption of measures for the legalization of abortion. In the United States, the great birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger; abortion was legalized in 1973. Then it was Germany’s turn in 1974, followed by France in 1975, under the influence of another Jewish woman: Simone Veil. We should recall here that the “father” of modern divorce laws in France in 1882 was another Jew named Alfred Naquet.
The consequences of all these measures of cultural revolution and subversion upon the European birth rate did not take long to make themselves apparent, all the more so since the limitation of births was further encourage by the invention of the “abortion pill” RU 486. The abortion pill, perfected by Professor Etienne Beaulieu, made billions for the Roussel-Uclaf trust and its “genius” inventor. Was this an accident? Professor “Beaulieu” was also a Jew. Born in Strasbourg on 12 December 1926, he was the son of Leonce Blum, born in Alsace, who was the son of the rabbi Felix Blum. After the Popular Front, the Blum family name was unpopular, so much so that Blum applied to change his name, which was accorded by decree in 1947, after which the family called themselves “Beaulieu”.
It should be recalled at this point that the pornography industry is very largely the work of Jewish entrepreneurs and “artists”. It would be impossible to provide a summary here, but you may consult the book The Jewish Mafia (2008).
After the Second World War, the “Freudian-Marxist” current was at the head of the “liberation of morals” movement and the “sexual revolution”; essentially, a simple combination of Freud and Marx. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Theodore Wiesenthal Adorno were this movement’s most illustrious representatives; all were Jews. The family, wrote Wilhelm Reich, was an “authoritarian state in miniature”. If one wishes to destroy a nation, one must also, logically, destroy the traditional family, since the authoritarian family is the reproductive cell of reactionary thought, bullying the “individual” through the repression of “infantile sexuality”. “Cosmopolitan” thinkers are literally obsessed by “infantile sexuality”.
In November 2007, Andre Hazout, a famous Parisian gynaecologist, who was also an international leading authority on fertilization in vitro, was indicted for some obviously exaggerated gynaecological examinations.
See again the Thierry Chichportrich scandal, the “masseur to the stars”, nicknamed “The Man with the Golden Fingers” by the elite of the film world. On 20 May 2006, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison by the criminal court of Nice for the rape of 13 young girls whom he first anaesthetised.
Gilbert Tordjmann was the founder and “Pope” of French sexology. When he was finally indicted in March 2002, 44 former patients appeared to testify, claiming to have been abused by the great “specialist”.
We have compiled numerous cases of this kind in the United States; particularly in the fields of psychiatry and psychoanalysis (see our book entitled Jewish Fanaticism, 2007). Psychiatrists, who make up only 6% of all physicians in America, make up 28% of all practitioners punished for crimes of a sexual nature. Between 10 and 25% of mental health practitioners were said to have abused their patients. As early as the 19th century, some newspapers in Central Europe warned young women against abuse by “psychoanalysts”.
In the United States, an Internet site ~ the Awareness Center ~ listed hundreds of rabbis, both Israeli and American, persecuted for sexual attacks on children. The site, unfortunately, no longer exists, but we compiled a few of these cases in the chapters of our books (The Psychoanalysis of Judaism, The Mirror of Judaism).
Each week, the American and Israeli press provides us with new examples. In December 2011, the umpteenth scandal erupted in the Orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn, where the New York City Police Department investigated charges of sexual abuse brought by no fewer than 117 children. 85 people were arrested in this one case.
In January 2012, the rabbi Daniel Fahri, eminent founder of the Jewish liberal movement of France, was indicted for similar misdeeds. This Daniel Fahri was also the father of rabbi Gabriel Fahri, who had been much talked about in 2003, who claimed to have been attacked with knives in a Paris street. Police investigations very quickly established that the rabbi had stabbed himself. (We have listed numerous cases of similar affairs in Jewish Fanaticism).
These sexual deviations are explained in part by the content of the Talmud, the holy book of Judaism, which contains the teachings of the rabbis, and which the Jews consider more important than the Torah. We have already studied this question in our books. Let us summarize the essential facts here:
The Sanhedrin treatise (54b-55a) teaches that as long as children have not reached sexual maturity, they are not physiologically capable of having sexual relations, are not considered persons, and the laws on sodomy do not apply to them.
In France, very well known personalities have defended paedophilia in their books. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, former “68” leader, or the TV announcer Michel Polac, for example. We have long been aware of the morals of former Minister of Culture, Jack Lang, who declared in the newspaper Gay Pied on 31 January 1991: “The sexuality of children is still a forbidden continent. It is the task of the discoverers of the 21st century to approach the shores”. In September 2009, at the time of the arrest of the film director Roman Polanski, all Jewish intellectuals defended the paedophile as one man: Bernard-Henry Levi, Claude Lelouch, Constantin Costa-Gavras, etc. Even Frédéric Mitterrand got involved. It is necessary, once again, to note the convergences between Judaism and the “sexual minorities”.
Of course, incest is formally proscribed among Jews, as stipulated by the Torah (Leviticus 18) and the Babylonian Talmud (Yabamot 2a). But the interpretations of Jewish intellectuals are always ambiguous.
Everything is ambiguous in Judaism. Ambiguity may even be said to constitute the principal characteristic of Judaism. In the case in question, one must observe that the Jews know how to rationalize their war around the Biblical texts.
See for example, the film Chinatown, by Roman Polanski (USA, 1974): at Los Angeles, in the 1930s, a drought compels small farmers to sell their land. The land is purchased at rock-bottom prices by large landowners with the connivance of the municipality, which releases the badly needed, precious water over a spillway every night. Jack Nicholson, private detective, investigates the affair, which displeases powerful enemies. At the end of the film, the beautiful Faye Dunaway, slapped by Nicholson, finally admits that the little girl she has been hiding from everyone is both her daughter and her sister. Her father is a monster, a rich landowner. This is a typical example of the manner in which an intimate and highly sensitive, almost uniquely Jewish problem is projected onto the goyim, by a Jew who is a child rapist himself, Roman Polanski. Examples of this genre are very numerous.
Incest may also be depicted as occurring between father and son. Director and actor Tim Roth, for example, has admitted being abused by his own father. In his film The War Zone (Great Britain, 1999) he denounces the incestuous relations between a father and his daughter. The horror finally ends when Tom and his sister stab their father to death.
An article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, on 13 December 2006, reports interesting statistics. We learn that Israel, over the course of the year, received more than 2,000 complaints alleging the sexual abuse of children under the age of 12, and nearly 2,500 others concerning adolescents aged between 13 and 18 years. 90% of the victims were attacked by someone they knew; 60% of the cases involving children below the age of 12 were incestuous relationships. One must remember that, in the immense majority of cases, the victims of incest never bring charges.
In the film They Live, (USA, 1988), by John Carpenter, the hero, Nada, thanks to special glasses, discovers that a small part of the population consists of extra-terrestrials who look like everybody else, constituting an elite which governs the world through lies. Nada (“nothing”, in Spanish) we learn, was the victim of an abusive father.
Some mention must be made at this point of the famous “Jewish mother”, which means an over-possessive, abusive mother. Jacques Attali, Bernard-Henry Levi, Romain Gary, Alain Finkielkraut and many others have left more than just a few ambiguous testimonies on this subject. This is what Elie Wiesel wrote on the subject, in Talmudic Celebration (1991): A woman visits Rabbi Yeoshoua. “So what’s the problem?
Here it is: ‘B’nai hakatan mibni hagadol’, she says, “my younger son’s father is my older son”. [...] Jewish mothers are always guilty of what happens to their beloved children”.
Wiesel puts it elliptically: “As a good Jewish son, he loved his mother ~ a little bit too much”.
The philosopher Alain Finkielkraut felt the need to see a psychiatrist: “My fears and problems were no doubt a result of our frenzied intimacy... whether it was irritation or just weariness, it has happened to me to be weak and offer my Jewishness to psychoanalysis”. Finkielkraut himself writes: “Hysterical, I had become Jewish to make people look at me”.
The American novelist Philip Roth, in Portnoy’s Complaint (1967), also “let go” a little (cfr. Jewish Fanaticism): “Please, who crippled us so? Who made us so morbid, so hysterical and weak? ... Doctor, what do you call this sickness I have? Is it the Jewish suffering which I used to hear so much about? My own mother... Her beloved, she calls me!” Jewish mothers, “in love” with their sons, no doubt imagine that they have given birth to the long-awaited Messiah of Israel.
And Philip Roth adds, sickened, “What was it with these Jewish parents, what, that they were able to make us little Jewish boys believe that we were little princes on the other hand, unique as unicorns on the one hand, geniuses and brilliant like nobody had ever been brilliant and beautiful before in the whole history of childhood”?
The feminist Elisabeth Badinter explains (XY: On Masculine Identity, 1992), that this is all quite natural: “The good mother is naturally incestuous and paedophile. Nobody would ever dream of complaining of it, but they all wish to forget it, including the mother and son”.
There are many glimpses of this type in cosmopolitan cinema. In 1997, the Jewish director Milos Forman presented Larry Flynt, a film on the scandalous life of a pornographic magazine tycoon who became the flag-bearer of the struggle against the moral order in the United States. We see this “Pope” of porn (represented as a goy) persecuted by the representatives of the “moral order” for caricaturizing the moral order in his magazine and claiming to have had sex with his own mother in a toilet. Here again, accusatory inversion is the norm. In France, Catholic associations were successful in bringing about the withdrawal of the film poster, which represented a man being crucified on a woman’s pubis.
Incestuous relations between brother and his sister are made to appear rather common, at least judging by the cultural production of Jewish cinema. References to incest are seen to be very numerous in film as soon as one starts paying attention. Here are a few: in Land of Light (2008), director Stephane Kurc projects a history of incest between brother and sister among the French in Algeria, in a film dripping with anti-goy racism. There is also the film Disengagement by Israeli director Amos Gitai (2007); Kika by Pedro Almovodar (Spain, 1993), In Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001), Christophe Gans shows us the rape of a sister by her brother.
The film is also very “anti-racist”: an Iroquois Indian beats the stuffing out of a load of French peasants, in the 18th century!
In the novel by Jonathan Littell entitled The Kindly Ones (Goncourt Prize 2006), the hero is a homosexual SS officer, madly in love with his twin sister Una. This is a clear case of accusatory inversion, traditional among Jewish intellectuals.
The novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer also projects his guilt onto others. In his novel entitled Scum, published in 1991, we read:
In his book On Anti-Semitism, Stéphane Zagdanski himself warns us that the reader will have to “decode” his remarks and put the following sentence in the right place. With reference to “anti-Semites”, he writes: “To be decoded: they are egotistically addicted to this obscure enjoyment of incest, access to which is prohibited to them. Anti-Semites, you understand, are very greatly disturbed by incest, which is logical, since they suffer from a lack of boundaries.”
Incest, as we see, is an absolute obsession among Jews. Mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister, uncles and daughters, etc. ... there are what are called “stovepipe” families, in which everybody “fits” into everybody else, from generation to generation. There is no doubt an urgent need for an official inquiry into the problem to provoke a discussion, intended to break the succession of “incestuous generations”.
At this point, there can no longer be any talk of any “Chosen People”; what the Jews need is a medical diagnosis. The “German poet”, Heinrich Heine, had the habit of declaring sardonically that Judaism is not a religion, but a “family misfortune” (Familienunglück). Freud himself no doubt also understood that the origin of Judaism is not religious in nature, but sexual. But he lacked the courage to reveal to the world at large that the famous “Oedipus complex” was in reality nothing by an “Israel complex”, preferring to project the neurosis of Judaism onto humanity as a whole. One must always read the Jews with a mirror.
In 1896, Freud categorically supported the notion that the specific cause of hysteria must be sought in some sort of sexual problem. Thirteen cases analysed by him permitted him to arrive at this conclusion. Hysteria, he affirmed, was caused by a serious incident of a sexual nature, passively experienced and occurring before puberty.
What his biographer Ernst Jones writes is edifying, as long as one understands that we are only speaking of the Jewish community: “From May 1893, the time in which he speaks for the first time to Fliess, in September 1897... he admitted that a sexual seduction committed against a child by an adult ~ most often the father ~ was the essential cause of hysteria. The proofs provided by the analytical materials seemed irrefutable. For more than four years, his conviction remained unshakeable, although the frequency of these so-called incidents surprised him more and more. Everything appeared to indicate that a great number of fathers were addicted to the commission of incestuous crimes... Freud concluded that, judging by certain symptoms observable in his brother and a few of his sisters, his father might have been guilty, too” (letter to Fliess, 11 February 1897).
In this letter, as Freud wrote to his great friend, Dr. Wilhem Fliess, “Unfortunately, my own father was one of these perverts: he is the cause of my brother’s hysteria (whose condition I am still striving to diagnose), and some of my younger sisters...”
In 1897, however, after his father’s death, which occurred at the end of October 1896, Freud abandoned the “seduction theory” and adopted the “fantasy theory”: hysterical women were no longer the unfortunate victims of incest committed against them during their childhood, but were now merely fantasizing about their fathers! His father was henceforth washed clean of any suspicion. Parents were no longer guilty. It was now necessary to believe that the children were in love with their parent of the opposite sex and desired incestuous relations.
Ernst Jones writes here: “During the winter following the death of his father (more precisely, in February), Freud accused his father of acts of seduction; three months later (on 31 May 1897), an incestuous dream he had put an end to his doubts relating to the seduction story”.
In his letters of 3, 4, and 15 October 1897, Freud described the progress of his self-analysis and acknowledged “his father’s innocence” ~ or so it would appear. Ernst Jones appears satisfied with this explanation and supported the Freudian hypothesis: “What is important above all, more than the parent’s incestuous desires, even more than occasional acts of this kind, was the general fact of incestuous desires inspired in the child by the parent of the opposite sex”. Et voilà: “infantile sexuality” and the “Oedipus complex” were born!
Freud was obviously the object of very heavy pressure from his fellow Jews while he was still in the process of constructing his theories on the origins of hysteria, so as to avoid revealing to the world the heavy secret of Judaism. By inventing the theory of the “Oedipus complex”, he concealed the reality of incest within Jewish families while exculpating Jewish parents. And he covered his tracks even further by projecting this Jewish specificity onto a universal plane, through the mechanism of a Greek hero (Oedipus). In reality, the famous “Oedipus complex” is in reality and above all nothing more than an “Israel complex”, i.e., the complex of a son who has slept with his own mother, and who wishes to “kill his father”, for quite understandable reasons.
We nevertheless owe it to Freud for raising the question of incest, which is the one true great secret of Judaism. The only thing we need to do now is place this “psychoanalytic theory” in front of a mirror, which will then reflect the following conclusion: “Judaism is the illness which psychoanalysis sets out to cure”.
After Freud, psychoanalysts replaced priests in caring for the souls of the faithful. The only difference, really ~ from the Jewish point of view ~ was that while priests were free of charge, while psychoanalysts demand to be paid cash on the barrel head! Or possibly credit card. Just the same, it’s a little bit comical to see all these “sick people” (the phrase is from Jacques Attali) forming the heavy battalions of all those who set out to cure humanity of its ills. But this is just one of the “paradoxes” of Judaism. The truth is that Jewish psychoanalysts don’t just practice their profession to treat their patients; rather, they treat their patients to try to treat themselves.
Typically, in claiming that the origin of neurosis were to be found in the repression of sexual impulses by Christian morality, Freud was, once again ~ and, once again, typically ~ deliberately projecting his own neurosis ~ and the neurosis of Judaism ~ onto a civilization which he consciously hated. He himself warned us, in embarking for America:
The same pathology which attracted the attention of Sigmund Freud is also characterized by an extremely great contagiousness: it is no wonder that the Jews are the great specialists in all those exercises in politico-religious delirium which regularly set humanity on fire. This can all summed up in ten words: Judaism is the illness which psychoanalysis set out to cure. Or in three words, if you prefer:
Many Jews who suffer from membership in this “incestuous sect” and who would like to find the strength free themselves, breaking the walls of the “Jewish prison” (the phrase is Jean Daniel’s), so as to become part of humanity. The American novelist Philip Roth gave very graphic expression to Jewish neurosis in several novels. The most representative passages are quoted in Jewish Fanaticism (2007).
In reply to the question of “What is a Jew?” Nobel Prize Winner Isaac Bashevis Singer, interviewed in The New York Times Magazine of November 1978, replied: “It is someone who, when he is unable to sleep, keeps everyone else from going to sleep”.
Jewish directors thus compensate for this suffering by imagining the Jew finally recognized for what he is: a brilliant being, definitively a genius, who deserve to be worshipped with incense and applauded until the roof falls in. This image is found at the end of the film The Last Metro (France, 1980), by Francois “Truffaut” (Levy): Lucas Steiner, a theatre director who was compelled to hide in a cave throughout the war, finally reveals himself to the public at the moment of the Liberation. Following a stage show, he goes up on the stage and is applauded frenetically by the delirious goyim who recognize his genius.
We find this image at the end of the Woody Allen film Deconstructing Harry (USA, 1997), the hero of the film, who is a novelist, is applauded at length by all the characters around him. Here again, the Jewish hero is welcome with a “standing ovation”. Woody Allen has once again expressed this need to be loved and recognized in Zelig (1983), which tells the story of a chameleon-man, already desiring to resemble “the Other”, to be loved (see, in particular, the chapter on the “plasticity of identity” and “Jewish humour” in The Psychoanalysis of Judaism, 2006).
Or again, the film Barton Fink, by the Cohen brothers (USA, 1991): at the beginning of the film, the young playwright is applauded frenetically by the entire hall, in delirium: it is the beginning of a great career in Hollywood.
In Rollerball, by Norman Jewison (USA, 1975), the action takes place in 2108; by this date, all nations have been abolished, and politicians have been replaced by technocrats. It is a whole civilization of leisure, with a game which impassions the planet: Jonathan (James Caan) is the most popular of these new heroes. The crowd chants his name wildly.
This image is found again in a short novel by Jacques Lanzmann, entitled The Seventh Heaven (1985). A certain “Moses” has the nerve to name his only pure-bred “Long Live the Jews”, so the crowds acclaim them both!
The feminist Elisabeth Badinter has also expressed the Jewish inclination to go against the laws of nature: “The hold of nature withdraws and, with it, the difference which separates the sexes”. (Man/Woman: The One Is the Other, 1986). Edouard Valdman has also written: “They will never again be the slaves of nature, of the nation, of repetition, of the soil”.
The fact is that after three thousand years of history, Jewish artistic production has remained remarkably mediocre. Jews who have tried their hand at the plastic arts over the past few decades, transgressing the well-known Biblical proscription (“thou shalt make no graven images”), have presented the world with nothing but deformities, corresponding to the very essence of their imbalanced nature. Every one of their sculptures is each more twisted than the last; their paintings are hideously deformed. This is obviously why they take refuge in abstract art.
Jewish art does not therefore have as its function the distorting, or deliberately soiling, “Aryan” art, as maintained by a rather simplistic anti-Semitic orthodoxy: rather, it corresponds to a spirit, a mental universe, an imaginary world which is very specific to the incestuous sect of Judaism. All this is much less the sign of a desire to “pervert” what is beautiful, than it is the expression of a neurosis.
The novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer, in The Crown of Feathers, or the English novelist Israel Zangwill, in his short story Joseph the Dreamer (cf. The Mirror of Judaism, 2009), depict the conflict of identity characterising the Jewish personality and the determination of certain Jews to break the walls of the “Jewish prison”.
This is how Jewish novelists shore up the myth of a Jewishness which is supposed to inalterable. According to them, Jews who forget their Jewishness will be fated to witness its inevitable return, sooner or later, even several generations later. This is what could be called “the myth of the incubating Jew” (cf. The Mirror of Judaism). These stories are written to incite the Jews to remain within the fold; but ever since they left the ghetto, Jewish intellectuals have all had occasion to witness the manner in which hundreds of thousands of other Jews have successfully left the Jewish prison, forgetting Judaism once and for all. Nahum Goldman said: “If a Jew no longer wishes to be a Jew, if he denies Judaism, if he gives his children no Jewish education, or if he baptizes them, then he can cease to be a Jew. This is why so many Jews have disappeared over the course of the centuries; otherwise, there would be hundreds of millions of us”.
Under these conditions, anti-Semitism is quite useful, since it tightens the ranks of the community. It also serves the purpose of attracting to the Jewish community any individual who might have discovered by chance a drop of Jewish blood in his veins. But this only happens in the imagination of Jewish novelists: history records not one single known case of an “anti-Semite” who suddenly began to adore the “Chosen People” after discovering a remote Jewish ancestor. In truth, the result of such a discovery in one’s family tree is more likely to bring about a radicalization of anti-Semitic sentiment than anything else.
The film Hostel (USA, 2005), for example, tells the story of three American students on holiday, discovering Europe. They decide to visit Slovakia, a country full of promiscuous young girls, a country described as the paradise of debauchery. They arrive by train in a promising little Slovakian village, and are immediately seduced by enticing young beauties. But they have fallen into a trap: it will not be long before they experience true horror. An abandoned factory in the countryside has been transformed into an immense slaughterhouse for human flesh, in which the victims are tortured on all floors: with scissors, with pincers, with chain-saws! Western perverts pay high prices for this form of gratification, and the horrible Slovakians give them whatever they want! Obviously, the director Eli Roth does not like Slovakians very much; perhaps a case of bad conscience... Let us note as well that the film was produced by one of the director’s personal friends: Quentin Tarantino.
The inventor of “gore” cinema was a certain Herschell Gordon Lewis, who became well-known in 1963 by revolutionizing the horror film industry with his film Blood Feast. The same person was later arrested for fraud, putting an end to his career in “vomit films”.
Perhaps now it will be easier to understand why, in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (USA, 1975), Milos Forman attempted to convince us that madmen are not as crazy as all that; rather, they are the victims of an oppressive society.
The famous “Austrian” novelist Stefan Zweig killed himself in Brazil in 1942 ~ and the Nazis had nothing to do with it (see Jewish Fanaticism, 2007). The philosopher Walter Benjamin committed suicide in 1940 after crossing the Spanish border. The German dramatist Kurt Tucholsky killed himself in 1934 by swallowing sleeping pills, just like his fellow Jew Ludwig Fulda, who killed himself in 1939, etc.
At this point, Jewish intellectuals always blame the usual scapegoat: the “Nazis”. “If the Jews commit suicide, it’s the fault of the Nazis, and nobody else”. But in reality, Jews didn’t have to wait for the Nazis to come along before they started killing themselves. They were busy killing themselves long before the war: the “Italian” philosopher Felice Momigliano committed suicide in 1924.
The Viennese physician and philosopher Ludwig Boltzmann hanged himself in 1906. The Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger shot himself in mid- October 1903. In 1928, the only daughter of the “Austrian” Arthur Schnitzler committed suicide with a revolver in Venice, at the age of 19. The eldest son of the Austrian poet Hugo von Hofmannsthal committed suicide at the age of 26 – once again, with a revolver. Not to mention two of Karl Marx’s daughters. The daughter of the grand rabbi Weil threw herself off the Eiffel Tower, etc.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Kafka spoke of the pathological oddness and mental imbalance of his fellow Jewish students at the German high school in Prague. “Many of them”, he wrote”, “killed themselves during their student years”. Or just look at Yosseph Hayim Brenner, a Jewish novelist born in the Ukraine in 1881. His two heroes in Around the Point succumb to despair, one by suicide, the other by going insane.
The novelist Romain Gary committed suicide in 1980; so did the “philosopher” Albert Caraco, in 1971.
The well-known “Italian” writer Primo Levi committed suicide in 1987, after a lifetime of “bearing witness” to his experiences in the “death camps”; but he had already attempted suicide as an adolescent. Jerzy Kosinski, another fantasizing “witness”, ended up a suicide in 1991, with barbiturates.
The “historian” of the “death camps”, Joseph Wulf, killed himself in 1974.
In 1970, the painter Rothko put an end to his career in abstract art by cutting his veins. In the same year, the German Jewish poet Paul Celan threw himself in the Seine. The mother of the Israeli writer Amos Oz committed suicide in 1952, at the age of 39. And the writer Elie Wiesel is surrounded by a veritable massacre of suicides on all side.
Boris Fraenkel, one of the founders of the International Communist Organization (OCI) committed suicide in 2006 by throwing himself in the Seine. Michel Recanati, a Trotskyite leader in May 1968, committed suicide in 1978. The 18 November 2008 edition of the Communist newspaper Liberation contained the testimony of a former Maoist – also a Jew – who declared that suicide was a very common cause of death among radical militants in his group in the 70s: 15 out of 35.
Bruno Bettelheim, the child psychiatrist of worldwide fame, committed suicide as well. Bettelheim specialised in infantile autism in particular, claiming to have treated hundreds of schizophrenics. The international media made a star out of him, admired by millions. In reality, as revealed by the biographical investigations of Paul Roazen in 1992, Bettelheim was a mythomaniac and a faker – like Primo Levi, like Marek Halter, like Elie Wiesel, like Simon Wiesenthal, like Einstein, Freud, and so many others. Bettelheim committed suicide in March 1990, asphyxiating himself with a plastic bag (The Mirror of Judaism, 2009).
Looking more closely, then, we see that the total, absolute and lasting “universal peace”, as dreamt of by the prophets of Israel, more than anything else, is a “peace” which Jews cannot find within themselves. It is their neurosis which impels them to invest themselves with plans for “world unification”.
At the beginning of this, the third millennium, this hysterical contagion is propagating itself in all homes, threatening all cultures, all religions, all identities. Nothing seems capable of stopping the advance of this unifying, anti-racist, materialistic and ~ in the end ~ destructive frenzy, which represents a deadly threat to all of humanity.
Reading the Jews with a mirror, the following words become finally visible as well: “Judaism is a Crime against Humanity”. Using a mirror, once again, then permits us, for the first time, to interpret Jewish eschatology in its correct sense: in the realization that the coming of the Messiah will occur only after the apostasy ~ the disappearance of the last Jew.
Such is the tragedy of every Jew on earth. Invested with the mission to “save humanity”, he can only choose to destroy humanity or destroy himself. The tragedy of the Jewish condition is revealed here in its full light... in the reflection of a mirror.