Dahi Khalfan Tamim

The death from natural causes of an unknown foreign guest in a Dubai hotel room would have been the end of it had it not been for the unanticipated reaction of a tenacious Arab detective, Lt.-Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim, Chief of the Dubai Police Force—ultimately the key figure in this mystery.

Previously Tamim’s force had solved the high-profile 2007 “Pink Panther” jewelry robbery in Wafi City (the “Pink Panthers” is a gang of international jewel thieves), the murder of Lebanese singer Suzanne Tamim in 2008, and the murder a few months later of former Chechen General Sulim B. Yamadayev.

Without Tamim, the massive investigation into Mabhouh’s death would not have taken place. The evidence needed to solve the case and expose the killers would never have been meticulously gathered, collated, and presented to the world for all to see. Teams were assigned to investigate, and within 24 hours of the body’s discovery police had begun tracing the killers’ identities. It is difficult to imagine another police chief anywhere in the world building such a damning public case against these particular killers.

Dubai police quickly discovered that the assassins had left clues: hotel, passport, phone, credit card, and transportation records; fingerprints and DNA evidence; and their recorded presence on incriminating CCTV (closed-circuit television) surveillance camera storage media.

“This assassination has given us a window into Mossad’s world and the way they operate,” Tamim later said. “We have learned more about their techniques, the disguises they use and their methods of spying.”

The CCTV Trail

Although Mossad was “very much aware of the CCTV in Dubai,” according to a well-informed Israeli source quoted by the London Times, it was “astonished at the ability of the Dubai police to reconstruct and assemble all the images into one account.”

Below are links to the complete 27 minutes of composite CCTV footage released by Dubai police to the international press. The clips appear to be the only ones online containing the government’s entire composite account of the affair. (A few western media outlets ran brief outtakes ranging from a few seconds to a minute or two in length.)

The original footage was supplied by the Media Office of the Dubai Government and posted by Gulf News to its website. Gulf News is a Dubai-based English language newspaper.

The important 27-minute segment (in 3 parts) tracing the arrival of the killers and their movements inside the hotel is from YouTube (the only place I was able to locate it), via a website called “Dubaisession.” Dubaisession’s clips were originally taken from Gulf News. If the same footage is still available on Gulf News’ site, it would be preferable to link to that.

Subsequently, police released a fourth, supplemental, clip (“Part 4″ below) with information about additional suspects. Unlike the first three clips, the Dubaisession-YouTube clip of Part 4 can be directly compared to the Gulf News original from which it was derived, because the latter is still available at gulfnews.com.

The two clips are not identical. The difference in intelligibility is marked. The Gulf News audio track has an Arab narrator, with full English subtitles. These features are missing entirely from the YouTube-hosted footage, severely diluting its value. However, the video components of both clips appear to be identical.

“The Murder of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, 19 January 2010″

“Footage Supplied by the Media Office of the Dubai Government”

gntv

gulfnews.com/gntv

Part 1 (9 mins.) (Dubaisession-YouTube)

Part 2 (9 mins.) (Dubaisession-YouTube)

Part 3 (10 mins.) (Dubaisession-YouTube)

Shortly after release of the preceding footage, Dubai police released additional information about the killers, five of whom were Jewesses:

Part 4 (5 mins.) (Gulf News—scroll to bottom of article. The superior clip.)

Part 4 (5 mins.) (Dubaisession-YouTube. The inferior clip.)

Passports

The Jews were supplied with passports from numerous European countries. Nothing about the killers or their official documents was recognizably Jewish or Israeli.

“They were not fake passports,” veteran English foreign correspondent Robert Fisk noted. “They were real passports with fake names and pictures. The question is: Who provided the documents, the actual passports, to the Israelis? Were they stolen? Were they bought? Or was someone in the European security services saying, ‘Well, look, I know you need twelve passports. This is in return for information you gave us last week.’ Have the security and intelligence forces of the EU and other western governments gotten so close to Israeli security and intelligence forces that they’re actually handing over to them official documents that can be used in dark operations?”

Credit Cards

Team coordinator “Peter Elvinger’s” credit card was issued by DZ Bank of Frankfurt, Germany. One credit card was issued by Nationwide (UK) and two by UK-registered IDT Finance of Gibraltar.

Fourteen prepaid MasterCards used to pay for plane tickets and hotel rooms were traced to Storm Lake, Iowa’s MetaBank. The cards had been issued by MetaBank’s partner, New York City-based Payoneer, which has an R&D office in Tel Aviv, where Mossad headquarters is located. According to a report in Gulf News, Payoneer’s financiers, including Carmel Ventures and Crossbar Partners, have ties to Israel. Moshe Mor of Greylock Partners was formerly a military intelligence captain in the IDF.

“Outspoken Israeli patriot” Yuval Tal, Payoneer’s founder and head, appeared on Fox News in 2006 as an Israel Defense Force (IDF) “special ops commando.” But since the Mabhouh assassination, “Tal has been shielded by a wall of public relations representatives and does not respond to media requests for comments.” (“Hamas murder probe in Dubai: Who is Yuval Tal?” March 3, 2010. The article contains embedded video of Tal’s 2006 Fox News appearance.)[1]

On its website Payoneer says: “Our Standards: Payoneer is committed to meeting the highest standards in integrity, security, and privacy. We only service customers that operate legitimate and transparent businesses. US-based, we strictly comply with all applicable online payment regulations including KYC (Know Your Customer), BSA (Bank Secrecy Act), AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control). We are constantly improving our state-of-the art technology to assure customer authentication and privacy.”

By the Numbers

Airline flights taken: 56
Killers involved: 28
Hours of CCTV footage reviewed by Dubai police: 648

Cities visited by assassins and planners:
Zurich
Düsseldorf
Frankfurt
Paris
Rome
Milan
Amsterdam
Johannesburg
Hong Kong
Bangkok
Dubai
Doha (Qatar)
Unnamed Iranian city.

Countries involved:
Austria: The communications command center for the kill.
Australia
France
Germany
Hong Kong
Iran: 2 killers traveled to Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
The Netherlands
Qatar
South Africa
Switzerland
Syria: The victim’s home.
United Arab Emirates (UAE): Site of the assassination.
United Kingdom
United States: 2 killers believed to have traveled to the US; most credit cards issued by US bank.

“Identify Their Traits, Accents, Body Language and Manners”

Gen. Tamim stressed that the dual nationals who claim their passport identities were stolen and used by the assassins were not necessarily victims: “They could be potential collaborators.”

He also announced that Dubai immigration officers would undergo intensive training to study Jewish people and identify their traits, accents, body language, and manners.

Jews: The Morally Different People (T-shirt boasting of killing pregnant Palestinian woman)

Above the Law

Jews reacted with jubilation to the news of the assassination.

They printed T-shirts boasting of the deed.

Israeli TV ads celebrating the murder were filmed in time for Passover at the end of March 2010—the Jewish holiday that commemorates the slaughter of the first-born children of Egypt.

The Cleveland, Ohio Jewish News exulted, “Murder in Dubai a job well done.”

Within less than a month of Tamim’s revelations, a global curtain of silence descended. The killing vanished completely from the headlines. There was no scandal, no outrage, no protests, no condemnatory media exposes—nothing.

Two arrests were made. Both suspects were Palestinians, alleged Israeli collaborators who provided logistical support to the death squad.

The rest of the murderers “will likely find themselves stuck at desk jobs at Mossad headquarters north of Tel Aviv for a while,” two Jewish “journalists” with ties to the Mossad write. “But eventually, they’ll return to missions in the field. As professionals, they’ll make sure to change their appearances and cover stories yet again.”

Conclusion

Dubai requires international assistance in its investigation if it is to have any hope of apprehending the killers.

The assassins were caught dead to rights. Locating and convicting them is not the problem; the evidence is there. But the governments that sent Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, David Irving, and countless others to prison for their speech have done nothing and will do nothing in this case because the killers are Jews.[2]

“Israel will get away with this” Robert Fisk said. “There’s no doubt. That’s what they were working on the basis of, and that’s the way it will be.”

Beneath the hot desert sun of the Persian Gulf, a detective’s lone voice: “In the UAE it is rule of law that governs us, and if leaders of some countries give orders to their intelligence services to kill, this practice is rejected and is a crime in our laws, religion and Islamic traditions.”

But in the citadels of “democratic” Tel Aviv, New York, Washington, London, Dublin, Paris, Vienna, Bonn, Zurich, Brussels, and the United Nations, it’s business as usual.

Part 3 of 3.

Read Part 1 here, Part 2 here.

[2] Compare also CNN “national news” (the story made the top half of the front page of the New York Times and other establishment media as well): “Teen arrested in Wal-Mart racial announcement incident.” A 16-year-old NJ boy has been arrested on bias intimidation (“hate crime”) and harassment charges for announcing over the store’s loudspeaker, “All blacks need to leave the store.”"Wal-Mart, the world’s largest public corporation, is working with law enforcement officials. ‘Whoever did this is wrong and acted in an inappropriate manner,’ Wal-Mart spokesman Lorenzo Lopez said. ‘Clearly this is unacceptable.’”

This kid, who may not even be white (although the hate crime charges suggest that he is) will be sanctimoniously preached at and criminally punished more severely than the racial assassins who murdered Mahmoud Mabhouh in cold blood—one of many such killings carried out in flagrant violation of international law over many decades.

For any Jew, treason is just a phone call away.

Aftershocks following the assassination in Dubai in January of Palestinian Hamas leader Mahmoud Mabhouh by Israel’s secret service Mossad finally shook the Palace of Westminster in London on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd March.

The assassination was perpetrated by a large hit-squad comprising men and women who arrived and departed Dubai using “cloned” passports originally issued to citizens of Australia, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The Israeli government has refused to comment on the matter beyond stating: “There is no evidence that Israel was responsible.”

Twelve of the forged passports were copies of UK originals. It is noteworthy that all of the holders of the authentic UK documents are British citizens who have settled in Israel and who, under the Law of the Return have also taken Israeli citizenship.

The Labour government’s Jewish (but not necessarily Zionist) Foreign Secretary David Milliband rose to his feet in a hushed House of Commons to make a ministerial statement which announced that following an investigation by Scotland Yard’s Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), a decision had been taken to require a senior member of the diplomatic staff of the Israeli Embassy in London to quit Britain forthwith.

The diplomat was not named in the statement, but it is presumed that the person, whatever his or her official title, is Mossad’s ‘head of station’ in London.

Milliband told the Commons that the SOCA investigation had been able to establish that the authentic UK documents had only ever left the hands of their owners when they were taken into the temporary possession of Israeli officials either in London or in transit at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. He declared:

We have concluded, that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports. Such misuse is intolerable. It represents a profound disregard for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury. No country or government could stand by in such a situation. I have asked that a member of the Embassy of Israel be withdrawn, and this is taking place.

It will be interesting to see what the Jewish Chronicle makes of Milliband’s announcement. On 26th February the paper, under the heading “Million Jews aid Mossad says writer on Radio 4” tried to pooh-pooh information that Israel’s foreign intelligence service, Mossad, has recruited a million Jews world-wide to assist with its espionage activities.

This denial of Mossad’s million helpers among Diaspora Jewry studiously failed to mention the existence of a sub-unit of Mossad known as the “Sayanim” [= "Helpers"].

Sayanim are Jews who live in and hold the citizenship of lands outside Israel who are recruited clandestinely by Mossad to help with its operations, i.e. providing ‘safe houses’, transportation, access to communications networks and other facilities, official documents, etc., etc.

Full (and undenied) details of the existence of the Mossad Sayanim network were given in the 1994 book The Other Side of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky, a renegade Mossad agent.

It is certain that not all Sayanim are recruited by Mossad talent-scouts in the Diaspora lands of their birth where they hold citizenship; some are recruited while on visits to Israel. Ever since Israel was proclaimed in 1948, it has been an objective of the Zionist movement’s premier international organization, the World Jewish Congress (WJC), to achieve a bonding between Jews of the Diaspora and Israel.

This policy was articulated with astounding frankness by Zionism’s foremost strategist of the 20th century, Nahum Goldmann. Goldmann co-founded the World Jewish Congress with Rabbi Stephen S. Wise in 1934 and was president of the WJC from 1949 to 1977. In his book, The Jewish Paradox (1978), he argued that this bonding process be implemented among Jews in their late teens when all young people are at their most idealistic and impressionable.

Goldmann advocated that as many young Jews as possible be enabled to go to Israel for what are now known as ‘gap-years’, within or just before university education, for immersion in the Israeli way of life by way of working on kibbutzim or in one of the social services — or even as recruits to the Israeli Defence Force.

He even had the effrontery to argue that the governments of Diaspora nations sympathetic to the Jewish cause would facilitate this process and, indeed, might be persuaded to donate funds from their respective national exchequers to help pay for it!

Whether this is, or has been, done by the British government I do not know. But several Zionist charities which organize and (nominally) pay for such gap years in Israel for young Jews holding British nationality all publish registered charity numbers which means their funds are exempt from taxation, so the operation certainly has an indirect subsidy courtesy of the British taxpayer.

During their stay in Israel the most avid young Zionists who also possess the required intellects and personality traits are recruited and, no doubt, given training. The process is very little different in principle from that perpetrated by the Soviet NKVD spymaster who recruited and trained the ring of Soviet spies at Cambridge University just before World War II: Guy Burgess, Donald Duart MacLean, Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt & Co. were able to penetrate the highest reaches of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) during the war when Britain was allied to the USSR. They frustrated and subverted British anti-Soviet intelligence operations during the Cold War.

The only difference between the Soviet-British and the Zionist-Jewish operation is that the Zionists are doing it on a continuous, global, mass-production basis and are carrying out the work of spotting, recruiting and training each new wave of young talent within the borders of Israel where such activity is outside the scope of the laws of Diaspora countries.

Activities of the Sayanim

Sayanim in Britain and Italy assisted with the 1986 abduction and smuggling to Israel (drugged, in a packing case) of Mordechai Vanunu, the Christian-convert Israeli scientist who blew the whistle on Israel’s secret nuclear bomb-making facility at Dimona.

Sayanim also helped Mossad agents in New Zealand four years ago purloin official New Zealand passports belonging to a number of its elderly, infirm, and otherwise vulnerable citizens. These passports were intended for Mossad use in espionage and murder operations elsewhere in the world.

Mossad hoped that the people whose identities they were stealing would be less likely to notice if anything was amiss and report it to the authorities. That is the kind of cynical wickedness which Israel-admirers tend to dismiss with an indulgent smile as mere “chutzpah.” (These are the same people who speak of the “high ethical standards” of the Israeli Defence Force.)

The plucky New Zealand government of the time did not take that view. Two Mossad agents were jailed, and Israel was required to express a public apology and provide assurances that it would never undertake to do such a thing again. The apology and assurances were given.

Such Israeli assurances are not worth a cup of cold spit. In the debate which followed Milliband’s ministerial statement, William Haigh, Conservative shadow foreign secretary, reminded the House of Commons that Israel had been caught in a similar UK passport forgery operation in 1987. He said the then Israeli foreign minister — now President of Israel — Shimon Peres, gave a solemn verbal and written assurance to the British government that “such a thing will never happen again”.

Haigh’s remark is noteworthy for its absence from most media reports of the debate the following day.

As we now know, forged British as well as Australian, French, German and Dutch passports were used in the Dubai assassination of Mahmoud Mabhouh.

It is of course outrageous — in diplomatic language “an unfriendly act” — for the secret service of a foreign power to recruit the nationals of another country to assist with any kind of espionage activity in — let alone against the interests of — that other country.

Mossad perpetrates just such activity in every Diaspora land where there is a Jewish community simply because the governments of most nations (especially Britain, the USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland) are normally reluctant to take effective action to stamp out such subversion for fear of:

Why Mossad¹s Bosses Know They Are Able To Get Away With Murder:

· Shrill accusations of “anti-Semitism”; or

· Fear that local Friends of Israel organizations will cease making cash donations to their Establishment political parties; or

· Pressure from the USA, which is always willing to assist Israel because its entire political system and mass media are dominated by Zionist-Jews or non-Jew careerists whom they have suborned.

The blind-eye which successive British governments give to Mossad-Sayanim subversion in the UK was institutionalized in the mid 1990s when the Home Office, which supervises Britain’s police service and the internal security service (MI5), gave permission for the London Metropolitan Police and the Greater Manchester Police to provide ongoing training for and intelligence-sharing with the Community Security Trust (CST).

The CST is the security and intelligence arm of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (JBD), whose prospectus declares that it exists to “Protect the interests, religious rights and security of Jews world-wide and to advance Israel’s security, welfare and standing.” Quite clearly concerns about loyalty issues are not uppermost in the minds of the organized Jewish community.

In an article in The Observer of Sunday 2nd February 1997, the then JBD “Defence Director” Michael Whine (now living and working in Israel) revealed that the CST is

a 2,000 strong defence force…. with a sophisticated intelligence system which provides security guards and trains bodyguards …. Personnel undertake vigorous physical training.

CST formations are often seen escorting Zionist political demonstrations and other Jewish communal public manifestations wearing uniform day-glow jackets similar to those sported by the police, but with “CST” stamped on them in large letters. CST personnel are paraded in public places even though all such activities are given a full Police escort, which is sufficient protection for for all manner of other folks and organizations in our land.

In the light of such public manifestations of the CST and Michael Whine’s admissions, it is important to note that under Section 1 the Public Order Act of 1936 (enacted to cramp the style of the Blackshirts of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists) it is illegal to “organize and/or equip and/or train a paramilitary force for the purpose of achieving political objectives by means of physical force”….. or “….to behave in such a manner as to give reasonable apprehension….” of being so engaged. Nevertheless, the CST is somehow exempt from Section 1 of the Public Order Act.

The late Colin Jordan and three of his associates in the now long-defunct National Socialist Movement were jailed in 1963 after an Old Bailey trial for periods ranging from three to nine months even though they had been found not guilty of the substantive offense but guilty of “giving reasonable apprehension” that the unarmed 12-man formation of stewards (who wore uniform gray shirts) called The Spearhead was in breach of the Act.

When I was organizing National Front demonstrations in the 1970s I was continually warned about the terms of that Act when I visited Scotland Yard’s A8 Public Order department to negotiate routes for marches and other details. I was told that it would be considered an offense against the Act if the members of the NF Drum Corps even so much as wore similar white shirts! (“That would be considered a uniform. They would be arrested.”)

The Home Office plan to put the police into bed with a private Zionist paramilitary/security/spook organization was engineered by a top civil servant, Neville Nagler, who headed the Home Office department responsible for race relations issues and who boasted to my old friend, the late Dowager Lady Birdwood, of having drafted every speech on race relations topics made by every Home Secretary, Labour and Conservative, for more than a decade.

Guess what? When he retired from the Home Office, Nagler was immediately appointed Executive Director of the JBD.

Now chief constables and other very senior police officers attend annual CST banquets at super-luxurious Mayfair hotels where they rub shoulders with leading Zionist fanatics, many of whom are multi-millionaires and some of whom are convicted fraudsters and ex-jail-birds. (For more details about this, see my TOO essay “Is there a revolt brewing against the Israel Lobby in Britain.”)

In the light of all these facts, it seems to me reasonable to assert that many of the Zionist-Jews who are motivated to join the CST will be prime targets for recruitment into the ranks of Mossad Sayanim — that is, if they have not already been recruited during gap years spent in Israel bonding with the Zionist state.

The Jewish Chronicle’s studious avoidance of any mention of Mossad’s world-wide Sayanim network in its attempt to discount the notion of a million Jews around the world organized to assist Mossad operations can only evoke rueful smiles from those non-Jews who know what the score is — and belly-laughs from the Jews.

The Occidental Observer, March 26, 2010

The father of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh holds his son's image. The 5th of 14 children, Mahmoud was a Hamas official assassinated by an Israeli death squad.

Within days of the briefing at Mossad headquarters, Emirates flight EK912 to Dubai rose into the sky over Damascus, Syria. Aboard the plane was Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, traveling without bodyguards and using a false name. Syria had been the exile’s home since 1989, when Israel bulldozed his house in Gaza allegedly in retaliation for his involvement in the deaths of two Jewish soldiers.

Spies in the Damascus terminal had earlier communicated that the Palestinian had boarded his flight. On the highway below, a Mossad agent phoned the death squad in Dubai—via a call routed through an Austrian command center—that the Airbus A330 was on its way.

The Venice of the Gulf

Dubai is a city-state (emirate[1]) situated on the eastern edge of the Saudi Arabian desert and the southern coast of the Persian Gulf. The so-called “Venice of the Gulf” is the chief port and commercial center of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the main shipping, trading, and communications hub of the Persian Gulf region. The UAE is a 32,000-square mile (300 miles x 260 miles) crescent-shaped federation of seven independent emirates—one of them Dubai—on the Arabian Peninsula, the federal capital of which is Abu Dhabi.

Political power in the UAE is traditional and hereditary, with the ruling family of each emirate representing its dominant tribe. Dubai has been ruled by the al-Maktoum family since it seceded from Abu Dhabi in 1833.

Yet only 17 percent of the UAE’s total population is native Arab (known as “Emirati”—Arabs with origins in the UAE); 83 percent consists of immigrants—two-thirds Asian (Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, and Filipinos), and one-third Persian (Iranians) or Arab (Jordanians, Palestinians, and Egyptians). Although Arabic, the Semitic speech of the native minority, is the official language of the UAE, a strange consequence of mass immigration is that the most widely-spoken languages are all Indo-European: English, Hindi, Urdu, and Persian. Islam, the official religion, is the faith of 96 percent of the inhabitants.

Dubai’s Iranian expatriate community is estimated at 400,000—nearly 20 percent of the emirate’s total population. According to the neoconservative head of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,

Iranians work everywhere in Dubai: in the financial sector and in the construction, transportation, and hospitality industries. Daily flights connect Tehran and Dubai (it’s an hour and 40 minutes flying time), with 200 weekly flights between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, most of them to Dubai. According to Iran’s Consulate, a million Iranians pass through Dubai each year. Some come for business. Regime members and well-heeled loyalists are said to maintain luxurious weekend homes here.

January 19, 2010: The Stalkers

On January 18 and 19 at least 22 Jews (including 5 females) converged on Dubai under European cover, arriving via airline flights from Zurich, Rome, Frankfurt, and Paris. They checked into various extravagantly designed luxury hotels that line the city’s shore, including the Emirates Towers and the Fairmont.

From the moment Emirates flight EK912 from Damascus landed in mid-afternoon, the lone Palestinian was uninterruptedly tailed by members of the death squad, who monitored his whereabouts at all times. Making no direct calls to one another while in Dubai, the Jews routed international prepaid phone calls through their command center in Austria, utilizing highly encrypted communications devices. In surveillance footage they can be seen constantly holding phones to their heads.

Curiously, almost all of the killers wore head coverings—caps for men and hats for the women. Most (perhaps all) of those who did not wore wigs.

From the airport Mabhouh, closely tailed by surveillance teams in constant communication with one another, went directly to Dubai’s luxurious Al-Bustan Rotana Hotel. A Jew sidled up to the front desk, eavesdropping on the conversation between the victim and a female employee. Mabhouh was heard to request a room without a balcony.

The desk attendant escorted the guest to his room. Before the elevator doors closed, two Jews dressed in tennis outfits and carrying tennis rackets stepped into the car with them. They exited behind Mabhouh and the attendant on the second floor. One waited beside the elevator while the other followed the pair to verify Mabhouh’s room number—230. This Jew can be observed on surveillance video in the corridor passing near the victim’s door twice.

Twenty-five minutes after Mabhouh’s arrival at the Al-Bustan Rotana, hit squad coordinator “Peter Elvinger” of “France” reserved Room 237 by phone from the business center of Dubai’s Crowne Plaza Hotel. Room 237 was directly across the hall from the Palestinian.

Simultaneously “Elvinger” booked a flight out of Dubai. At the Al-Bustan Rotana he passed his room key to “Irishman” “Kevin Daveron,” a member of the core execution team. After visiting Room 237 for less than 10 minutes, he left the country via Qatar for Zurich before the murder was committed.

After an hour in his room, Mabhouh departed for four hours, shadowed by rotating teams of Jews. Meanwhile, two two-person surveillance teams remained inside the hotel, monitoring activity there all the while.

January 19, 2010: The Assassination

Two hours before Mabhouh’s return, four Jewish executioners entered the Al-Bustan Rotana and went directly to room 237. At this point the two surveillance teams inside the hotel were withdrawn and two new ones took their place.

Seven Jews comprised the core execution team, one of them a young Jewess with an Irish identity and the cover name “Gail Folliard.” Twice she can be seen grinning during the kill—once directly into the CCTV camera.

The corridor in the vicinity of the victim’s room had no surveillance camera, so the precise manner in which the killers gained entry to Mabhouh’s room remains uncertain.

Rooms at the Al-Bustan Rotana are equipped with programmable, card-access VingCard Locklink systems as well as deadbolts. During the Palestinian’s absence, hotel records show an attempt to reprogram the door access panel to Room 230. If the effort was successful, the killers were laying in wait for him upon his return. Otherwise, it is speculated that “Gail” or “Kevin” might have lured Mabhouh to open the door by posing as hotel staff.

“Gail” and “Kevin” monitored the elevator doors and hallway while the killers attempted to enter Mabhouh’s empty hotel room. “Kevin,” dressed in a suit and impersonating hotel staff, detained a guest who got off the elevator at this time. During the exchange it is believed he signaled the killers to temporarily withdraw. After a brief interval the unwitting female guest was permitted to continue down the hall past the victim’s room.

Mabhouh returned to the hotel in the early evening, after darkness had fallen and most of the hotel staff had left for the night. He can be seen on video exiting the second floor elevator as he heads for his room.

“Kevin” and “Gail” continued monitoring the elevators and hallway while the execution took place.

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was overpowered by at least four, possibly five, men. Although subsequent accounts differed, forensic evidence proved that the victim had been injected in the thigh with a skeletal muscle relaxant used as an adjunct to surgical anesthesia.[2] The drug has also been employed as a paralyzing agent for executions by lethal injection. The victim died from asphyxiation, possibly smothered to death with a pillow while he was paralyzed. The killers left some of Mabhouh’s prescription medicine next to his body to suggest an absence of foul play.

Less than twenty minutes after Mabhouh had exited the lift, two of the executioners reappeared at the elevator door. One, wearing denim jeans and a green polo shirt, had a white, glove-like covering on his left hand and forearm. His companion carried a large bag. They stepped onto the elevator, but before the doors closed they were joined by the second pair of executioners. This pair wore caps and carried bulky shoulder bags.

A minute later “Gail” and an unidentified Jewish man who had been with the executioners down the hall while the murder was perpetrated boarded the elevator. Finally “Kevin,” the last to leave, exited the second floor four minutes after Gail and her companion had left.

Within two hours of completing their murderous task, the Jewish swarm of stalkers and executioners boarded international flights for Hong Kong, Johannesburg, Rome, Qatar, Bangkok, Frankfurt, Paris, and Amsterdam. Many ultimately converged on Zurich, whence 8 flights into Dubai had also originated. At least two of the assassins are believed to have entered the US via a connecting flight.

The next day, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, at 1:30 PM in the afternoon, the hotel administration opened the door to Room 230 after repeated attempts to contact the victim had failed. The door “was locked from the inside with the latch and chain in place,” according to police.

Initial medical reports incorrectly stated that death was caused by an increase in blood pressure inside the brain.

Part 2 of 3. Read Part 1 here.

[2] Succinylcholine chloride.

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

In a northern suburb of Tel Aviv in January 2010, a car pulled up to the main gate of Mossad, Israel’s KGB. The Institute’s Director greeted the Prime Minister as he stepped from his German Audi A6 limousine.

The Prime Minister was a thickset, meaty rather than fat man accustomed to associating with the rich and powerful of the earth on a conspicuously “more equal than” basis. The Director, who matched his colleague in brutality and bloody-handedness, was a squat, stumpy thug with a sagging gut like Ariel Sharon’s. Both men had the coarse features and easy arrogance of gangsters. Together they directed what admiring fellow Jews called a “‘Murder, Inc.’ from Warsaw to Bangkok, and from Paris to Dubai.”

The purpose of the meeting was to authorize the liquidation of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a 49-year-old Palestinian Hamas official who supposedly[1] forged secret connections between Gaza Palestinians and the Al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards of Iran.[2] The Jews had tried unsuccessfully to kill him on numerous occasions in the past.

Israel claimed Mabhouh played a key role in arms shipments from Iran to Gaza via Sudan, Egypt, and the Sinai. It is in the Iranian context that the elimination of Mabhouh must be understood, according to Uzi Mahnaimi of the London Times.

Jewish Death Squads

Viewed coldly, Jewish behavior evokes certain associations in the mind. Adjectives like bigoted, hypocritical, underhanded, treacherous, brutal, hateful, unfair, dishonest, intolerant, narrow-minded, defamatory, clever, sly, malicious, furtive and deceitful describe some of them.

Assassination is base. It is repugnant as an isolated phenomenon. But when it selectively targets hundreds (thousands?) of individuals for liquidation over long periods of time as a means of carefully steering ideas and human events in directions they would otherwise not have taken, it becomes particularly menacing.

It is an open secret that Jewish death squads roam freely, undeterred by borders and unencumbered by laws or mores that bind everyone else. Only Jews among the peoples of the earth are sanctioned by states and ruling cliques to commit the crime of assassination wherever and whenever they please, with impunity, without oversight, unaccountable to law.

We read that “when it comes to the undercover method of assassination, no espionage agency has more expertise than Israel’s Mossad.” “Assassinations are nothing new for the Jewish state.” And the long list of known killings is “just the tip of the iceberg; the majority of the missions have remained invisible” (emphasis added).

Discussing state-sponsored killings, Israeli Uzi Mahnaimi summarizes:

Mossad has had a reputation for ruthlessness since it hunted down the Black September terrorists who massacred 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. Time and again its vengeful arm has reached out across the Arab world and into Europe, too, smiting enemies. One hit [that Mossad Director Meir Dagan] masterminded was in Damascus two years ago against Imad Mughniyeh, a founder of Hezbollah and one of the world’s most wanted terrorists. Mughniyeh was decapitated when the headrest of his car seat exploded—close to the headquarters of Syrian intelligence.

Six months later, Mossad, in co-operation with special forces, struck again at the heart of the Syrian establishment. General Mohammed Suleiman, Syria’s liaison to North Korea’s nuclear programme, was relaxing in the back garden of his villa on the Mediterranean shore. His bodyguards were monitoring the front of the villa. Out to sea a yacht sailed slowly by. No noise was heard, but suddenly the general fell, a bullet through his head.

Fawaz Turki, a Washington, DC-based journalist and author, writes that Murder, Inc.-style Israeli death squads are not new. They have snuffed out the lives of hundreds of activists, political leaders, journalists, commentators, intellectuals, militants, and others since at least 1942. According to Turki, many Jewish assassins in the Arab world (known as “Mistarivim,” or “Arab pretenders”), unlike the Ashkenazi Jews seen in the Dubai police footage, have been Oriental Jews born in Arab countries, who dress in native garb and speak accent-free Arabic.

The Briefing

Inside the Mossad briefing room, the Prime Minister, the Director, and an Israeli general met with selected death squad members. The Prime Minister and the General were informed that the Palestinian was traveling to Dubai, where Mossad planned to kill him.

Preparations had been in train since early November 2009. Israel knew Mabhouh’s travel itinerary. A large number of agents had visited Dubai between November 6 and November 10, and in recent weeks Jews had twice shadowed his every move on other Dubai trips, methodically laying the groundwork. The murder would take place in his hotel room. The squad had already rehearsed the kill in a Tel Aviv hotel without informing the management. They were not detected.

The death squad consisted of 26 members. Preparatory trips into and out of Dubai were made by 14 members of the team (11 males and 3 females) between March and November 2009. The airline routes used by the killers never originated from or departed to Israel, but rather from or to such countries as Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Hong Kong, South Africa, and Iran.

The hit squad assumed European, rather than Jewish or Israeli-sounding cover names and national identities:

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Eleven members of the Israeli-based international Jewish death squad that assassinated Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

France: “Peter Elvinger”—the cabal’s logistical coordinator.

Ireland: “Gail Folliard” (female), “Kevin Daveron,” and “Evan Dennings.”

Britain: “Paul John Keely,” “Stephan Daniel Hodes,” “Melvyn Adam Mildiner,” “Jonathan Louis Graham,” “James Leonard Clarke” and “Michael Lawrence Barney.”

Germany: “Michael Bodenheimer.”

The meeting between the Prime Minister and the Director drew to a close. Unbeknownst to either man, they had set in motion what would become the best-documented state-sponsored Jewish assassination in history.

Best-documented to the public that is.

Inside the Jewish establishment, selected Gentiles have long been privy to the precise details of many killings such as this.

Part 1 of 3.

Read Part 2 here.

[2] Hamas: A Gaza-based Palestinian social services, political, and revolutionary organization that combines Palestinian nationalism with Sunni Islamic fundamentalism. Gaza: A tiny strip of territory in the southwest corner of Israel disputed by Palestinians and Jews. Al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards of Iran: The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) is an elite force distinct from the Iranian military. Its task is to safeguard the country’s revolution and Shia Islamic system. The Quds force is the operations arm of the Corps outside Iran.

Translated by Greg Johnson

Réfléchir et Agir: You have published a fourth book on Judaism, a volume of 400 pages. Why another? Haven’t you said all there is to say?

Hervé Ryssen: I thought so too! But Judaism is a very closed world, very secret, thus after all these years of study, one still learns new things. This time, I explored the criminal world operating within the international Jewish community, and what one discovers there is, strictly speaking, incredible. The fact is that the Jewish Mafia is the main Mafia that exists today on this planet: racketeering, prostitution, drug trafficking, arms trading, contraband diamond smuggling, traffic in works of art, murder for hire, organized swindles, armed robberies, etc. Pornography, casinos, and discotheques are also largely held by Jewish gangsters.

R&A: You claim that international drug trafficking is mainly in the hands of the Jewish Mafia. Are you quite certain you are not overstating your case?

H. R.: I do not claim that the Jewish mafia controls most of the international illegal drug trade, since there are no statistics on the subject, but it does not appear incredible to me, judging by all information I could gather. The fact is that from the Chinese opium traffic of the nineteenth century to the present day, this mafia has been quite active in this field. In the traffic of ecstasy, one can say for certain that the Jewish mafia holds a monopoly. Today, ecstasy is the drug that is most harmful to European young people. A pill of ecstasy gives a feeling of strength and well-being for a few hours, but it is above all a veritable chemical garbage bin. Its long-term effects are alarming because irreversible: memory loss; behavioral, sleep, and concentration problems; brain lesions in the children of druggie mother. The premier producer is Holland, but the big traffickers who were arrested ten years ago in France, Belgium, the United States, or Australia, all have Israeli passports. The business of ecstasy is 100% in the hands of Jewish gangsters, not all of whom come from Russia, since there are Sephardic traffickers as well. If you buy a pill of ecstasy, in every instance, you can be certain you are financing the Jewish mafia. Certain big ecstasy traffickers are also deeply involved in the heroin and cocaine trade.

R&A: Is the Jewish mafia connected with the famous Colombian drug cartels?

H. R.: There is no doubt. Here is just one example: on February 16th, 1993, the Russian police of Viborg, close to the Russo-Finnish border, near Saint Petersburg, seized more than a ton of Colombian cocaine disguised as cans of corned beef. It was an Israeli resident in Bogota, Elias Cohen, married to a Colombian in cahoots with one of the clans related to the Cali cartel, who managed the network along with one Yuval Shemesh. The final destination of the cocaine was a group of Israeli traffickers established in the Netherlands, headed by one Jacob Korakin, a kippa-wearing religious Jew from the diamond district of Antwerp.

R&A: Certain diamond traders of Antwerp, New York, and Tel-Aviv play a large role in the Jewish mafia, particularly in money laundering.

H. R.: Diamond traders are at the heart of money-laundering operations for the Colombian cartels. In Manhattan, 47th Street, which is the heart of their activity, is also the largest drug money laundry. A Rabbi Yosef Crozer was arrested in February 1990 while going to Brooklyn with suitcases and bags stuffed with small-denomination banknotes. He carried $300,000 every day. His co-operation with police made it possible the following month to arrest around 30 people in the Orthodox Jewish community. One of them was Avraham Sharir, another pious Jew who owned a gold shop on 47th Street and who proved to be one of the key characters in drug money laundering in New York. Sharir, an Israeli citizen of 45 years, confessed to laundering $200 million on behalf of the Cali cartel. His employees, who counted banknotes, were regularly obliged to go our for fresh air, because so many of the small bills had been rolled for use in snorting cocaine.

R&A: Certain religious Jews do not seem to have too many scruples, one might say . . .

H. R.: Even Hassidic Jews are deeply implicated in drug trafficking. In 2001, the police broke up a ring directed by Sean Erez, a Hassidic Jew who trafficked in ecstasy. The drug had been smuggled in the hats and prayer scrolls of these pious Jews, whom customs officers were not supposed to suspect.

In July 1998, the small diamond cutting community of Antwerp was strongly shaken by a series of arrests of Lubavitchers. It had been discovered that the diamond business in the Flemish city was a cover for the international heroin traffic. Fifteen kilos had been seized. An Orthodox Jew, Dror Hazenfratz, was the head of the network. Born in Haïfa, Hazenfratz had an Israeli passport as well as a Belgian identity card. Before the court, he appeared in traditional black garb—caftan, cap, and curls—which did not prevent him from being condemned to eleven years in prison. There are many other examples.

R&A: You go back to the “American” gangsters of the Thirties . . .

H. R.: Yes, I was also interested in these mythical gangsters who had worked with the Sicilian mafia. The Jewish gangsters were particularly involved in “Murder Incorporated,” a kind of mutual insurance company of assassination thanks to which a local leader could profit from the services of killers coming from another locality and thus avoid blame. Murder Incorporated was a gang made up of mainly Jewish gangsters, who took care of the crime syndicate’s dirty work. It is estimated that from 1933 to 1940 the organization was responsible of more than 700 assassinations, but some speak of 2000. Because firearms are too easily traceable, they preferred to kill their victims with drowning, knives, bats, piano wire, and especially ice picks. All this is also part of the history of the Jewish people.

R&A: Why don’t people talk about this?

H. R.: It is always the famous reflex of “projection” about which I spoke in my two preceding books. Jewish intellectuals always project on others that about which they feel guilty. They say they were victims of Communism, for example, when in fact they were the main instigators. In the same way, Freud projected a problem specific to the Jewish people—rampant incest—on a universal level, and everyone fell into the trap.

In the 1990s, the media spoke about the terrible “Russian Mafia.” But truth to tell, all the “Russian” gangsters who were arrested had Israeli passports. The biggest one, Semion Mogilevitch, a major trafficker of weapons who also prostituted hundreds of Russian and Ukrainian girls in Prague and Budapest, was stopped in Moscow in January 2008. In France, the Courrierinternational was the only newspaper that reported it, but obviously his Jewishness was not mentioned: he was “Russian”!

Likewise, in Hollywood cinema, the drug traffickers, gangsters, “bad guys,” if they are not Sicilian, are very often Nordic white men: never Jews! The cosmopolitan directors undoubtedly have something to do with this sleight of hand.

Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/21/91/516490/47626766.pdf

Judaism is not merely a “religion,” as many Jews are overt atheists or agnostics, and they do not consider themselves less Jewish for all that. Jewry is also not a race even if it is true that a “trained eye,” most of the time, can recognize a Jewish appearance, that is to say, a characteristic pattern which is the result of their strict observance of endogamy for centuries. Jews see themselves as the “chosen ones” of God, and marriage outside the community is strictly frowned upon. However, mixed marriages do exist and have also helped to renew the blood of Israel during all the centuries spent in the various ghettos where the Jews preferred to live, separately and apart from the rest of the population. The essential condition for such mixed marriages is that the mother be Jewish, since Orthodox Rabbis recognize as Jewish only the child born of a Jewish mother. However, having just a Jewish father or grandparent can suffice for a person to identify completely with Judaism. Jewishness is therefore a “mental race” that has been shaped over the centuries by the Hebrew religion and the universalist project of Judaism.

Judaism is a Political Project

Judaism is essentially a political project. It is important for Jews to work toward the emergence of a world at “peace,” a peace meant to be universal and permanent. It is therefore not a coincidence that this word “peace” (shalom in Hebrew) is found frequently in Jewish discourse worldwide. In the perfect world that they are building, all conflicts will disappear between the nations. This is why Jews have been militating tirelessly for many years for the abolition of all borders, the dissolution of national identities and the establishment of a global empire of “peace.” The very existence of separate nations is considered to be responsible for the triggering of wars and turmoil. so they must be weakened and eventually replaced by a world government, a “one world government,” a “New World Order,” one single world-ruling authority that will permit happiness and prosperity to reign, Jewish-style, on earth.

We find this idea more or less developed both in the writings of certain intellectual Marxists such as Karl Marx himself and the Jewish-French philosopher Jacques Derrida and also in the discourse of liberal thinkers such as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman and France’s Alain Minc. The idea is to unify the world by all means necessary and to generate cultural conflicts that will weaken nation-states. It is for this One World that intellectuals Jews labor tirelessly all over the world. Whether they call themselves left- or right-wing, liberal or Marxist, believers or atheists, they are the most ardent propagandists of the pluralistic society and of universal miscegenation, that is of racial mixture.

Thus, all their strength the Jews – basically, ALL the vocal Jews in the world – encourage non-white immigration into every country in which they are located, not only because the multicultural society is their fundamental political aim, but also because the disintegration of national identity in each nation and the massive presence of anti-white immigrants is designed to prevent the original white population from succeeding in any nationalistic outbursts against the Jewish sway over finance, politics, and the media. All Jewish intellectuals, without any exception, are focused on this question of building the “pluralistic society” and for this they practice constant “vigilance against racism.” In France, influential writers and journalists such as Bernard-Henri Levy, Jacques Attali, Jean Daniel, Guy Sorman, and Guy Konopniki agree on pluralism and anti-racism despite their political divergences in other areas. This obsession, which is very characteristic of Judaism, is also manifested in movies, where many producers and directors are influential Jews. As soon as a film starts defending and promoting interbreeding, “tolerance” and pluralism, we can be sure that the producer of it is Jewish.

Now we can understand better why the former communists and leftists of the 1970s did not have to make such a big leap to become today’s “neoconservatives.” They have merely switched to a different strategy to achieve the same goal: the rule by racially pure Jews over a racially mixed society.

The fact is that after the Palestinian intifada began in October 2000, the Jews in France and the rest of the Western world have realized that nowadays the danger to their interests and their project comes primarily from Islam and from young African immigrants, both Arabic and black. Their aim is to strengthen the modern race-mixing and race-blending society, which they have contributed so much to establish in our country of France. But this mosaic now threatens to break up into separate communities, and this the Jews do not want. They want no separate identities or separateness at all, except a separate Jewish identity and Jewish separateness. Former Marxists in France such as Alexandre Adler, André Glucksmann, and Pascal Bruckner thus support nowadays, along with Alain Finkielkraut, the right-wing, pro-Washington, pro-Zionist party of Nicolas Sarkozy. And yet they have not become French patriots. They react only for the exclusive benefit of Jewry, asking, as American Jews proverbially do on every issue: “Is it good for the Jews ?”

“Tolerance” as a Weapon

The members of the Jewish sect are the most proselytizing people on earth, but unlike Christians or Muslims, who dream of converting all peoples of all races to their faith, the Jews have no plan to convert the world to their own faith, Judaism, but simply to encourage other nationalities to give up their national and religious identities – and live only for the goal of “tolerance.” The unceasing campaigns to blame all Whites for slavery, colonialism, the plundering of the Third World or for Auschwitz have no other purpose than putting the opponent on the defensive, and getting him on his knees not by violence but via guilt. When the Jews are the only people left on earth who are keeping their faith and their traditions, they will finally be recognized by everyone as God’s “chosen people.”

Their “mission” (and Jews frequently use this term “mission”) is to disarm the other peoples, to dissolve anything which is not Jewish or Jewish-controlled, to grind the people down to a powder for making a new identity-free work force, and thus to favor a universal “peace” among the peoples who have no more “divisive” identities.

As their prophet Isaiah said: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the tiger will rest with the kid, the lion and the ram shall live together, and a young child will lead them” (Isaiah 11: 6-9). The Messiah, coming from Israel, and awaited for three thousands years, will establish anew the kingdom of David and will give the Jews an empire over all the earth. And certain Jewish texts explicitly call for this.

Jews are therefore continuously encouraged to campaign, in whatever society they inhabit, in order to promote the unification of the world – and thus to also hasten the arrival of their promised and cherished Messiah. Propaganda is a Jewish specialty, and it is no coincidence that Jews become so influential in all the media. In their hands, the concepts of “tolerance” and “human rights” have become incredibly efficient weapons of white guilt and accusation against the majority culture. In fact, it is not through Jewish-sounding names or a Jewish physical appearance that we can best recognize Jews, but rather from what they write and say wherever they are on earth.

Selective Amnesia and Fabulation

Many Jews, as we know, played an absolutely huge role in the Soviet tragedy 1917-1991 and the thirty million deaths that marked this era. Let us remember that Karl Marx was born into a Jewish family and that Lenin himself had a Jewish maternal grandfather, that Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik founder and head of the Red Army, was born a Bronstein, while Kamenev (real name: Rosenfeld) and Zinoviev (real name: Apfelbaum) were running the two Bolshevik-conquered capitals of Moscow and St. Petersburg. But the list of Jews who stood out in the mega-crimes of Communism is endless. It must be said and it must be repeated: Jewish officials and Jewish torturers bore a very heavy responsibility in this tragedy. The “perfect” world they concocted and which was supposedly “historically inevitable” turned out from the very beginning to be a nightmare for the Russian population. It was not until 1948 when the Jewish intellectual elite Jewish began distancing itself from the Stalinist government, and this was only because Stalin had launched his “anti-Zionist” campaign, meant to purge pro-Israel Jews from senior leadership positions.

This indisputable Jewish guilt for the gigantic crimes of Bolshevism is now systematically being shoved down the Memory Hole (the phrase from George Orwell’s 1984). In Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 2002 book Two Centuries Together, the Nobel Laureate and 11-year veteran of the Bolshevik gulag expresses outrage that Jewish intellectuals were still refusing to recognize their ethnic responsibility in the slaughter of millions of Christians. Solzhenitsyn also denounces modern Jews who pose as victims of an “antisemitic” Bolshevik government when that government was in fact heavily Jewish and Jews were among the worst perpetrators.

This selective amnesia is necessary for a people who ceaselessly proclaim their “innocence” of any provocative acts, as we regularly note in their writings, for example in an editorial in Israel magazine of April 2003, “the first Israeli monthly magazine in the French language” written under the name of a certain André Darmon.

He wrote: “To kill a Jew or a child makes God cry, for we are exterminating [in the Jew] the bearer of universal ethics and innocence.”

No less!

With this mindset of absolute innocence Jews cannot conceive bearing any responsibility for their atrocities. Jews are only victims, only “scapegoats” in an evil and hostile world. But very soon the Messiah will punish the “wicked” and will restore the victimized sons of Israel to their full rights.

Nevertheless, in this same Israel magazine editorial, a certain Frederick Stroussi asserted that the Nazi government was worse than the Stalin regime. He quoted the cruelties he claimed were perpetrated by certain SS men. For example, we learn from Stroussi that the Latvian SS man Cukur’s hobby was to toss Jewish babies in the air to shoot them in their head as in skeet shooting. He also writes of other episodes, such as the rape of children by the SS before they killed them. The Second World War has certainly stimulated the fertile imagination of the children of Israel.

Or perhaps this imagination is once again a case of the Jews’ own “projection” syndrome, that is, accusing others systematically of one’s very own crimes as a matter of consistent PR policy: always attack. We know in fact – even if the media never speak about it – that many Jews and their rabbis are involved in the felony crime of pedophilia (see Psychanalyse du Judaisme, 2007).

And murdering a child would seem to be more a Jewish specialty than a characteristic of the SS mind. The revelations of tenured professor Ariel Toaff of Bar Eilan University in Israel – the son of the former Grand Rabbi of Rome – and buttressed in February 2007 by his 147-page, heavily footnoted, scholarly work Pasqua di Sangue [ Blood Passover] – reveals proof of ritual murder among some Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of Eastern European origin).

Emotional Fragility

We outsiders are thus supposed to understand that the sufferings of Jews cannot be compared to those of any others. As a consequence, we are supposed to get as indignant as they do when a serious historian such as Stephane Courtois states (in the preface of his famous Black Book of Communism): “The death of a Ukrainian child of Kulak origin [ from the independent farmer class] who is deliberately forced to starve to death by the Stalinist government is as significant as the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto.” These simple words were enough to provoke the ire of Frederic Stroussi who declares he was “stunned” by such an affront. Such a remark, according to him, was “despicable” and represented a vulgar attack against Israel: “What does this comparison have to do here?” he writes. “Why do we have to use the slaughter of a Jewish child to transmit this underlying, false and hateful rumor that the Jews overshadow all other victims of totalitarianism and monopolize all the attention on themselves?”

The author of the article, as we can notice, reacts in a outraged and totally disproportionate way to the modest and certainly justified intentions of the level-headed historian Stephane Courtois. Stroussi demonstrates here the “great intolerance to the frustration” which are so characteristic of the Jewish intellectual. Such reactions are clearly not “normal.”

We note that Israel magazine is a monthly magazine designed for the Jewish community and that, consequently, one can hardly accuse Frederick Sroussi of lying to goyish readers, or hiding from the goyim the true nature of Bolshevism and the supposedly malefic cruelty of the SS. His discourse here does not correspond to any false dialectic, as anti-Semites claim, but here, in this magazine by and for Jews, he is reflecting, as a Jew among Jews, writing to Jews, the very essence of their soul: 1) We are always innocent – and 2) Jewish lives are more valuable than those of others.

There is an “attack anti-Semitism” that stems from a failure to understand the Jewish identity and only sees deliberate perfidy where there is in reality a genuine existential anxiety, one generated by a deep psychological dysfunction.

Hysterical People

The Jews have never dared to collectively approach the mirror on their inner lives represented by Freudian psychoanalysis, a prism through which the Jews claim to see all humanity, but which, on closer analysis, sheds far more light on the specific neuroses of Judaism. Psychoanalysis, like Marxism, is a “Jewish science” and a product of the Jewish mind. It was therefore logical to wonder how this Freudian “discovery” corresponds to Jewish specificities.

The answer was not initially obvious to the author, and it took the reading and analysis of hundreds of books of all kinds, mostly written by Jews themselves, for him to realize that the searing question of incest stands at the throbbing heart of the Jewish question, and not theoretically either.

Jewish mothers do love their sons, as is well known, but outright incest is at the origin of a well-known mental illness – one that especially afflicts Jews – called “hysteria.” Incest attracted early the attentions of Freud while he was developing his theories. The parallels between Judaism and hysterical pathology are quite natural.

Jewry is well-known for these syndromes: Hysteria, depression, introspection, amnesia, manipulation, pathological lying, ambivalent identity, prophetic deception, sexual ambiguity, and so on. Every Jewish symptom is found in hysteria.

Freud, as a loyal Jew, merely projected the traits of a specific community onto the rest of humanity. In reality, there is no “Oedipus complex” but rather an Israel complex (all Jews together technically being Israel, not just the Near Eastern state). In fact, Jews do not seem to really wish to discuss the topic of incest within their families. On the other hand, all the psychiatrists mention: “The hysterical woman so much wants a child from her father or her doctor that she can persuade herself that she is pregnant by one of them and thus develops a ‘nervous pregnancy.’”

It is interesting that all Jewish writers use the same term to refer to the coming of their Messiah, namely, the “delivery” of the Messiah. The whole Jewish community, we must understand, is “the wife of God” (the Shekhinah of the Kabbalist) who is some day supposed to give birth to the Messiah, and thus the whole of Jewry is indeed suffering from a “nervous pregnancy” not unlike that found in nervous, hysterical women.

Karl Kraus, the Austrian Jewish journalist who did not agree with Freud, wrote sarcastically: “Psychoanalysis is the mental illness of which it claims to be the cure.” But the right and the best formula can be stated in ten words: “Judaism is the disease that psychoanalysis is meant to cure.”

The Sexual Revolution

After Freud, other Jewish thinkers came along who produced a symbiosis between Freudian doctrine and Marxism. Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse preached sexual revolution in order to break down the patriarchal family and unleash “free sex.” Their theories largely inspired the student riots of May ’68. The 1970s saw a new wave of Freudo-Marxism and Jewish women were in the forefront (such as Gisele Halimi and Elisabeth Badinter in France and Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem in the USA). As time passed, a series of Jewish-inspired laws appeared, one after the other, designed to dissolve the family. In France, a Neuwirth-promoted law legalized the contraceptive pill (1967), then came the challenge to the authority of the father as head of the household (1970), then divorce by mutual consent (1974) and the “right” to abortion promoted by “Holocaust survivor” Simone Veil (1975). A great wave of movie porn accompanied this “liberation” from traditional family values. Here we are compelled to note that Jewish producers and film directors play a very important role in the sex film industry. (See my La Mafia Juive [The Jewish Mafia], 400 pages, 2008). Parallel to this, the Freudian concept of bisexuality favored the acceptance of overt “gay pride” and homosexuality.

A War Machine against Humanity

In fact, the only tangible results of this moral “liberation” was the systematic demoralization and criminalization of the white man, who is denounced tirelessly in movies, literature and history as the cause of all the planet’s ills and of the collapse of the West. The appeal of egalitarianism – as intended by Jewry – tends to level all ethnic differences and identities and brings about their slow destruction.

Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in the same issue of Israel magazine:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

You read it right : Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.” The “peace” which Israel intends to confer is no more and no less than “genocide,” the warrant for the execution of all humanity – except for those allowed to live as cultureless slaves.

The Neutralization of the Devil

The question is whether the aggressiveness of Judaism can be neutralized in order to save humanity from its evils, evils that could prove even more serious than Marxism such as psychoanalysis and the ideology of globalism. First of all, we must face the facts: After all these centuries of mutual misunderstanding, the antisemitic Christians, the Muslims, and Hitler have all failed to resolve the Jewish question. The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.

For their part, the rabbis spare no efforts to keep their gene pool Jewish. And so even a renegade Jew remains a Jew, and therefore it is perfectly useless to attempt to leave the Jewish prison community. Judaism is indeed a prison. Claiming that a Jew cannot ever stop being Jewish works in favor of Jewry’s survival.

Our mission must be to accommodate these sick among us, because the Jews are not “perfidious” people as much as they are sick people to be cured.

Jews are to be loved individually and sincerely in order to free them from the prison in which they are locked. Only then will they become free from the cult’s grip – and from the threat they pose to themselves and to all humanity.

Only then we will become free from this grip, and at the same time, they will free themselves from the evil inside them that threatens all mankind.

Autumn 2007
Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/88/46/516490/47626479.pdf

“They would say: “I want Harpaya, (ejaculation), I would then ask what this Harpaya means and they would answer, ‘not only harpaya but we want it ‘all inclusive’, full sex.’ I used to tell them that we don’t do it and he would reply, ‘Read my lips, ‘the women are all included’, the salesman in Tel Aviv promised us that it’s Akol Kalul!’ Sometimes one of the female managers would suggest for to us to follow the guests’ demands just as a guarantee that they would come back.”

On 22 November 2002, Hotel Paradise Mombassa, an Israeli Hotel in Kenya, was attacked by a group of terrorists. The following Maariv piece isn’t concerned with Al Qa’eda, but rather with the devastation the Israelis left behind.

This is the story of a beautiful Israeli hotel on the African seashore. It is the story of an Israeli owned holiday resort in Mombassa, Kenya, designed and built solely for the Israeli tourist market. It is also the story of total abuse of the local impoverished population. It is a tale of humiliation, cruelty and continuous daily rape of struggling African women. It is the usual horrendous story of Israelis inflicting pain on others but at times it is very funny in spite of itself. For instance, once a week, when the Israeli groups were departing in busses on their way back to the Mombassa terminal, the local crew ordered the African staff to chase their departing busses with tears in their eyes and to scream ‘please don’t leave us, we love you, please come back’. This bizarre instruction was given to the local crew by the Israeli hotel management as part of the package deal, the last image to bring home of an unforgettable holiday. I allow myself to assume that the Israeli managers detected some clear yearning for love amongst their Israeli clients. One may ask what may stand in the core of such a longing for declarations of love. Considering the clear fact that those Israeli tourists were mainly engaged in turning Mombassa into Hell on earth, why do they really need to feel beloved after all that? I wonder why the Israeli offender insists upon being loved by his victim? Ordinary human beings do not expect to be loved by their hotel receptionists or room cleaners. But then, ordinary human beings do not tend to humiliate, abuse and rape hotel staff. They may spend some time in the hotel, they may enjoy its services and then they just pay and leave politely and quietly. For the Israeli tourists, as you will soon read, staying in the hotel is a clear ‘letting go’. It is the ideal environment to manifest one’s darkest libidinal impetus and practice total denial of any moral conduct. For the Israeli tourist, holiday is the materialisation and embodiment of their control zeal. For the Israelis, as you will read shortly, to go to for a holiday in Africa is to experience the varied possibilities of becoming a very wild animal.

The following journalistic piece is a glimpse into some Israeli pathological psychotic conditions. It is a bizarre story of an absurd criminal identity that demands affection from its victims. The story wasn’t written by myself, I just translated it into English. It originally appeared only in Hebrew in Maariv, Israel’s 2nd biggest daily paper. I spent time translating it because I do believe that is rather crucial to permit people outside of Israel a better understanding of the Israeli character and characteristics. Seemingly, some amongst us tend to believe that the Israeli approach towards the Palestinians is the outcome of specific colonial circumstances. Apparently, they are wrong. Israeliness is a radical form of blind cruelty and the Israelis have no problem taking it with them wherever they go. In Palestine it would be the Palestinians who suffer, in Goa it is the poor Indians. In the following story it is the deprived labour force of Mombassa, Kenya who confronts Israeli sadism. There is an old and famous saying, ‘you can take the man out of Israel but you can never take Israel out of the man’. You may want to take a nice deep breath before you read what the men of Israel are up to.

“Fear and Contempt in Heaven”
Omri Hasenheim, Kenya
14.10.2005
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/995/971.html

In hotel Paradise Mombassa, crew members were humiliated by the Israeli tourists. It’s no surprise that even after the 2002 terror attack on the hotel, they refuse to forgive, not Al-Qa’eda but rather us (the Israelis).

It is standing on the white sand that is apparently more beautiful than ever. The luxury buildings invite you for a ‘dream of a break’, the rooms and the suites are loaded with exceptional handmade wooden furniture. In between the restored buildings you find a stream with golden fishes. At the bar you can hear the echo of some laidback African beat. All around the gigantic swimming pool you can see many monkeys jumping around. From the dining room windows you can see the magnificent sea-view. On your way to the dining room you may want to visit the alligator pool, clearly the alligator grew a bit since that horrible day of terror.

Welcome to Heaven, Hotel ‘Paradise Mombassa’

At just a kilometre from there, in a Msomrini village, two orphan girls are making dreadlocks for each other. Not far behind them, an isolated miserable mud shed is standing, all around poorly clothed toddlers are playing. They are dirty, their noses are dripping. A few broken stools are spread around. On one of them, Dama Safaria is sitting. Before Al Qa’eda blew up the very little she had, she used to work as a dancer at the hotel. For two years she danced traditional African folk dances, something that helped her to forget the misery she was born into. In Msomrini, everyone was happy to dance for just $2 a day. In the beginning Dama was rather happy, but then, as time went by, the Israeli employers realised that they could probably get away without paying. After the performances, her husband used to march from the village to the hotel to beg for her wages. “We loved to dance for the Israelis,” says Dama, “but then once the payment day arrived our smiles would fade away.”

On the morning of 22 November 2002, Al Qa’eda terrorists attacked at the hotel. Once the explosion went off, it didn’t take long before Dama realised that her husband was missing. She was horrified, a few minutes later she was told that he was killed. Since then, she is struggling on her own to maintain herself and her nine orphans. Her youngest son is just four years old. From the hotel management she heard nothing. No one came to visit or even just to offer condolences. Neither the Israeli Government nor Kenyan officials have shown any interest. “We, the dancing company, are still owed $120 for the last four performances in front of those Israeli tourists,” she claims in despair.

“After the terror attack my life became impossible. In the winter I beg for the farmers to cultivate our land for literally pennies,” in the summer she herself doesn’t realise how she makes it.

Two month ago ‘Paradise Mombassa’ was reopened under a new management comprised of one Israeli, one French and one American. They try to minimise their exposure, very much like the previous Israeli owner Yeuda Sulami who denies to this day his involvement with the previous management. The new management does its utmost to change the hotel’s image, they are trying to leave the Israeli market behind. Instead they aim to appeal to European and American markets.

But for many locals, this new business face lift won’t make a big difference, the memory of those very years of total abuse by Israeli tourists and management is not going to fade away. They won’t forget the Israeli guests that sexually assaulted them or were just rude and arrogant. They won’t forget the Israeli management who came along with some bizarre professional demands, failing to pay their monthly wages on time and eventually just stopped paying altogether. Now, maybe out of hope, or just the will to open their hearts, they are giving their personal account of ‘Paradise Mombassa’.

The idea to erect an Israeli hotel on Kenya’s seashore in the late 1990s was proved to be ingenious. Until then, Kenya was famous for its wild Safari adventures. Yeuda Sulami and his business partner Itzik Mamman came up with the idea of using Kenya as an Israeli holiday resort. They founded a company and started to sell holiday packages including flights, accommodation and local tourist adventures. In the beginning, they were buying accommodation services from local companies. But the Israeli appetite knows no limit. ‘Why don’t we make the big money ourselves’ asked the two, ‘we shall build our hotel on the beach.’ Soon, they joined forces with local investors and founded a company based on ‘time sharing’ holiday rentals for Israelis. The Israeli client reacted enthusiastically, at the end of the day it was: a beautiful hotel offering sunny beaches at the time of the Israeli winter, complete with a flourishing cheap sex industry and just four and a half hours’ flight time from Tel Aviv.

The leitmotif that guided Sulami and Maman was that the Israeli guest who may come to Kenya once would return. Thus the promotion packages were sold ridiculously cheap. It all worked out perfectly well. Many Israelis returned and invested in holiday accommodation (one Israeli bought 52 holiday units for the sum of $1.5 million). Every week 250 Israelis landed at Mombassa airport, they found an Israeli hotel, it was fully Kosher and it even had a proper synagogue.

The hotel started to operate in the year 2000 and was officially launched a year later. Local crew was recruited from surrounding hotels. Most workers admit that in the beginning they were rather happy, but things deteriorated rapidly soon after the official opening. Rather soon it was clear that someone was about to pay for the Israeli extravaganza.

Man should never be Alone

Three years later, the humiliating practice is left like an open wound in the memory of the female hotel crew veterans. Once a week, just when the Israelis where checking out on their way back to the airport, a bell rang. ‘Get ready, the guests are leaving,’ announced the head of the entertaining team, frantically chasing the female crew. They were all ordered to gather near to the entrance gate and to chase the leaving busses while weeping desperately in front of the Israelis. Once they caught up with the busses they would bang on its metal frame with tears dropping from their eyes.

“It was a bizarre order,” giggled Saline Aching, the chief masseuse. “We were told to chase the bus, to sing and cry so the guests would know that we love them and want them to come back. I remember myself running like in a frenzied state, I would hit the bus with my fists shouting to the guests, ‘why do you leave us?’ ‘We miss you’, ‘We love you’. The Israelis would stare at us from the windows, some of them believed us to be genuine, others were shooting us with their video cameras. ”

Rahima Josef Katan: “If you were not crying you may find yourself in danger of losing your job. We were asked to think of something bad that happened to us, so we can cry for real. I didn’t cry.” “I didn’t cry,” Confesses Catherine Khaa, masseuse. “How could I, I didn’t love them at all. I fact I hated them.”

The weekly bus chasing was just one example of the way the staff were supposed to treat the Israeli guests. The principles were obvious: humiliation, indignity, and hard labour. The guidelines were clear: The client is always right, the client must be happy, the client must return. The ones who carried most of the burden were the females amongst the entertainment team. Dorothy Maly recollects that once a week, on the arrival day, five of them would be taken to Mombassa airport. “We used sing to them Jambo Jambo (hello hello) and Evenu Shalom Aleichem. The local Kenyans were sure that we had had lost it but the Israelis were over the moon. They loved noise, once we arrived at the hotel, again we started singing loudly. In the night we were instructed by the manager to scream till the last Israeli leaves the dance floor. If a guest decides not to go to sleep, you were required to stay with him till he quits to his room. We were demanded to produce noise almost 24 hours a day. When we took a break, the manager would come and bark: ‘What’s the matter with you, do you fall asleep? I will cut your wage, move on…’.”

The agenda dictated from above was that a bored guest would never return. Rahima Raymond, masseuse: “We were doomed to sit with the guests till the small hours, to hang around with them. Sulami made it clear that we must keep the guests happy. We were dancing with the men in nightclubs just to make sure that they weren’t staying alone. In case we refused to do so, they would complain to the management: ‘Why don’t they come out with us?’ ‘We want to see the African night life’. They obviously didn’t care about our commitments and family life. Obviously, we didn’t get any ‘extra’ for those services. The day after, while they were still in bed we had to start again at eight in the morning. The slogan ‘the client is always right’ took over. Josef Katan: “they taught us a behavioural code, if a man is near to his wife we were supposed to hold his hand in a certain way, if his wife wasn’t around then we should behave rather differently.”

“There were religious Jews who couldn’t sign the room service notes on the Jewish Sabbath. We would then keep a note with their room number attached to their bill. Once Sabbath was over, some of them would just refuse to pay. They would argue that we invented it all, ‘you forged our signatures’, they would say. The management would always believe them and expect us to cover their bills. I just couldn’t believe that humans can behave as such.”

To be seen like an African

The ever-growing demand to entertain the Israeli guests enforced a maximised utilisation of the local workforce. The crew were mobilised from the many different departments to the entertainment team. “They could pool me out of the kitchen, telling me that the guests want to have a good time and I should go and hang out with them,” says Josef Katan. “ I would then ask, how can I bake cookies and dance simultaneously? The entire hotel was as an entertainment squad. The kitchen stuff were entertainers, the receptionists were entertainers, gardeners were entertainers.” Mali, a dancer: “Saline, the chief masseuse would give us a shout when too many Israelis wanted a massage at the same time. At the time I knew nothing about massage. There was a woman that was brought over by the hotel’s rabbi and she was supposed to teach us. After a short instruction of five minutes I was apparently ready to have a go.”

In order to maintain ‘authentic African spirit’ the staff was obliged to put on very minimal clothes. Unlike the other hotels in the vicinity, where men were serving in uniform, in Paradise Mombassa the male crew were walking around half naked and with bare feet. The females were allowed just a minimal fabric on their breasts and pubes. “Even when temperatures dropped we were not allowed to cover ourselves.” Marci Mawagambo Aching said: “Sulami wanted us to look ‘authentic’ so when you walk around, the guests can check you out for the night. You must be attractive so they re-book another holiday. It was horrible, but what can you do? I needed the money. One of the Israeli female managers told us that we better follow Sulami’s orders, if he wants us too look like Africans, we better look like ones.”

Even most basic conditions were lacking. ‘Paradise Mombassa’ is located 8 kilometres from the main road. The dirt track to the hotel passes through a wild savannah loaded with outlaws. But then a solution was found, a truck originally built to transport livestock was converted to transport forty humans. An Israeli employee says, “it was a truck with a sealed cargo wagon without benches. People were so squeezed in that we had to leave the back door open.” Josef Katan: “We felt like animals. Sometimes we were left with no oxygen, but we knew that if we complained we would then asked to stay in the hotel. That would obviously mean we would not be able to see our families. So we kept quiet.” Once a newly appointed manager asked how the Kenyans felt about the manner in which they were transported. The answer was rather clear, ‘for them it doesn’t matter, as long as they are delivered to their work they are happy.’

Even for meals during the working hours, local crew were left to fend for themselves. But then a creative solution was found. Aching: “there were times when Sulami was kind and let us eat the guests’ leftovers. We were lucky because the Israelis are greedy, they would go to the buffet and put on their plates far more than their bodies can take. They would take piles of salads, and massive chunks of meat, but then, they would barely touch it and leave most of it behind.” Mali: “If to tell the truth, we could see that the food was already on someone else’s plate, but some of us had to eat it, just because they couldn’t afford to buy somewhere else. They where hungry, what could they do?”

But it goes further. It didn’t take long before the local crew realised that they were not insured. It was clearly revealed after a security man was murdered and his colleague was wounded during a burglary, till this day, neither the grieving family nor the wounded man received any compensation. Work contracts were granted only to the very top managers. Lower hierarchy were provided with a meaningless paper stating an agreed figure. This document has never been respected by its initiators.

Good Machine, Good Machine

Saline Aching was curious to understand some Hebrew terms, it is her interest in the Hebrew language that helped her to grasp the meaning of Akol Kalul, all included. Not one hotel staff failed to understand the meaning of the Hebrew idiom that became the hotel business philosophy. All hotel services where included in the price of the holiday package purchased back in Israel. Soon the staff learned that this very idiom means a lot to Israelis.

“All day long I heard the guests shouting Akol Kalul,” says Josef Katan. “Some of them held me by my arm and shouted at me Akol Kalul. Even on the beach they would just shout to passing people Akol Kalul, Akol Kalul. I would then ask them what that ‘Akol Kalul’ means? They would answer, ‘everything, even you’. I used to tell them that I am not Sulami’s property. He owns the hotel but not me. I thought to myself, “God, do they behave as such in their own country?”

In the best case scenario, the Akol Kalul was practiced in the free buffet bar materialising into gigantic chunks of meat put on a single plate. In the worst case scenario, it found its way into the massage room. Needless to say, not even one guest evaded his right to be massaged. Aching says, “The first thing the male guests did upon arrival, even before they unloaded their suitcases in the rooms, they would sprint to the massage room. They would enter the hotel with their eyes wide open asking, ‘where is the massage room?’ I used to plan the daily schedule, there was a competition amongst them who is going to get there first.

Mali: “My role was to tell them: ‘I am Dorothy and I am a masseuse in the hotel’ as soon as I mentioned it they would scream ‘massage, massage’. Most of them couldn’t speak English. They would just say, ‘I come now.’ A tourist from another country would wait even two weeks but in Paradise they wanted it all right on the spot. Sometimes, even before breakfast. Someone would come and tell you, ‘I come for a massage akol kalul, if you don’t do akol kalul, I take another masseuse’.”

“They would say: “I want Harpaya, (ejaculation), I would then ask what this Harpaya means and they would answer, ‘not only harpaya but we want it ‘all inclusive’, full sex.’ I used to tell them that we don’t do it and he would reply, ‘Read my lips, ‘the women are all included’, the salesman in Tel Aviv promised us that it’s Akol Kalul!’ Sometimes one of the female managers would suggest for to us to follow the guests’ demands just as a guarantee that they would come back.”

Katherine Kaha, a masseuse, confesses that she had to follow the demands… “I would start doing a massage, and then the man would tell me, ‘do it all over, you must do it’. In case I wouldn’t they would complain to the management. I didn’t like it at all but I did it. They would give me $1 sometimes two, I felt horrible.”

A frequent Israeli guest to the hotel: “There was always this problem with the massage, the Israelis used to abuse the girls to the very limit. It was appalling and it gave Israel a bad name. There were some groups I was really embarrassed to stand near to. They were so bossy and arrogant, they did whatever they liked, and just had good time.”

“One of the Israelis told me,” says Rahima, “you know Rahima, last night they provided me with a little baby girl, only 13 years old, I fucked her and gave her $5 just because she was penniless.” I then asked him, “Wasn’t she the age of your granddaughter?” He didn’t answer. On the same night he might as well have come back to the hotel shouting, ‘African women are the best value for money.’ Let me tell you, here in Africa, it isn’t that common that once you sleep with a woman you go and inform the rest of the world about it. But the Israelis kept it all open, they used to say about us: Mechona Tova, Mechona Tova (Good machine, Good machine).”

The Power to Fuck

The passion for sex wasn’t only restricted to the massage rooms and wasn’t solely the business of the single male guests. It was rather prohibited to let local girls into the hotel. But a solution was found, just across the road, again in an Israeli partnership, a motel named Calypso was founded. This was where Israelis were hanging around in the nights. “Men used to come to our rooms asking us to go out with them,” tells Josef Katan, “but the worst happened in the morning when they shared the details of last night’s affairs with the entire dining room. They used to shout things like ‘ha, I went with her, I fucked and fucked and fucked her all night long and all for less than one dollar’. We understood exactly what they were talking about. When the first group arrived, I was telling myself that surely the second group would be better. But it was exactly the same. From tine to time they used to ask for room service, once the room service crew would enter their room, they would try to touch her. The waitresses were horrified, they never wanted to go with food to the rooms, but my personal case was different, they were afraid of me because I was rude to them. They used to call me ‘big ass’. This was Ok, it is better being ‘big ass’ rather than being their sex slave.”

“Even the married men used to find some ways to the girls’ rooms. For instance, one told his wife, ‘go to the dining room, I will be right there with you.’ Apparently he disappeared till the morning after. In the morning we were witnessing the woman screaming at her husband during breakfast. Once a man replied to his wife, ‘the women in Kenya are so great, they have a small hole, unlike you having such a silly big one’. All that at breakfast, in the dining room, in public. When the animosity went wild we always rushed to bring the hotel’s Rabbi in, he would do his best to make peace. Sometimes, the men used to sit in the dining room while the donkeys were having sex outside. As soon as the Israelis noticed the donkeys’ activity they would stand up and show their support: ‘good, good, good, forward, backward, good. good’.”

“Occasionally, one would come to me telling me in front of everyone else. ‘I will take Viagra and after that I will have the power to fuck. By the way, what’s your name?’ I would say Rahima. ‘Good, Rahima. I want to fuck you today!’” I asked myself what is going on. One guest asked me, ‘do you know Chartie? I went with her to the disco, I fucked her but she wasn’t good at all. Originally I planed to give her $10 but eventually I gave her $1 only. He was shouting like a madman and then Chartie arrived in the room. He then pointed at her with his finger and shouted ‘here she is, it was her’.”

Karen Tiglo, a room cleaner: “We couldn’t figure out whether the Israelis were wild animals or human beings. They would all the time offer me $10. I felt so humiliated. After a while they would know who amongst the female crew were desperate for money and would just go for them. Stela Matawa, a waitress: from time to time, a man would approach me abusively, in case I would refuse, the man would come to the dining room and shout, ‘leave out this girl she is crap, I took her to the room and she was useless’.”

Katherine Kaa experienced an especially traumatic event when a seventy-year-old man decided that he was in love with her. “I didn’t love him at all,” she says. “We went out to a discothèque, I was sure that I was just escorting him to assist him killing his boredom. On the way back, he and the taxi driver tricked me, rather than driving back to the hotel, we arrived at a place that hires rooms for the night. Violently, he tried to force me to sleep with him. But I couldn’t. When we went back to the hotel he told me that never wanted to see me again. And he would report to the management that I wasted his money without giving a thing back. After my refusal was reported, the hotel manager dismissed me for two weeks.”

According to a few of the crew members, not only did the Israeli management fail to denounce, some of the managers actually joined the party (their names are kept with the editors of the newspaper). Raymond, “At the time one of the managers learned to enjoy the massages. He started to demand: ‘do it here, here and there’ just like one of the guests. Another manager would pick girls from the entertainment team, he would say, ‘after all, I am a manager, no one would ask you where were you going.’ I had to accept it although it was rather horrible. The day after when he would pass by me, he would hardly acknowledge me. Every time, after our performances, one dancer would disappear into one of the manager s’ offices. The girls were afraid that this might be a professional issue to do with their performance but then, once in the manager’s office, they realised what it was all about.”

From Peacepalestine, October 24, 2005

See also our articles from Jewish Tribal Review

(9) “I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home” (Barack Hussein Obama, July 16, 2009, on the arrest of Harvard University racist Negro professor Henry Louis Gates).

(8) A tie: anything said or written by the $PLC and the ADL.

(7) The MIAC Report, The Modern Militia Movement, Feb. 20, 2009 (pretty much written by the $PLC and the ADL).

(6) “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here” (Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey, Nov. 8, 2009, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on the Ft. Hood massacre).

(5) “Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right” (Racist Negro Reverend Joseph Lowery, Jan. 20, 2009, at the inauguration of Obama).

(4) “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards” (Attorney General Eric Holder, Feb. 18, 2009).

(3) “It was a very unfortunate event” (Columbia University racist Negro professor Lionel McIntyre, Nov. 10, 2009, on his punching the face of university employee Camille Davis, a White woman, during a discussion about “White privilege”).

(2) “Let’s be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don’t know their history at all. It’s about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that” (Marxist activist and lousy actress Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” Apr. 16, 2009, referring to Tea party attendees).

(1) “It’s horrifying to imagine kids being proud to be white” (Newsweek, Sept. 14, 2009. This will probably be in the top 10 most hateful quotes EVER).

From The Political Cesspool, December 28, 2009

Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust

Naturally, the New York Times adored the book (it spent twenty-five weeks on their Best Seller list), and it was translated into at least fifteen languages.

Across the Big Pond, it sparked the “Goldhagen Debate” in Germany. Defeated in war in 1945, and more thoroughly defeated in spirit ever since, the German nation lauded Goldhagen’s assault on them. A prestigious prize was given: “Because of the penetrating quality and the moral power of his presentation, Daniel Goldhagen has greatly stirred the consciousness of the German public.”

Not all informed readers were as thrilled. Professor Albert Lindemann, for one, wrote in Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge U. Press 1997) that treatments of the Holocaust by those such as Goldhagen “lack penetration in striking ways. A large number might best be described as cries of pain or expressions of indignation rather than efforts to understand.” Further, he called the book “questionable and simplistic; [Goldhagen] typically ignores, or is ignorant of, evidence that contradicts his by no means original reading of German history.” In sum, Goldhagen’s thesis about pan-German responsibility for the Holocaust “might be termed a twentieth-century psogos, a tirade that is motivated by goals other than the impartial search for truth.”

Well, that’s putting it more nicely than I would, but then Lindemann was writing a year after Goldhagen’s first book, while I have the advantage of a dozen more years to draw on. By 2002, Goldhagen had cast his net more widely in his next work, A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair. One reviewer for National Review, called A Moral Reckoning “a 352-page exercise in intellectual bad manners” and “a spree of intellectual wilding.” This was part of the genre of anti-Catholic books that were all the rage during that period, prompting Philip Jenkins to pen The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice.

Now comes Professor Goldhagen’s latest book, Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. And what a doozy it is. I read the review of it in the New York Times Book Review. Reviewer James Traub thought it was swell.

To my surprise, another review of it turned up in The National Interest. The title of the review, “The Willing Misinterpreter,” captures the tone of the review. Though reviewer David Rieff is a fellow Jew (his mother was Susan Sontag, of blessed memory), he tears apart Goldhagen’s heated prose, beginning by labeling him an “amateur historian.”

As I noted, Goldhagen has widened his net in hunting bad guys, as Rieff picks up on: “Worse Than War is, depending on your point of view, either the logical conclusion of the path Goldhagen has been taking for the past fifteen years or its reductio ad absurdum.” Acknowledging Goldhagen’s families’ history, Rieff still states that Goldhagen’s views “are either willfully naïve or idiotic.” Tracing the bombastic style Goldhagen employs to Goldhagen’s high regard for . . . Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Rieff concludes that “The man really does give self-love a bad name.”

In addition to the differences in assessments of the worth of Worse Than War, I noticed one other important difference between the Times piece and that in The National Interest: The former ignores Jewish identity and Israel, while Rieff twice notes Goldhagen’s powerful pro-Israel orientation. This prompts me to unpack the review in the Times.

To do this, however, allow me a short digression. Earlier this year, I was musing over the question of whether Jews ever feel guilt or remorse when they blatantly insult, injure or kill goyim. I had to conclude, based on my research and observations, that the answer was no. Invariably, they possess mental traits that allow them to project their guilty behavior onto the actual victim, and in turn conceive of themselves as the victims. (Have a look at Chapter 8 of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, which deals with the phenomenon of Jewish self-deception.)

No sooner had I reached this conclusion than E. Michael Jones in his magazine Culture Wars called my views into question. In the April issue, he published his essay “Jewish Monsters from the Jewish Id.” The essay was partially based on his 2000 book Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film. The book discussed how the sexual liberation crowd “tried to drive religious and moral nature out with a pitchfork, but found that nature only returned through the back door, in the form of a monster.” In other words, as one review summarized with respect to sexual license and its attendant abortion problem, “Horror, says Jones, comes from a guilty conscience that won’t admit that it’s done anything wrong — and horror stories reveal the true nature of that guilt again and again.”

Jones combined this with his remarkable 2008 book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History to argue that the 2009 film The Unborn “is about Jewish guilt over abortion manifesting itself as fetal monsters.”

Jones’ review is too long to describe here, but let me say I found his argument compelling. Let me just offer this one passage because it informs what follows on Goldhagen. The crucial Jewish role in getting abortion legalized in America, Jones argues, plus the high rates at which Jews abort their own children,

explains the need to bring up Auschwitz, because the function of the holocaust is to absolve all Jews from any guilt they may have incurred by violating the moral law. Auschwitz is the totem which calms the troubled Jewish conscience by assuring the Jew that he is the eternal victim, and, as such, incapable of incurring guilt as the perpetrator of some immoral act like, say, killing a fellow Jew in the womb of his mother.

More pertinently yet, Jones sees that last December’s Israeli massacre of innocent Palestinian women and children also inevitably creates subconscious Jewish guilt. Which brings me back to Goldhagen and the review of his book in the New York Times.

The Times review never mentions Israel or its behavior. Goldhagen is writing about all manner of genocides and man’s inhumanity to man, but the review is silent on one of the most prominent ongoing examples in the world: that of the Israelis against the Palestinians (see “For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls,” Part 1 and Part 2.) Early chapters in Worse Than War have titles such as “Our Age’s Slaughters” and “Varieties of Eliminationist Assault,” so I have to wonder if he admits to what Israel is doing and has done.

More broadly, I find it highly unlikely that Goldhagen will highlight the prominent Jewish role in the Communist takeover of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, resulting in tens of millions of deaths of non-Jews. Perhaps readers familiar with this new book can help me.

Based on the two reviews I’ve discussed, however, as well as Goldhagen’s past works, I’d wager that he ignores, downplays, or denies Jewish guilt in any number of mass slaughters over the ages. If so, I can proffer this hypothesis: A Jewish writer like Goldhagen is projecting Jewish guilt for Jewish behavior onto the groups he writes about. More to the point, Goldhagen himself is dealing with the guilt engendered by concrete Jewish behavior, but is repressing it. As we all know, what is repressed must come out somewhere.

The result in Goldhagen’s case is a series of increasingly obsessive books, where the target group grows larger and larger. Meanwhile, because Goldhagen has mis-identified the source of his rage, his rage only grows.

So what else might be going on in the mind of Goldhagen, one of the most privileged Americans of his generation? As far as I can tell, no one has ever touched or threatened a hair on his head. He was born in Massachusetts and raised as the son of a Harvard professor (who survived the Holocaust). In turn, Daniel attended Harvard from B.A. through Ph.D. and then taught there for some years. What might account for his elevated level of what can only be termed hate?

Getting back to my introductory discussion on this “Jewish virtue” of hate — yes, it was so identified in an infamous essay in First Things, “The virtue of hate” where the Jewish rabbi and then Yale Divinity School student admitted that a nun who realized that “hatred is in the Jewish religion” was right. As most of us already know, “Hebrew prophets and judges believed ardently in the ‘virtue of hate.’” With a passion. I like that. And the rabbi has no problem acknowledging that “many Jews, in my own experience, have continued to despise religions Christians.” Bottom line: “When hate is appropriate, then it is not only virtuous, but essential for Jewish well-being.”

It is a common Jewish personality trait that we cannot ignore because so many Jews direct so much hatred toward so many of us non-Jews. Worse, they have the power to turn that hatred into real harm (and to subsequently protect themselves from their actions).

As just another taste of this process, peruse Hervé Ryssen’s characterization of Jewish intellectuals’ contempt for non-Jews in this piece:

It is not enough for these intellectuals to talk nonsense, to lull us with “human rights,” to bind us with repressive laws, and to inject us with alien cultural poisons. They also have to pour into our ears their contempt for our old cultures. But this contempt does not seem to fully satisfy their thirst for revenge. They must also insult us and spit in our faces: “ignoramuses, xenophobes, paranoiacs, morons, lunatics, etc.” . . .

And I will not recount the innumerable films in which the cosmopolitan scriptwriters take their revenge against Christian civilization and the white man in general. It seems obvious to me, regarding all this logorrhea, that these people hate us. It could not be any more obvious if they wore flashing neon signs on their heads.

Let me close with this point: Goldhagen writes that “hundreds of millions of people are at risk of becoming the victims of genocide and related violence.” God help us if Goldhagen is projecting repressed Jewish desires and intentions, for given the current Jewish stranglehold over America, they could indeed induce mass slaughter. We have seen the process at work in Russia, so we know many of the details, accentuated by the tremendous death toll of non-Jews. Recall that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.”

Tomislav Sunic expounded on this parallel between Soviet Russia and today’s America in Homo americanus:: Child of the Postmodern Age. In that book, he saw dark clouds on the horizon for any group in America that might be targeted: “Thus, in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” Kevin MacDonald, in the book’s Foreword, identified what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.” They are the European-derived Whites populating vast areas of the American nation, particularly in the so-called “red states.”

Remember, ideas have consequences. And the good Professor Goldhagen seems to have a fixation on genocide. That worries me, given that he is plugged into the ruling circles of the United States.

But in some distant future, there might be hope. As evidenced by his own books, Goldhagen opts to collectively blame Germans, to collectively blame Catholics, to collectively blame many other groups for their trespasses. What if Jews were ever to collectively repent for their considerable trespasses against others these last three to four millennia? To repent for their financial, political, and most of all lethal crimes against humanity? Maybe then the projection and repression might stop, and the world would become a far better place.

From The Occidental Observer, December 18, 2009

But [Dr. Amy] Kalmanofsky quickly put that argument [that Jews should feel guilty about revenge] to bed, noting that Jewish texts have always embraced revenge fantasies, from the destruction of the Egyptians in Exodus and Haman & Co. in Megillat Esther. And [Rabbi Jack] Moline — echoing the message of one of his Yom Kippur sermons from earlier this year — also praised the film, describing it as a way of helping American Jews shed some of their Holocaust baggage and getting more comfortable with their Zionist sides.

Moline told his congregants: “To my surprise, my complete and utter surprise, there was something cathartic and deeply satisfying watching this revenge fantasy play out. It was as if something I did not dare admit — my secret blood lust to do unto them what they did unto us — was being acknowledged, permitted and validated. I was liberated from victim hood.”

For making Jews feel good about their blood lust, Tarantino’s future in Hollywood is assured. The producer, Lawrence Bender told Tarantino “Quentin you are about to make your Bar Mitzvah movie, you are going to be officially let into the tribe.”

This reminds me of Alison Weir’s wonderful recent article “Israeli Organ Trafficing and Theft: From Palestine to Moldova.” She discusses the work of Prof. Nancy Scheper-Hughes of the University of California-Berkeley:

Scheper-Hughes discussed the two motivations of Israeli traffickers. One was greed, she said. The other was somewhat chilling: “Revenge, restitution – reparation for the Holocaust.”

She described speaking with Israeli brokers who told her “it’s kind of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We’re going to get every single kidney and liver and heart that we can. The world owes it to us.’”

Scheper-Hughes says that she “even heard doctors saying that.”

I think that revenge fantasies are a common among Jews and it goes way beyond Nazis. In “Memories of Madison” I wrote that

In my experience at Madison during the 1960s, there was also a strong desire [among Jews] for bloody, apocalyptic revenge against the entire social structure—perceived by them to be the goyish, fascist, capitalist, racist, anti-Semitic social structure. … This fits well with the set of interviews with New Left Jewish radicals in Percy Cohen’s Jewish Radicals and Radical Jews: many had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors.” These fantasies of destruction of the social order were combined with a belief in their own omnipotence and their ability to create a non-oppressive social order.

As Whites become a minority in Western societies and Jews constitute a hostile elite, this Jewish focus on revenge has grave implications for the future. Revenge becomes an important issue given that Jews tend to interpret their history of living among Europeans as a long series of persecutions beginning with Christianity and ending with the Holocaust. (See, e.g., Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberals?)

From The Occidental Observer Blog, December 20, 2009

Editor’s Note: Tanstaafal continues his fascinating round-up of news and commentary about the five foot “Pole” you wouldn’t want to be touched with.

“Polanski’s Defenders’ Apologists,”Age of Treason, October 4, 2009.

“More Polanski,” Age of Treason, October 4, 2009.

Editor’s Note: Tanstaafl (an acronym for “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”) has been following the arrest of Roman Polanski (who confessed to drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl, then fled before sentencing) and his apologists. The facts about Polanski are so sickening that they make the Manson family look like mercy killers.

“The reality is that a bunch of mostly self-righteous secular jews are upset that a fellow jew, who just happens to be a convicted criminal, has been arrested. They know anti-semitism when they smell it. They can’t see why else a brilliant jew who drugs and anally rapes a 13-year old girl needs to be held to account.” — Tanstaafl

“The Outrageous Defense of Roman Polanski,” Age of Treason, September 30, 2009

“Polanski Polarization,” Age of Treason, October 1, 2009

Jewish pride and concern for status and material affluence has a long history. There is a Yiddish word for it: yicchus, which connotes the traditional Jewish importance of personal and familial prestige, status, and a respected reputation in the community. This yicchus could be obtained for parents by their children’s marriage to a spouse of higher standing. But yicchus could be lost too, for instance, by stooping to manual labor. “In his ghetto community [the Jew] strove for yicchus,” wrote Harry Golden, “a word which has remained to this day the most important word in Jewish culture. . . . [It] is more than a thousand years old. . . . Yiddish and Hebrew are filled with words denoting the nuances of community standing.” Originally supposedly rooted in family genealogies and scholarship, it also grew to reflect upper class occupations, material affluence, and — for many — ostentatious display of ownership. As Zborowski and Herzog put it:

Historically, traditionally, ideally, learning has been and is regarded as the primary value and wealth as subsidiary or complementary. Economic pressures and outside influence have made of wealth a constant contender for first place in the value hierarchy.

David Koskoff even suggests that the idea of the marriage bond expressed as expensive jewelry has roots in ancient Jewish history, where the wedding ring had to be

large, heavy, and gold. It was expected to be of a specified value and fully paid for! Indeed, in the Hebrew stipulation that the ring must have a stipulated value, we see, perhaps, the origins of later customs which laid down that a wedding ring must be durable and of some worth — not a mere trifle. . . . The basic principle survives today. It is not the thought that counts, it is the money.

In non-religious Jewish circles, the principles of economic status (and embarrassment) are the same. “Community pressure can be exerted in many other ways,” says Yaffe,

Some [Jewish] federations publish a book at the end of each [fund-raising] campaign, in which the names of all contributors and the amounts of their contributions are listed. In Cleveland this book is mailed free of charge to every affiliated member of the Jewish community. . . . [At fund-raising dinners] the same thing goes on. . . . After the food and the speeches, the name of each guest is read out from a stack of cards, and he is required to stand up and announce how much he intends to give — and to hand in his signed pledge then and there.

Zalman Schachter was asked why many young Jews in the post-1960s era left Judaism for other faiths like Buddhism. “First,” he replied,

. . . it doesn’t feel real if it comes from their own thing. If you come to shul on Yom Kippur — this is the gross level, yah? — and you know you’re going to be hit for the United Jewish Appeal and the building fund, you can’t take your own tradition seriously.

The above kinds of expression of Jewish competitive pride, material self-worth, ostentation, and economic centeredness even at the heart of their religion — often aggravating anti-Jewish sentiment in surrounding Gentile populations — have been widely criticized. The wealthy Jewish gravitation to ostentation in Amsterdam (in the 1500s and 1600s) is noted by Jewish scholar Herbert Bloom:

If we compare [in Amsterdam] the Sephardic Jews’ luxurious and extravagant lifestyle with the simpler and more restrained ways of the average wealthy Dutchman, the contrast is striking and served to accentuate the traditional association between the Jew and money.

“In Germany,” notes Joachim Prinz,

forty Marrano ["secret" Jewish] families participated in founding the Bank of Hamburg in 1619, and by the middle of that century they were accused of having too luxurious a life style, as evidenced by their palatial homes and their ostentatious funerals and weddings. . . . Some of the finest homes in Amsterdam belonged to newly arrived Marranos.

Oscar Rank (formerly Rosenfeld), an earlier Jewish psychoanalyst and follower of Sigmund Freud in the early 1900′s, complained that Jews in Vienna go “out of boredom to the synagogue and reduce it to a place of business, as if it were a branch of the stock exchange. The women show off their dresses, or what is beneath them; the men discuss petty affairs, but not what is beneath them.” Walter Rathenau, the first Jewish foreign minister of Germany, noted (in 1897) Jewish ostentatious display in Germany, where he spotted “the curious vision of a completely alien tribe of people, conspicuously overdressed, of mobile and hot-blooded gesture. An Asiatic horde here on the sands of Brandenburg!” Another Jew, Mordechai Breuer, took a harsher look at the European synagogue tradition as Jewry looked at itself during the Enlightenment: “What will the goyim say? was the question many an Ashkenazi Jew asked himself in view of the uncouth behavior, noisy commotion, and lack of formal structure that had established themselves in numerous synagogues.” Walter Lippman, a prominent American journalist of German-Jewish descent, complained about excessive expressions of ostentation in the Jewish community of New York City in the early decades of the twentieth century:

The rich and vulgar and pretentious Jews of our big cities are perhaps the greatest misfortune that has ever befallen the Jewish people. They are the real fountain of anti-Semitism. They are everywhere in sight, and though their vices may be no greater than those of other jazzy elements in the population, they are a thousand times more conspicuous. . . . When they rush about in super-automobiles, bejeweled and be-furred and painted and overbarbered, when they build themselves French chateaus and Italian palazzi, they stir up the latent hatred against crude wealth in the hands of shallow people: and that hatred diffuses itself. They undermine the natural liberalism of the American people. . . . The Jew is conspicuous, and unless in his own conduct of life he manages to  emonstrate the art of moderate, clean and generous living, every failure will magnify itself in woe upon the heads of the helpless and unfortunate.

Harold Hochschild, Jewish chairman of a mining conglomerate, noted in a private memo in 1940 that

Anyone who visits restaurants, theatre or other places of entertainment in New York especially on Saturday or holiday nights, who has traveled on large pleasure-cruise ships, or who has seen certain types of Jewish summer hotels or camps near similar Gentile resorts must admit that differences in behavior play a strong part in anti-Semitism. . . . It may not be morally wrong for Jewish women to overdress and overload themselves with jewelry and makeup, but these habits are certainly repugnant to many Gentiles.

Even Chaim Weitzmann, a pioneer Zionist and first President of modern Israel, had deep concern about many American Jews and their self-created magnetism for anti-Jewish hostility. “He believed,” says Peter Grose, “that the [American] anti-Semitism of the 1930s and 1940s was partly the Jews own fault.” Weitzmann worried that

Along with a new generation of modest and honest workers, there is a certain part of Jewish bourgeoisie — rich, quasi-powerful, loud, vulgar, pulling a weight far in excess of their numbers, ostentatious, in the eyes of the Gentiles they and they alone represent Jewry, and this is a grave danger.

A compilation of non-Jewish observers were featured in an article about anti-Semitism in the American Hebrew of 1890, says Marie-Jane Rochelson:

Possible reasons cited for the dislike of Jews included their commercial “sharpness,” their “clannishness,” and their “vulgar” ostentation in dress and manners. It is hardly surprising that [prominent Jewish author Israel] Zangwill’s portrait of wealthy, materialistic, and family-oriented Jews in “Grandchildren” [a chapter in one of his books] evoked discomfort [among Jewish readers].

The respected Danish-American social crusader, Jacob Riis, and Lewis Hine, were the foremost photographic chroniclers of immigrant life in New York City in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bringing to public attention the harsh urban conditions of the new poor and dispossessed from all over the world. Observing the Jewish community, Riis wrote:

Money is their God. Life is of so little value compared with even the leanest bank account. In no other spot does life wear so intensely BALD and materialist an aspect in Ludlow Street. . . . Proprieties do not count on the East Side; nothing counts that cannot be converted into hard cash.

“The great mass of American Jews,” wrote Jewish author Ralph Boas in 1917, “have sunk into a comfortable materialism. . . . The sad result is that in prosperity the Jewish self-consciousness ceases to be religious and becomes merely racial.”  “The Jew party [was] appalling,” [future First Lady] Eleanor [Roosevelt] had written her mother-in-law in 1918 after an evening with [influential Jewish mogul/politician] Bernard Baruch, “I never wish to hear money, jewels, or sables mentioned again.” Jews in early twentieth century America, notes sociologist John Higham, were popularly seen as

the quintessential parvenu — glittering with conspicuous and vulgar jewelry . . .  attracting attention by clamorous behavior, and always forcing his way into society that was above him. To treat this stereotype entirely as a scapegoat for somebody else’s psychological frustrations is to overemphasize the irrational sources of “prejudice” and to clothe the Jews in defensive innocence.

In mid-twentieth century, Judith Kramer and Seymour Levantman noted that

Lacking occupational variety and economic yichus (the prestige of old and respected family businesses), [second generation Jewish Americans] substituted money as the measure of success. Money, and what it can buy, has remained the major source of status stratifying the [Jewish American] gilded ghetto and justifying its popular appellation.

In 1998, apologist Jewish professor Judith Elkin sought to explain parallel kinds of Jewish ostentation away in Latin America, explaining that “for tourists unfamiliar with the prevailing ostentatious lifestyle of the wealthy, the expectation of Jewish wealth may appear to be borne out on first contact with mercantile and industrial entrepreneurs, especially in the Caribbean basin . . . Actually, a princely lifestyle can be sustained in Peru, Colombia, Mexico, or Brazil quite cheaply, and a household with five or six servants may be only middle class in terms of the net financial worth of the head of household.” Jewish historian Howard Sachar also notes Jewish communal ostentation in the public sphere throughout Latin America:

In Sao Paolo [Brazil], as in Mexico City or Buenos Aires [Argentina], a major focus of Jewish identity is a luxurious sports facility-country club-community center. . . . Like its model in Buenos Aires, it is called Hebraica. . . . Not to be outdone, the Jews of Rio have constructed their own modern Hebraica building on the prestigious Rua des Laranjeiras. A seven-story building, it is equipped with comparable facilities.

The sister of Jewish comedian Roseanne Barr remembers growing up in Salt Lake City and her feelings when she her family went to the local synagogue: “In a synagogue parking lot filled with Mercedeses, Lincolns, and Cadillacs, our old Chevy stood out like a sore thumb.” Barr eventually made it big in Hollywood where many famous moguls go home at the end of the work day to nearby Beverly Hills, a famed and wealthy enclave that is largely Jewish. (According to the local Jewish Federation Council, the 1990s population of Beverly Hills was 62 percent Jewish). [Beverly Hills, notes Jewish journalist Connie Bruck, is "one of the most ostentatious displays of wealth that exists in this country, a town that spawns every excess that money can by." This city, adds Janet Steinberg, "is the quintessential symbol of opulent California life."  As Jewish professor Barry Shain notes about this lifestyle: "I understand [President Bill Clinton's sex playmate] Monica Lewinsky [who was raised in Beverly Hills, and is Jewish] very well. I never knew her personally, but I went to Beverly Hills High School. I understand her moral life from my experiences growing up with those wealthy Jewish women. They look upon the world as an opportunity to amuse themselves.” There are those who think that Palm Beach, Florida, is more “decadent” than Beverly Hills. One Washington DC newspaper declared, for instance, that Palm Beach is “the wealthiest and most decadent, glamorous, and self-indulgent place on earth.” Not surprisingly, the population of metropolitan Palm Beach, too, is over 50 percent Jewish. “In 1962,” noted the Palm Beach Post in 1999, “only about 3,000 Jewish people lived in the greater West Palm Beach area. Today, estimates put that number at 100,000.” The results of this invasion into a once predomnantly WASP enclave is noted by Jewish author Ronald Kessler who has written an entire book about Palm Beach, highlighting what he describes as “anti-Semitism”: “I tried to lean over backwards not to probe too deeply into anti-Semitism on the island. But I soon learned that I would be missing a big chunk of the story [of Palm Beach] if I skirted a subject that made me uncomfortable professionally and that was personally painful.” Symbolic perhaps of the changing elite guard, is the fact that The Social Index Directory, an elitist listing of Palm Beach society people, “is now owned by the family of Robert Gordon, who is Jewish.” Although Jews have their own exclusive country club in Palm Beach (the Palm Beach Country Club), with 350 members, Kessler assails the non-Jewish community, complaining that “the [WASP] aristocrats are still in charge [of Palm Beach], the upper crust intact, the future of WASPdom secure.” Melvin Urofsky notes the 1940s visit of eventual Israeli prime minister Golda Meir to Palm Beach:

At Palm Beach, Florida, she was stunned at the elegance of the dinner crowd, their jewels and furs, and she mentally contrasted the scene of wealthy men and women vacationing in their posh resorts and that of Haganah [the early Israeli army] soldiers freezing in the Judean hills. “These people don’t want to hear about fighting and death in Palestine,” she thought, but she was wrong, and before the evening had ended, they had pledged her $1.5 million, enough to buy a winter coat for every soldier in the Haganah.

How about the posh Hamptons enclave for the super-rich on Long Island, New York? “The placement of the Jewish Community Center so prominently at the entrance to the town,” notes Steven Gaines,

. . . gave [Jewish real estate baron Evan] Frankel great satisfaction over the years and had its desired effect, particularly during the Jewish High Holidays, when Woods Lane was line end to end with the luxury cars of those attending services. One year, a local man was provoked to count the number of German-made cars parked in front of the synagogue and remark in an indignant letter to the East Hampton Star that the Jews must have forgotten Germans’ war crimes.

In 1998 Jewish mogul Ira Rennert made national news and came under widespread public attack for his plans to build the largest — and most ostentatious — home in America on New York’s Long Island. His 63-acre compound would include three separate buildings, 29 bedrooms, 39 bathrooms, two bowling alleys, a 164-seat cinema, 17 acres of manicured garden, and parking for 200 cars. The Washington Post likened it all to the “architecture of egoism.”  Rennert, also noted the [London) Daily Telegraph, "is an enthusiastic Zionist and financial backer of Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which has led to [neighbor] fears [that Rennert's new home is really] a school or a conference center.” Another Jewish home builder on Long Island, Barry Trupin also engendered local wrath for his reconstruction of the Chestertown House. “What irked everyone,” notes Steven Gaines,” was the arrogance of it all — not just to tamper with a famous old house, but to tamper with it so badly. . . . The house was indeed a grotesque creation, part faux-Normandy castle, part Disneyland on LSD. It was the largest private renovation project ever undertaken in New York State.” Plans for the home included a personal zoo, a helicopter landing pad, and “an indoor barrier reef . . . a vast sunken acquarium . . . with a twenty-foot waterfall cascading down chunks of rock imported from Vermont, into a pool in which guests could not only swim but skin-dive, with hidden underwater air nozzles. The reef was stocked with 500 species, including lobster, parrot fish, sea anemones, grouper, and octopus.” Another such Jewish mogul is David Saperstein, the largest stockholder in America’s largest radio network, Westwood One. “He’s building a much-touted mansion in an exclusive neighborhood near Beverly Hills,” noted Mother Jones magazine in 2001, “the 45,000-square-foot extravagance, dubbed the ‘Fleur de Lys,’ will include a ballroom to host dinner parties of 250, according to the Los Angles Times.” Chaim Bermant notes the style of Hollywood’s old guard Jewish movie moguls:

If there was little intrinsically Jewish in the output of the Hollywood tycoons,

there was something particularly Jewish in their style. The elder Selznick once told his son David (producer of Gone With the Wind): “Live expensively! Throw it around! Give it away! Always remember to live beyond your means. It gives a man confidence.” This was not, in fact, far from the principles on which Hollywood operated, where the very cost of a film — “this multi-million dollar epic” — was often used by the publicity department as a commendation. In 1959, apologetic Rabbi Albert Goldman observed that

. . . often unable to distinguish between the real and the apparent, the substance of worth and the tawdry yet glittering imitation, their ersatz values attest to their basic superficialities. Lacking the understanding and support of their Hebraic traditions and group life, some surburban Jews fall prey to the current cultural “success system” and, in their own insecurity, scramble madly after prestige and power. They believe that the undiscriminating expenditure of money alone will assure the attainment of their life goals.

In modern times, suggested Roger Kahn in 1968, “it is only slightly hyperbolic to suggest that when a Jewish businessman feels threatened he reaches not for a gun or a club, but for a checkbook.”  And Jonathan and Judith Pearl note the common nature of the modern Jewish bar mitzvah ceremony: “While scholars debate whether this centrality is part of a historical continuum or aberration, the fact is that for many American Jews, the focus of bar mitzvah has shifted from scholarly achievement to lavish partying. . . . This focus on extravagance is all too well known.” “Many people feel that the supreme Jewish crime is materialism,” noted Jewish author James Yaffe in 1968,

Jews, under the impact of the American experience, are said to have become money grubbers and turned away from the Almighty in order to worship the Almighty Dollar. It certainly isn’t hard to find instances which seem to bear this out. . . . Spending money to make a splash to achieve status with friends and relations, has become a common game among American Jews. Everyone makes jokes about the women at Miami Beach with their mink coats and their jewelry, the women on Park Avenue with their wall-to-wall carpeting and their expensive furnishings in the style sometimes known as Brooklyn Renaissance, the men in their long black Cadillacs. (“Can your little boy walk yet, Mrs. Cohen?” “God forbid he should ever have to!”) The popularity of these jokes itself is proof that they correspond to a reality — though the people who make them always insist they refer to “those other Jews.” If you want to see that reality with your own eyes, spend a day or two at the Concord Hotel in the Catskills. . . . Even more horrible examples of lavishness and vulgarity are provided by many wedding and bar mitzvah parties. Extraordinary things occur.

Here’s an observation by Jonathan Rieder in his study about Italians and Jews in a section of Brooklyn:

Two Italian women with many Jewish friends decried the way the ostentatious show of status debased the meaning of genuine tradition: “These fancy weddings and bar mitzvahs are disgusting,” they complained. “None of that has anything to do with tradition. It’s better to spend the money and go to Israel. It’s showing off, keeping up with the Jonses. There’s a ‘Can you top this?’ attitude. It’s all show.”

In 1984 Dov Fisch complained about bar mitzvahs “with scantily clad go-go girls” and the president of the Monticello Raceway who defrauded it of nearly $5,000 for his son’s bar mitzvah. “Tragically,” he wrote, “the bar mitzvah syndrome has become a symbol of so much of what is wrong with American Jewish life today. The one-upmanship knows no bounds.” Hence, a Long Island boy was zoomed to his bar mitzvah by a motorcycle racer, another arrived home to parade beneath, literally, a “fiddler on the roof,” and a Jewish couple spent $2,000 for a “Car Mitzva” which commemorated “the thirteenth year of their Rolls Royce.” Harvey Cohen’s bar mitzvah was at the rented Orange Bowl football stadium in Miami, where

the parents shamelessly invited two hundred guests to the spectacle, featuring a sixty-four piece band, bartenders dressed as referees, waitresses dressed as cheerleaders, and pom-pom girls wearing sweaters with the letter “H” for Harvey. . . . [The] electric scoreboard lit up with the words: “Happy Birthday Harvey.”

Famous Jewish prostitute Xaviera Hollander notes one of her most memorable Jewish lovers:

Take the case of the obscenely rich young investment banker with whom I had formed what is politely termed a relationship. I had arranged romantic music, shimmering candlelight, an exquisite meal and I was wearing the most seductive perfume. Casanova Cohen, the ardent lover, rushed into bed. He gave me a perfunctory kiss and then got down to business. Literally. He treated me to a resume of his day’s dealings and then demonstrated his refinement by cataloguing his cherished possessions from Rolex to Rolls Royce. I think that he expected me to be overawed and could not comprehend that I found him boring, intellectually, not physically.

Stephen Bloom notes what happened when a group of ultra-Orthodox Jews bought a slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, in 1987, and soon began to make their influence felt in the town:

Generally, newcomers are eager to assimilate to a new culture. That’s why they came in the first place. But instead of arriving at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, these Jews had arrived already on top. The Jews who settled in Postville came from cities, and many brought with them large sums of money. . . . Sholom Rubashkin built an enormous house on Wilson Street in an area of Postville thta the locals quickly labeled “Kosher Hill.” Iowans were loathe to show such material wealth. “That Rubashkin home is a palace,” Alicia [one of the non-Jewish local people] said, and no one denied it.

“In recent years,” wrote Gerald Krefetz in 1982, “some Jews have succumbed to that all-American tendency to compound braggadocio and vulgarity in touting their ability to make it. Leaving discretion and taste aside, they boast of their abilities, vanities, and riches. One observer noted that after generations of oppression, ‘it is not simply that living well is the best revenge but rather that living well is an obligation.’ And telling about it is a compulsion. Jewish leaders, particularly those of the old school, feel called upon to ask ‘followers to avoid ostentatious display, fearing it might create antagonism.’” Such requests generally fall on deaf ears: materialist “this world” consumption is championed by the Jewish religious faith itself, after all. Take the 1996 case of Jewish scholar, Jeffrey Rubin-Dorsky, who laments the fact that his ex-wife expects him to economically support her enrollment in a religious school to become a rabbi, and continue payments on her BMW. (The woman eventually became Orthodox, where she was forbidden to become a rabbi by sexist Orthodox standards). Samuel Heilman notes the concern an Israeli ultra-Orthodox rabbi had for the materialism of another ultra-Orthodox rabbi in America:

“I visited someone in the United States a few years ago, a ben Torah,” [said the rabbi]. Stern nodded as he spoke, as if to imply that I had caught the drift of his message. “We got into his car, a beautiful car.” He said “beautiful” as if it were two words: “beauty full.” The car had everything. Beautiful thick velvet seats, beautiful radio, lots of room, even a telephone — this was before so many people had telephones in their cars. So I said to him — we’ll call him “Reb [Rabbi] Shmuel” — “Reb Shmuel, this is a beautiful car.”

And you know what he said to me? He said to me: “Reb Moshe, bist a na’ar [you're naive]. This is last year’s model; I’ve already ordered next year’s model.”

“Why?” I asked him. “This is a wonderful car; you could keep it still for years.” You know, it was one of those big Lincolns, a really gorgeous car.

“And he said to me: ‘Reb Moshe, my neighbor already has a new model and it’s eating me up.’”

Still, some embarrassed Jews seek to blame non-Jewish origins for the ancient Jewish propensity towards materialism and ostentation. “We [Jews],” says Hillel Levine, “woke up from the American dream and tried to discover who we really were. For many of us this now means turning our concerns inward into the Jewish community, because we are disenchanted with the crass materialism of the larger society. Yet where can we find inspiration in the multimillion dollar presences of suburbia?”

The Ordeal of Civility:
Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity

Decades before Kevin MacDonald embarked on his Jewish trilogy, a little-known sociology professor at New York City’s Hunter College came to suspect that the Jewish intellectual movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries weren’t quite the marvels of universal application imagined by academia and later by wider society. Rather, they were elaborate coping mechanisms designed to de-racialize the social conflicts between Gentile Europe and newly emancipated Jewry. It was MacDonald who expanded “coping” to “destroying” in the context of Jewish-Gentile relations, but John Murray Cuddihy is to be credited for one of history’s more thoroughgoing, if obscure, exposures of Jewish deception.

Cuddihy, who retired in 1998, is presumably not a racialist. He speaks more of “culture” than ethnicity or even race, and might even consider himself sympathetic to Jews. The book, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity, was published in 1974. It is spoken of in reverent tones by the writer who calls himself Yggdrasil and other learned White nationalists. But some racially conscious Whites confess that the book does not speak to them. Inaccessibly dense and academic, they say — a sentiment with which I came to sympathize as I read the book. The Ordeal of Civility is not light reading. It is also difficult to find. But within the yellowed pages of my used copy, purchased over the Internet, I found a surprisingly damning analysis of Jewish motivations.

Cuddihy’s thesis goes roughly as follows: Upon the granting of emancipation to the Jews of Europe (Prussian Jewry’s Emancipation Edict, for instance, was granted on March 11, 1812), their less-refined ways, developed over centuries within their tightly bound tribal lives, bumped rudely into the carefully cultivated behavioral codes of the larger Gentile communities of Europe. The closer Jews tried to get, the more intense the conflict became. The Jewish intellectual elite cringed when the Ostjuden, or unassimilated Jews, made a spectacle of themselves in European civil society. Cuddihy cites the example of the Victorian-era social reformer Beatrice Potter, who found herself disgusted by the Jews of London’s East End: “. . . the immigrant Jew, though possessed of many first-class virtues, is deficient in that highest and latest development of human sentiment — social morality… He totally ignores all social obligations other than keeping the law of the land, the maintenance of his own family, and the charitable relief of coreligionists.”

Jewish intellectuals were well aware that views such as Potter’s prevailed. Their minds raced to concoct explanations for the conflict that steered clear of the most obvious one: race. Karl Marx described it as a class conflict rooted in economic maldistribution. Sigmund Freud described it as a medical malady rooted in suppressed natural urges. The “structuralism” of French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, propounded in the 1960s and 1970s, asserted that no one culture was better than any another, leaving open the possibility that, if anything, Western culture was loaded with hypocrisy and trivial etiquette while non-Western cultures were more admirably “natural.”

The propounding of such ideas, Cuddihy says, sprang from Jewish “status humiliations of modernity,” the “wound in the heart” suffered by their encounter with a larger and more refined Gentile society, an encounter that left them feeling inferior. “Structuralism, like Marxism, is an ideology of subcultural despair, an uneasy mélange of cognitive relativism and ethical absolutism,” Cuddihy says. By Gentile “modernity,” Cuddihy meant the separation of the private from the public that evolved as Gentile Europe moved from animal skin-wearing tribalism to civil societies with public institutions. The transition saw the development of new social rituals that would have been unnecessary in a close-knit society in which everyone was intimately acquainted with everyone else. Jews, not having undergone such changes, developed no such rituals.

Sigmund Freud, 1856 - 1939

As I imagine it, the Jewish intelligentsia were prompted into a “fight or flight” mental reaction. In application, it combined both fighting and “flighting.” The fighting was the criticism of Gentiles for living their lives in ways that were, to us, completely natural. The “flighting” was the deceptive aspect of that fighting: Jews did not confront Gentiles qua Gentiles. Rather, they sought alternate explanations that served to mollify their embarrassment at the behavior of their own people. From the introduction: “As we shall see, the ideology of the Jewish intellectual is frequently a projection onto the general, Gentile culture of a forbidden ethnic self-criticism. Shame for ‘one’s own kind’ is universalized into anger at the ancestral enemy. . . ‘Neither Jew nor Gentile is to be blamed for the tsursis (trouble) of the Diaspora: it is but a symptom of the capitalist exploitation (Marx) or a medical symptom of anxiety (Freud),’” Cuddihy says, echoing the hoped-for reception of the Jewish ideas. The analysis rings true. I am convinced (no, not by reference to Freud) that a primary motivator for the human thought process is the desire to “get comfortable” with any given situation, from the immediate and personal to larger social or political realities. Getting comfortable need not be mere self-adjustment — it can also mean the alteration of the environment itself, like a prehistoric human smashing down grasses to make a bed. As I understand Cuddihy, Jews were doing both: creating ideologies that comforted them with reassurances of equality, and, if accepted by Gentiles, made for pliant enemies.

Cuddihy is short on vivid examples of the culture clash that so motivated (and was misunderstood by) the Jewish intelligentsia, but several emerge in his treatment of Freud. Consider Freud’s reaction to privacy. Within the insulated Jewish community of the shtetl, or Jewish ghetto, “privacy” was seen as abnormal — anyone desiring personal space must be hiding something and is suspect. It did not occur to Freud that Gentile culture, having developed into a larger society, may well have had good reasons for respecting the personal space of others. In the nineteenth century, Eastern European Jewry “mistakes privacy for secrecy.” The ways in which European Gentiles institutionalized the need to be private in public, or the need for decorum, is “lost on the Jewish intelligentsia of the nineteenth century. To them, it appears as so much hypocrisy.” Cuddihy quotes Philip Rieff’s Freud: The Mind of the Moralist: “What is for Freud ‘repression’ psychologically understood, is ‘secrecy’ morally understood. Secrecy is the category moral illness, for it provides a hiding place for false motives.”

In other words, Freud described as “sick” Gentile behavior that was, to us, healthy and necessary. But it was not out of mere misunderstanding that Freud came to his conclusions. Animosity toward Gentiles played no small part. Freud, laid out on Cuddihy’s couch, recalls a childhood episode that burned into him a desire to “get even” with the exclusionary enemy. Freud’s father, Jacob Freud, was walking down the sidewalk in Moravia and bumped into a Gentile. “Jew! Get off the pavement!” snarled the Gentile. The elder Freud’s hat was knocked into the gutter. His reaction is not to leap to the Gentile’s throat, but to calmly retrieve his hat from the gutter and continue on his way. Freud, as it happens, didn’t witness any of this. The recounting by his father was enough. Is it possible that this episode created Freud’s fantasy that by developing “psychoanalysis,” he would become the Semitic conqueror of Gentile Europe? Like Hannibal astride his elephant, he would storm Rome and exact vengeance on the hated goyim.

The New Hannibal plots his strategy

It is no accident that “id” mimics “Yid.” “In psychoanalysis, the ‘id’ is the functional equivalent of the ‘Yid’ in social intercourse,” Cuddihy says. “The id, in other words, was a moral equalizer legitimating ‘scientifically’ social equality between Jew and Gentile in late nineteenth-century Europe.” Cuddihy quotes a Howard Morley Sacher on “the unconscious desire of Jews, as social pariahs, to unmask the respectability of the European society which closed them out,” adding that in Freud’s case, it was the conscious desire of a conscious pariah. “There was no more effective way of doing this,” Sacher is quoted as saying, “than by dredging up from the human psyche the sordid and infantile sexual aberrations that were frequently the sources of human behavior. Even Jews who were not psychiatrists must have taken pleasure in the fact of social equalization performed by Freud’s ‘new thinking.’ The B’nai B’rith Lodge of Vienna, for example, delighted in listening to Freud air his theories.”

Cuddihy’s presentation ironically draws upon the same motivation exposition techniques employed by Freud. When Jews sneer that Gentiles are embarrassed by sex and need to be “unmasked,” Cuddihy points out that what they’re trying to do is strip all humanity to base commonalities in an effort to make their crude, uncivilized selves feel more acceptable, all the while rudely ignoring the evolved and genuine social need for Gentile conventions. The Gentile is left shamed and confused, convinced that he must “let it all hang out” if he is to achieve mental health. Freud is revealed as a clever Jew pleased with himself for having pulled the Gentile’s pants down to point out to the assembled crowd that, like other mammals, this one’s got genitalia. Cuddihy coolly returns the favor. Freud himself might have had some insight on this, as he was reported to have once wondered: am I an original scientist or just a dirty Jew?

What Freud sought by subversion, Marx sought by revolution. Jewish-Gentile conflict for Marx was seen not as a racial battle but as class struggle. In this respect, Marxism found a parallel with Zionism. “Jewish radicals analyzed anti-Semitism as incidental to the class struggle and expected it to disappear in the ruins of the capitalist system,” Cuddihy quotes a Ben Halpern as saying. Cuddihy continues: “Zionists planned to heal at one stroke the wound to national self-esteem by leaving Europe — and by leaving behind the invidious comparisons fatal to remaining there. Marxists planned to kill the ‘Jewish question’ by revolution, not emigration: at one stroke, all would be changed, changed utterly, as a species-humane community is born.” History, of course, would not bear out anything “humane” resulting from Marxism, socialism or communism.

Toward the end of the book, Cuddihy offers a revealing account of the “Chicago Seven” trial, featuring a showdown between Jewish radical Abbie Hoffman and the assimilated Jewish judge, also named Hoffman. The exchanges (“You’re a disgrace to the Jews, runt!” Abbie Hoffman yells at the judge. “You should have served Hitler better!”) are seen by Cuddihy as revealing the very clashes Marx and Freud witnessed and sought to explain away.

Today, excluding college campuses, Marxism holds little sway. Freud’s ideas find a few purist adherents, though many therapists have distanced themselves from his theories. But observe the damage done, and how Jews have deftly avoided blame for the misery caused. To the untutored, they are tough to spot, darting quickly from movement to movement under a cover of proclaimed universalism. For once an intellectual or political movement loses utility for Jews, they abandon it. I believe that the Jewish tendency so well described by Cuddihy finds its fiercest manifestation today in “neo-conservatism,” a two-headed beast of race-denying social liberalism and pro-Israel warmongering. Jews in government and media line up to feed this beast, which serves them nicely at the dawn of the new century. It looks “conservative” and thus beats the charge that Jews are liberals, yet pushes simultaneously for the American multiculturalism that makes them comfortable in the US, and the Jewish exclusionism that makes them comfortable in Israel. If there is a deviation from Cuddihy’s thesis, it is this: Neo-conservatism and other Jewish maneuvering is no “Jewish struggle” evocative of sympathy for a “Diaspora people.” It is child’s play for Jews. Jews no longer struggle with modernity, they define it. It is now White Americans who are strangers in a strange land. Life in deracinated America is the relevant struggle. It is our ordeal of incivility. Restoring racial sanity will require the emergence of a counterforce: our own intellectual elite, a group of racially conscious Whites disheartened enough by what they see happening to speak out, and inspired enough to lead the way out.

The preceding review appeared in the print version of National Vanguard, No. 121.

Jesus Casting out the Money-Changers, by Carl Heinrich Bloch, 1834 - 1890

So great is the Jewish “commercial spirit,” so omnipresent, and so much part of Jewish religious teachings themselves, that, beginning in the nineteenth century, many Jews socializing into “civil” Christian society found themselves embarrassed by the crass behavior that resounded from the Orthodox synagogues. “There were many modern, acculturated Jews,” observes Howard Sachar, “who were increasingly repelled by the synagogue’s cacophony: the nasal singing, the selling of prayers, the gossiping of women in the gallery, the absence of decorum.”

“In Judaism,” says Martin Sklare, “there is no sharp division between the sacred and secular, and consequently little development of separate norms in each area. This system conflicts with the Christian — and American — one which distinguishes between the sacred and profane, defines which situations belong to each category, and provides for special behavior.” In other words, in Orthodox Judaism everything anywhere may be “profaned;” there is no physical sanctuary — including a synagogue — from the ubiquitous prowl of economic exploits (the Sabbath — the day of rest — is, for the religious, the exception). Jay Gonen notes an old joke about Jewish obsession with money even in religious contexts, circulated not by Gentile anti-Semites, but by Jews in Israel:

Two Jews, by a miracle, find time to pause and reflect in front of a holy site, the Wailing Wall, or the western wall of the Second Temple. One of them notices that the other is weeping profusely over the destruction of the Second Temple. “Why are you crying so much?” he says, “True, the Temple has been destroyed, but the lot is still worth something.”

Jewish comedian Joan Rivers explains materialist and ostentatious Jewish identity this way: “I’m Jewish. If God wanted me to exercise he would’ve put diamonds on the floor.” One of Jewish comedian Milton Berle’s jokes went: “A Jewish youngster asked the boy next door to play with him. The boy answered, ‘My father says I can’t play with you because you’re Jewish.’ The Jewish lad answered, ‘Oh, that’s all right. We won’t play for money.’”  Or, “The Israelis have just developed a brand-new car. It not only stops on a dime, it picks it up.” And: “Why did the Israelis win the Six-Day War?” “Because the equipment was rented.” Another joke of the same genre circulated in the American Jewish community runs like this:

And then there was the Jewish Santa Claus. He came down the chimney and said: “Hi, kids. Want to buy some presents?”

Another joke even addresses manipulation of anti-materialist notions of respect in the Gentile world towards Jewish economic advancement:

A wealthy Boston Brahmin was on his deathbed. The end was near, and he asked his three business partners, a Catholic, a Protestant, and a Jew, to come to the hospital to discuss some matters pertaining to his estate.

“You boys know I have no family,” he began, “so I’m dividing my wealth among the three of you, in three equal shares. As a sign of your good friendship, however, I would like each of you to make a token gesture after I’m gone, by putting a thousand dollars into my coffin before it is lowered into the ground.”

Several days later, the funeral was conducted according to the wishes of the deceased. At the appropriate time, the Catholic friend walked up to the coffin and placed in it an envelope containing one thousand dollars. The Protestant friend came forward and did likewise. Finally, the Jew walked up to the coffin, took out the two envelopes, and replaced them with a check for three thousand dollars.

As always in Jewish folklore, Gentiles are — to the wily, down-to-earth Jew — stupid. William Novak and Moshe Waldoks call the following joke “a favorite, found in most collections of Jewish humor”:

A minister, a rabbi, and a priest were discussing how they made use of the funds in the collection plate. The minister said, “I draw a line on the floor, and I throw the money into the air. Everything that lands to the right of the line is for God; everything on the left is for me.”

“That’s pretty much what I do,” said the priest. ‘But instead of a line, I draw a circle. Everything in the circle is for God; everything outside the circle I keep for myself.”

“I, too, have a system,” said the rabbi, “I take the money and throw it up in the air, and whatever God catches He can keep.”

Such observations about Jewish values are acceptable, and common, within the Jewish community itself but, as Jewish scholar Nancy Jo Silberman-Federman notes, such a joke told from a Gentile would flag him or her as an anti-Semite. She notes the self-deprecating (and/or exploitative) tone of many Hanukkah cards sent by Jews to each other:

[In one case] the front of the card pictures a Jewish woman hugging Santa. The copy reads, “Merry Christmas! Thank goodness for Gentiles.” The inside reads, “Somebody has to buy retail!” If certain jokes are told by non-Jews, both the teller and the joke would be considered anti-Semitic. . . . This [celebrating of such jokes in Jewish circles] may be seen socially as a mechanism for in-group solidarity.

Whereas in most — if not all — other religious faiths, adherents seek physical refuge from the anchors of materialist concern while they pray, in Orthodox Judaism, overt pecuniary transactions — involving personal egos and status assertion — are an integral part of the traditional Jewish religious service itself. Jewish sociologist Martin Sklare calls it “commercialism in the synagogue.” This includes

. . . shenodering, the pledging of money for the opportunity of participating in the Torah service . . .  the holding of auctions during holidays and festival services for the purpose of “selling” certain particularly honorific privileges; by stimulating competitive instincts, large amounts may be pledged; and the Yom Kippur appeal: fund raising which takes place during Kol Nidre, a particularly holy service.

To traditional Christian — and other religious temperaments — such vulgarization in a “House of God” inevitably calls to mind the old Christian story of Jesus becoming outraged at the Israelite money changers on Temple grounds. [Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11: 15-17; Luke 19: 45-46] What kind of religion, non-Jews have found themselves asking through history, is this? In modern times, of course, to ask such a question is to attract assault as an “anti-Semite.” And, however bizarre, Jewish scholar Sara Horowitz’s comments, post Holocaust, in linking Jesus’ outrage at Jewish money-dealing in the sacred Temple to the Nazi persecution of Jewry is typical:

The New Testament [has] multiple descriptions of Jews defiling the Temple and Jesus’ consequent need to purify the holy space by throwing out the Jewish money changers. . . . Historically, the image of the Jewish money changer whose presence defiles sacred space conflates with Jews as money lender, with the typing of the Jew as materialist and avaricious. Jewish attachment to money over attachment to God, to nation, or to other people is repeatedly portrayed in Nazi propaganda newsreels and feature films.

But even when the Zionist “father” of modern Israel, Theodore Herzl, visited (in the late 19th century) the famed Jerusalem Wailing Wall, the supposed last remaining edifice of the ancient Temple itself, so revered in Jewish religious tradition and a magnet to Jewish pilgrims, he could only write with disdain that “we have been to the Wailing Wall. A deeper emotion refused to come, because that place is pervaded by a hideous, wretched, speculative beggary.” Isaac Baer Levinsohn describes the Eastern European synagogue of the nineteenth century:

Each . . .  synagogue abides by . . . only general disorder. . . . This [person] jumps while another shouts; this one moans his loss while another one complacently smokes . . .  One has just begun his prayer as another has finished it . . . this one jokes and pulls another by the ear. Quarrels and fisticuffs often ensue about private as well as public matters. . . . One aspires to be the sixth to come up to the Torah, another seeks the honor of taking the Torah out of the Ark and often they quarrel on that account.

As many Jews, leaving their ghettos and Orthodox Judaism in the nineteenth century attuned themselves to surrounding Christian “civil” society, many became concerned about “embarrassing solicitations” in the synagogue. One American Conservative Judaism publication even chastised its community, saying:

There is no charitable expression in the English language that can connote the desecration of a Torah honor and the degradation of a House of Worship into a market place of vulgar vanities and rude commercialism.

Sklare describes Orthodox religious gatherings:

The Orthodox shul with the accompanying multidinous prayers, jams of people and children, all joined together in a cacophonous symphony of loud and sometimes raucous appeals to the Almighty.

“The Orthodox synagogue,” says James Yaffe, “seemed [to Reform-minded Jews] dirty, shabby, unruly, un-American.” Conversely, even today in America, notes Solomon Poll,

the Hasidim [ultra-Orthodox Jews] noticed the great tendency to imitate the non-Jews. Jewish weddings had bridal processions. The groom was led in by his own parents; the rabbi also participated in the bridal procession; ushers attended the ceremony; the rabbi made a speech during the ceremony; pictures were taken — many times, movies. All these appeared to the Hasidim as mockeries and imitation of the goyim to which they vehemently objected.

Martin Sklare notes that one of the major affectations in the creation of the modern Conservative Judaism movement was a change toward “decorum.” In Orthodox Judaism, he notes, “should a worshiper consistently adopt what would generally be considered a reverent demeanor . . . his deportment might well be the subject of intense criticism. . . . The form of Orthodox worship does seem to be almost unique in its lack of solemnity.”  Although, “when I was a boy,” says Earl Shorris, “I was told that the reason why there was no musical instruments in the synagogue was that we were mourning the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.” The novelist Herman Wouk wrote with fondness about his memories of Orthodox synagogue culture brought to America with Jews from Eastern Europe:

Calls to the Torah, opening of the Ark, and so forth, all went for a price. The auctions were colorful and exciting enough, but the mood of prayer naturally vanished while they went on. They were often pretty long. During the reading of the Torah, moreover, it became the practice of each man, as he was called to his aliya, or reading turn, to announced his contribution to the synagogue’s many charities. For each announcement he or his family received a public blessing by the shamas. Again this was a process of high economic value, but not attuned to the thoughts of the higher world . . . They enabled many tiny congregations to survive and grow into majestic congregations and fashionable temples. With the prospering of the Jewish community, these devices of desperation have gradually given way to conventional fund-raising.

“Five dollars for the third reading!” Nor do I want to forget the historic auction one Yom Kippur afternoon nearly forty years ago, in a synagogue in a Bronx cellar, when my father outbid men with far more money (though they were all poor struggling immigrants) for the reading of the Book of Jonah . . . these auctions are a thing of the past and it is better so, but they served a purpose. Children in such synagogues learned unmistakably what a precious thing a call to the Torah was.

The value of the Torah would seem to suggest a price tag. Auctioning off the rights to recite prayers and announcing in public, each in turn, individuals’ charitable contributions reveals a lot more about Jewish merchant culture — and its pressures, struggles for community status, and symbiotic religious dogma — than it does anything remotely spiritual. Wouk’s fond memories for all the big bills flying around the Torah in his synagogue (albeit for religious intention) reflect a nakedly material concern. Such activity reaffirms what the Torah was largely intended as: recipes, rules, and regulations for Jewish self-advancement in a hostile political world, or — as apologists like to frame it — communal survival through the centuries. Wouk’s childhood memories of high auction recitation prices confirming the Torah’s value are obviously rooted in pride for his father and his status as an economic victor, as well as a general fascination with the wheeling and dealing of a street bazaar. Even the synagogue could function as a forum to celebrate human vanity in one’s ability to pay for something, in this case the right to recite sacred texts. (Synagogue members have even been sued in recent years for not paying membership dues. In Rockaway, New York, for example, in 2001 David Slossberg and three others were sued for back payment by the White Meadow Temple.)  “Conspicuous charity,” wrote Judith Kramer and Seymour Levantman about the Jewish American community in 1961, “is less a matter of religious or ideological commitment than a conventional social obligation serving as a source of status.” Anthony Polonsky notes the Jewish tradition of “ostentatious generosity” in seventeenth century Poland:

Was this piety on the part of a few rich individuals shared by all Jews? To answer this question clearly, one must study the religious attitudes of the time. It seems that participation in services was motivated more by a desire to shine in public than by profound faith. If previously a synagogue seat was a sign of respectability in the community, now unfortunately they were being sold. Indeed, the practice of buying seats, backed by a deed of sale became common.

For an Eastern European Jewish community ever fixated upon worldly accomplishment and the hierarchical status of respective members, even in their most holy religious center “the prosteh yidh [common Jews] sat at the back of the synagogue.” In the late 1950s the American Jewish poet, d. a. levy, wrote:

My father and i
went to a temple to hear
the services
sat down in time
to hear the haunting
language for just a moment
when someone told us we had to stand in the
back — we had chosen “reserved seats”
seats that had been paid for
we left and it was there i completed
my external jewish education

As James Yaffe observed in 1968:

The synagogue charges no admissions fee to services, except on High Holy Day, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hoshanah, when everybody comes to worship. Then most synagogues require worshipers to buy tickets, and many sell reserved seats; the closer to the altar, the higher the price … “Passing the plate” is not a custom in the synagogue. Sometimes a plain white envelope is left on the worshiper’s seat. Inside he finds a slip of paper with his name on it, and a list of suggested contributions, from twenty dollars up; he will put a check next to the amount her prefers, and slip the piece of paper back into the envelope. In old-fashioned Orthodox synagogues the method is often less decorous; the rabbi reads out the member’s names, and each man is expected to call out how much he intends to give.

Jewish student Silja Talvi complains about this Jewish tradition of charging steep admission to the most sacred of Jewish holy days (she blames “capitalism” for this custom, however, and rationalizes that the high prices are somehow useful in keeping “psychopathic anti-Semites” out of synagogues):

It is not a stretch to surmise that many more established synagogues have taken their cues from the capitalist economy that surrounds them, having arrived at the point of valuing finances about kehilla [community]. For all this kvetching about all the lost, unaffiliated Jews, how many among the country’s mainstream Jewish religious leadership have stopped to think about dropping cost-prohibitive barriers to getting in through the front door? . . . In this regard, Jewish religious institutions would do well to take inspiration from the Lubavitchers and Christian churches alike: Free admission, fund-raising drives and donation baskets have a certain logical and friendly appeal, especially for those unaffiliated, lower-income Jews who have reason to feel uneasy about spending close to $100 to be allowed a seat at a temple to spend the day or evening in prayer. Non-Jews who have overheard me in conversation about the fees involved in obtaining tickets for Jewish holiday services have expressed confusion at the very existence of fee schedules and entrance tickets. The tickets, I explain, are a necessary and common-sense precaution for Jewish institutions that hope to make it more difficult for psychopathic anti-Semites to walk through their doors. But why the high cost, they ask? For once, I don’t have a good answer.

Convert to Judaism Lydia Kukoffmn explains the Jewish idea of “paying to pray” like this:

I remember how put off I was at the thought of tickets for religious services. It was so foreign to my way of thinking. Over the years, however, I have come to realize that, although I may still resist the idea of paying to pray, it is the one time of the year when the temple is able to assure its continuity, and thereby its potential for service to its members.

There are even Jewish jokes about such materialism in the synagogue:

It is Yom Kippur. A man comes to the synagogue in a state of obvious excitement. The usher is at the door looking at admission tickets. As the man tries to walk in, the usher stops him: “Let’s see your ticket.”

“I don’t have a ticket. I just want to see my brother, Abe Teitelbaum. I have an important message for him.”

“A likely story. There’s always someone like you, trying to sneak in in for the High Holy Day services. Forget it, friend. Try somewhere else.”

“Honest. I swear to you. I have to tell my brother something. You’ll see. I’ll only be a minute.”

The usher gave him a long look. “All right,” he says, “I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You can go in. But don’t let me catch you praying!”

Paul Cowan recalls the synagogue memories of his father (former CBS-TV president Lew Cowan):

Once, when I was a boy, my father told me that he recalled the Yom Kippurs he went to synagogue and watched Jake Cohen [Lew's father] weep and beat his breast to atone for his sins. Then, after services, Lou would walk home with his parents and the rest of the huge Cohen clan and listen, appalled, as they fought over status and money; as they gossiped cruelly about siblings who weren’t here. That wasn’t religion, my father would tell me angrily. That was hypocrisy.

In 1982, Earl Shorris recalled his childhood memories of the kinds of men who headed his synagogue:

We arrived at the synagogue as a family, three generations led by my grandfather. . . . My grandfather spoke to his friend Eddie — Big Eddie, he called him. They spoke as members of the board of directors of the synagogue, important men, big donors. My grandfather earned his money from the labor of Italian and Polish women who sewed clothing in his factories. Big Eddie sold cheap wine and whiskey to the poor of the town. We did not approve of Big Eddie. His diamond ring and his fat cigar offended us . . . [H]is business offended us. There were fights in front of his store, stabbings, more than one killing. There were rumors about him. Some people said he dealt with criminals. It as said that he gave so much to the synagogue to atone for the way he made his money. . . He traded donations for a position as a director of the synagogue. My grandfather said Eddie wanted to be president, that he was willing to donate a community center if the directors would elect him president. . . . [When Big Eddie finally strode up at the synagogue to be so honored, "the man our community commended to God" (p.7)] the color of his flesh was as rich and vulgar as his suit. [Grandfather,] you were so small, so pale beside him. Jerusalem was conquered, the Temple was destroyed, and there was no prophet in all of Israel. After the service I asked my father why it had happened. Money, was all he said. Sometimes you have to do these things, my grandfather added. A building doesn’t come cheap.

Norman Podhoretz recalls taking a fellow secular Jewish author, Norman Mailer, to an Orthodox synagogue in New York City:

He asked me to take him to a synagogue on Yom Kippur because he wanted to see the Hassid in the flesh. . . . There were wooden benches, and as common in this kind of setup, these were young men, students smoking and dropping cigarettes on the floor. Orthodox Jews, especially Hassidic Jews, don’t treat synagogues like a church. . . . After a short while Norman announced he’d had enough.

Stephen Bloom notes the ultra-Orthodox community of Postville, Iowa, and its raucous religious effect on the tranquil town:

An hour must have passed, and then, as though on cue, a great roar of voices erupted from within the shul. The worship had ended and the men broke into raucous song. These liturgical melodies were booming and boisterous, each lasting twenty to thirty minutes. Soon, the singing was accompanied by banging.

The men were pounding the metal tables with fists. They were stamping the shul’s wooden floor with the heels of their shoes and boots. The collective sound signaled to me that they must have been drunk. . . . I was eavesdropping on some sort of loud, inebriated religious reverie. . . . The sounds shooting out from the shul‘s windows and front door were deafening on this otherwise serene Iowa night.

He also notes, once he is actually among these worshipers, that they “seemed drowned in showmanship — who could wail loudest, bow farthest without falling over, read the longest Hebrew passage fastest and without taking a breath.”  They also get drunk as part of their religious activity: This was an old fashioned chugging contest. Toast after toast followed. . . .  “Rapturous song, powerful drink, and overwhelming body heat was the Holy Communion of these believers. Everything about the day was intense and bodily: the dirty mikveh [communal bath], drinking, singing, the body odor, the pounding of fists and feet.” Secular Jew Howard Jacobson wrote in 1993 about his experiences while waiting to see the famous Orthodox Lubavitcher rabbi, Menachem Schneerson, in New York City. For a decade, the rabbi gave out a dollar (symbolic charity) to each of those who came to wait in lines to see him. As Jacobson notes:

I am taken down — and I stress the preposition: down, down, down — and into the shul of the Lubavitcher headquarters, where the dollar-queue will form, and here I behold a sight which beats even Areyonga in the Central Australian Desert for uncouthness, for outlandishness, for other-worldliness beyond any imaginings of other worlds. The shul teems and shudders with men and boys in every attitude of Hebraic, and to my eyes pre-Hebraic, worship. . . . And here’s the most startling thing of all — men and boys begging, begging in the synagogue, banging for your money, pulling at your sleeves for charity — tsodekeh, tsodekeh – offering to pray for you for money, to pray for your parents for money, selling you raffle tickets, shoving them into your pockets, into your breast pockets — a mitzva, a mitzva – except that that’s not the most startling thing of all, because the most startling thing of all is that they’re selling gold watches down here.

I try to hold on to my nerve. Jesus lost his sense of humor and proportion in the temple, and I am determined not to lose mine.

“We [Jews],” Jacobson consoles himself, “believe there’s no distinction between the world’s business and the business of the spirit.” Leaving his momentary personal audience with the rabbi, “no sooner do you beat back the first wave of beggars [in the synagogue],” recounts Jacobson,

. . . than you find yourself waylaid by tradesmen wanting to sell you polythene sleeves to store your dollar in. For two dollars you can protect the one dollar. Or you can have it sealed and plasticated, turned into a place-mat with a date and a picture of the Rebbe [rabbi].

Like any nation, the modern state of Israel has a discernible collective psychological attitude: a communal “personality.” It is formed at its core by the conviction that Israel is a Jewish island, a people under constant siege by hostile goyim. A key ingredient of the Israeli public persona, much championed, is that Jews are tough, emotionally hardened, and ruthless, a self-image epitomized in the “sabra” (literally meaning a cactus fruit, but colloquially meaning a Jew born in Israel). In popular Israeli folklore, the Jews of Israel are “thorny and tough on the outside, but soft inside.”

The sabra image also has deep psychological sources in the nationalist “lessons” learned from the Holocaust, a situation where a perceived lack of Jewish physical force and power in the diaspora (galut) throughout the world inevitably must — sooner or later — lead to disaster at the hands of Gentiles.

Zionism, in whatever form, has invariably dovetailed with some of the central tenets of classical religious Judaism, including the old “people apart” syndrome: Jewish alienation from all other peoples. “The civil religion [of Israel],” notes Charles Liebman and Eliezer Dov-Yehiya, “has been most forceful in asserting that Israel is an isolated nation confronting a hostile world … The growing importance of traditional Judaism and Jewishness is associated with the centrality of the Holocaust as the primary political myth of Israeli society, the symbol of Israel’s present condition and the one which provides Israel with legitimacy … The Holocaust to a great extent fashions ‘our national consciousness’ and the memory is omnipresent in Israeli society.”

“Israeli political culture,” says Israeli professor Myron Aronoff, “reflects not only the general theme of the few against the many, but a growing emphasis of ‘them against us’ … The traditional concept of Esau hates Jacob [Gentiles hate Jews] and a nation that dwells alone became explanations of reality and legitimization of Israeli policy.” As former lobbyist for Israel Doug Bloomfield once noted, some Israelis tend to have a “You owe us” and “Screw the world” attitudes. Zev Chafets remembers an Israeli concert he attended in 1969, two years after he moved to Israel from America: “As the show drew to a close, the group swung into an up-temp number. ‘Ha’olam Ku’lo heg’denu,’ they sang. ‘The whole world is against us.’ The audience knew the song and joined in on the chorus … [:] ‘The whole world is against us; never mind, we’ll get by; we don’t give a damn about them anyway.’”

Jewish scholar Daniel Niewyk describes the racist dimension of this Zionist ideology of alienation from others, especially as it developed in Germany:

At the heart of the Zionist critique of liberal assimilation lay the conviction that Jews constitute a unique race. It was the belief in insurmountable racial differences that made the inevitability of anti-Semitism credible, just as it rationalizes the view that every effort to assimilate must go aground on the barrier reef of biological determinism … The maintenance of that [racial] purity was essential to German Zionism, for it acknowledged the essential prerequisite for nationhood to be [in the 1922 words of Zionist Fritz Kahn] “consanguinity of the flesh and solidarity of the soul” together with the “will to establish a closer [Jewish] brotherhood over [and] against all other communities on earth.”

Amnon Rubenstein notes the disturbing irony expressed in this world view of the Israeli people: “The establishment of Israel was an attempt to make Jews like everybody else. They would now have a state. It has not worked out that way. Israel has made Jews more, not less, exceptional. The pariah people, it seems, have simply succeeded in creating a pariah state.” Perhaps, however, this situation is inevitable. Unmentioned by Rubenstein is the religiously-based “nation apart” self-concept always so deeply embedded in Jewish mass psychology, a self-understanding and communal choice that apparently cannot be shaken, even in a secular nation-state context.

Non-Jewish scholar Virginia Dominguez, who spent long periods of time in Israel in later years doing research, noted the traditional Jewish narcissism and interest in pedigrees of identity expressed by the Israelis she met:

“What do you mean you say you are not Jewish?” I was asked on several occasions. “That you’re not religious? That your mother wasn’t Jewish? That ‘we the Jews’ wouldn’t count you as a Jew because you had some Jewish ancestry but not the right ones, according to Halacha?” I was incredulous at first. I had no way then to anticipate this reaction. Everything else seemed to point to the importance of Jewishness, and to controlling both the content and limits of Jewishness.

The omnipresent stresses of a predominantly military state, the emphatic “we versus them” paradigm of traditional Jewish identity, the glorification of power and aggression, millennia-old disdain for non-Jews, and the emotional powder keg of Holocaust death camps as a motivational tool have invariably led to the noxious Israeli collective persona that is so much remarked upon by non-Israelis (often even Israelis themselves) who spend much time in Israel. Common traits of this “national character” are arrogance, insolence (chutzpah), coldness, roughness, and rudeness, to begin a long list of unpleasant “uncivil” attributes.

Many Diaspora Jews, in describing this Israeli character, tend to romanticize it. “There is a coldness,” notes Jewish scholar Norman Cantor, “a mystery, a distance from humanity about [Israelis] that anyone from another country who lives and works in Israel for a half a year will be impressed by.” “Israelis have a reputation for bad manners,” notes Jewish American immigrant to Israel Charles Liebman, “to the extent this reputation is deserved it stems from the sense of familiarity that Israelis feel towards one another.” Adam Garfinkle adds that “Israelis are sometimes rude to an extent that it even bothers other Israelis.” “The behavior of young Israelis,” Israeli Jay Gonen writes, “… is characterized by a high degree of chutzpah or gall; it is direct, blatant, unruly, clever, humorous, and indicates a certain lack of sensitivity to social requirements … [It has a] disregard for rules, regulations, social norms, and good manners.” Melford Spiro, in his study of the kibbutzim, discusses “insolence” as an “outstanding characteristic of the sabras” (native-born Israelis).

Herbert Russcol — a Jewish American emigrant to Israel — and his sabra wife Margarit Banai described the Israeli national character this way:

“Horror stories” about the chutzpah — of the sabra-men, women, and children alike — are notorious. What appears to be (and often is) their cheek, their insolence, has shocked and enraged everyone who has met them. Sabras freely admit their chutzpah as a people, but are rarely aware of being chutzpadik themselves. They will tell you, “Oh, we’re terrible. It’s a national vice. I am not so bad, but I have some very rude friends” … Chutzpah is alarmingly close to chauvinism, and it must be admitted that the sabra is usually passionately chaunvinistic in an era when no gospel has been more discredited in the West than blind, excessive patriotism.

“The deliberate and unadorned frankness [of Israelis],” notes Zionist historian Melvin Urofsky, “so highly prized by Israelis, scornful of Westernized and ‘assimilated’ manners, struck [Jewish] Americans [who sought to live in Israel], accustomed to some courtesies in life, as downright rude. (As late as 1965, a study of bureaucratic behavior in one large Israeli enterprise disclosed that 60 per cent of officials in contact with the public did not believe in greeting a visitor, nor would they reply to his greeting; an even higher percentage would not offer him a chair, simply letting him stand during the interview.)

Such attributes, it may be recalled, are among those that Jews have been noted for across the centuries. Leon Poliakov rhetorically remarks on the inevitable echo here in the European Jewish past: “Are the Jews congenitally unsociable and rude, or are they this way as a result of having been segregated in ghettos? Such was the form of the question in which arguments raged [among non-Jewish intellectuals] in the 18th century on the eve of Emancipation.”

As Joyce Starr notes: “Among Americans who have had extensive dealings with Israelis, whether in government, business, or Jewish circles, the first adjectives that comes to their lips are arrogant, willful, and sometimes infuriating.” Ms. Starr, who is also Jewish, notes the interchange she had with a man called J.R., “a high-ranking Israeli intelligence officer”:

“Most Americans I interviewed in the government sphere — the State Department, Defense Department — use certain words when they describe Israelis.”

“Arrogant,” J. R. replied.

“Yes, arrogant is a word that comes up frequently.”

“By the way, I think it’s true. It applies to most Israelis. American fairness and Israeli fairness are different.”

“What is Israeli fairness?”

“Israeli fairness is ‘You give me 75 percent and leave 25 percent.’”

“Do they know they do it?”

“Most of them do not. I think most of them believe that by some divine decree, they deserve to get everything.”

“What is divine decree?”

“It comes from God.” He saw me laughing. “It”s not funny, Joyce.”

“To the brief tourist,” wrote Leonard Wolf, a Jewish resident of Israel in 1970, “[Israelis] are a rude, unsympathetic people, intent on themselves, irresponsive to nuances of feeling. Americans, who are instantly, if not profoundly, genial, are apt to find the slow pace of Israeli friendliness cold, comparing the Jewish hotelkeepers and tourist guides they meet unfavorably with the extraordinarily warm Arabs.”

In 2001, a Jewish ethnic newspaper, the Forward, noted that the national Israeli propensity to be cheats and hustlers (always evasive of the law) probably had roots in Jewish history in other lands:

[There is] universal awareness that something is definitely rotten in the state of Israel. This is, after all, a country in which bending the rules is said to be a national pasttime, cutting corners a way of life and cheating the authorities the proof of merit … Sticklers for the law are ridiculed and abused, where anyone who works by the book is branded a sap, a “freier,” the worst insult in modern Israeli lexicon … Many people believe Israeli laxity, which borders on anarchy, is a national personality trait that cannot be eradicated by laws alone. Some trace the trait all the way back to the historical Jewish Diaspora, where Jews often found solace in bending the rules imposed by the often anti-Semitic authorities.

In 1986, B. Z. Sobel, an Israeli sociologist at the University of Haifa, discussed his research into reasons why so many Israelis emigrate from Israel to other lands. Among the motivations for leaving, he noted that “there is indeed an edginess [in Israeli society]; tempers flare, and verbal violence is rampant … A large proportion of those [Israelis] interviewed for my study … have been abroad [overseas] or were born or raised abroad, and in almost all cases reference is made to the fact that ‘people are nice in chutz la’aretz.’ Strangers wish you a good day as they make change or pass you in the street, whereas at home [Israel] you can consider yourself fortunate to receive minimally civil treatment.”

“Americans are much more polite, I would say,” remarked Israeli journalist Ze’ev Schiff, “while we are rude and have no patience … You can see it when some of us are waiting in a queue in a bank or waiting for a bus … This is the way we deal with each other, with the Egyptians, the Europeans, whoever.” As Joyce Starr adds: “The tension [in Israel] spills out in sudden eruptions of rudeness. You can be standing in line in a gas station, and suddenly there will be an outbreak of shouts and terrible cursing for no apparent reason except that people explode in Israel.”

Moshe Shokeid notes the comments of an Israeli identified as “Eli,” and his perceptions of the Israelis he met in New York City: “When I looked at the crowd, I subconsciously saw myself in the mirror. When you see other Israelis screaming in Hebrew, you realize that you possibly look the same. Unfortunately, I rediscovered the ugly Israeli.”

In the 1980s, Virginia Dominguez, a Cuban American sociologist, fluent in Hebrew and a Fulbright scholar in Israel, worried that obnoxious Israeli behavior and Jewish self-obsession threatened to push her into the camp of the anti-Semites:

Has my obsessive, long-term encounter with Israeli society over the past six years turned me into the anti-Semite I never was? I find myself sharply intolerant of the noisy, brash behavior of most Israeli children. I coin terms of description that are even explicitly judgmental. I get exasperated with the perennial references in the [Hebrew] media to the Jewishness of well-known public figures abroad.

Wendy Orange, a Jewish American, a new immigrant to Israel, noted with irritation the commentary of a group of Christian visitors she overheard in Jerusalem restaurant:

I overheard one Ghanaian woman say, “Just ghastly, these people!” She’s talking to a pregnant Irish woman, who responded wholeheartedly: “I never imagined they’d be so crude … so rude.” The Ghanaian, tall and dignified, her hair wrapped high in a colorful African sash, became more emphatic: “No manners … They drive like madmen.” She paused. “They are far more barbarian than I was warned. And I was warned, my dear, many times.”

In 2001, Great Britain’s online Telegraph newspaper noted

Israelis — who take pride in being blunt and outspoken — are to teach children good manners in an attempt to cut the nation’s tendency towards violence. From the next school year, 12-year-olds will be taught how to behave politely, which knife and fork to use at table, and how to resolve arguments without shouting or coming to blows. Ronit Tirosh, director-general of the Education Ministry said: “We are a brutal and impatient society, and the delicacy learned through these lessons may reduce our society’s violent tendencies.” Israelis are proud not to say thank you and relish the informality of life … Israeli life is a bruising contest of one-upmanship. The deepest fear is to be thought a “sucker” who obeys the rules. Brusqueness has been cultivated by native-born Israelis as a reaction against the manners of Europe’s Diaspora Jews, who were seen as cringing and subservient … Educationalists have become worried about the level of playground violence.

Traditional Jewish chutzpah is of course an integral part of the Israeli identity. “To a large degree,” says Israeli professor Jay Gonen, “… Herzl’s impact [on Jewish nationalism] was due to a quality of chutzpah, or unmitigated gall, which became an integral part of Zionism and was subsequently elevated almost to an art form by native-born Israelis, or sabras.” An example of how far this chutzpah can go was evidenced in an incident during the Palestinian uprising — known as the Intifada — that began in 1987 against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Of the hundreds of Palestinians shot and killed or wounded by Israeli troops in the Intifada’s first year, one young Arab teenager, Nasir Hawwash, was shot in the head and lay in a hospital, irrecoverably brain dead. One day Nasir’s brother received a telephone call from a Jewish Israeli citizen, an emissary for the family of a fellow middle-aged Israeli in the hospital with a serious heart condition. The stranger on the phone asked that the Hawwash family donate Nasir’s heart to save the Jewish man in the hospital who needed it.

“Nasir’s older brother,” notes Glenn Frankel, “was appalled that an Israeli would ask such a thing. She told him, ‘This is how we’ll make peace between Arabs and Jews.’ He was not buying it. ‘How can you make peace when you shoot someone and then you take the heart to give life to another Israeli?’ he told her.”

As the story for the heart request made the Israeli news, one Palestinian “radical” noted that “If we give the Israelis this heart, soon they’ll be shooting us for our organs.”

The Arab boy’s father was eventually offered “more money than [his] family would have seen in a lifetime” for his son’s heart, but he told the Israeli pleaders no. “What did they want from me?” he asked. “This was my son. They took him away, then they wanted his body. This I could not give.”

The racist, misogynist, scatalogical, and otherwise off-color epithets fly fast and furious: Obama is called a “nigger,” a “fuckhead,” a “pussy,” a “faggot,” and an “asshole.” He is told to “fuck off” and “go fuck himself.”

His opening to the Arab world is described as “Nazi bullshit.”

A female political science major who claims she “knows her shit” (but does not know who Benjamin Netanyahu is) trots out all the right-wing canards about Obama: he is a  secret Muslim; he is a terrorist sympathizer; he was not born in the United States, thus he is not qualified to be President.

In a truly surreal moment, one Jew attacks Obama for “fucking with his gun rights” and says he deserves to be shot. Moments later, he shouts out “White Power! Fuck the Nigger!” Are Jews really metamorphosing into Nazis? In 100 years, will white people be extinct and Jews be the only people left with blonde hair, blue eyes, a nation state, and national pride?

We are also treated to the “My grandmother was in Auschwitz–Never Again!” argument. We are asked “What has Obama done for this country?” “What about the Jews? Are we chopped liver? Are we nothing to you? Do you care if we are driven into the sea? Do you care if we are nuked?” Apparently, we can never do enough for these people.

The most reasonable young Jew simply states that Obama “does not understand that this country is ours.” His tone shows that he really believes it, that there is no question in his mind, and that he does not need us to believe it in order for him to believe it. He is not pleading for us to grant his ideas credibility. Watch this segment, white man, and learn.

Judging from their accents, most of the young Jews interviewed are American citizens or dual citizens. One claims to have worked for the Obama campaign. I am sure that the Secret Service will want to have words with them the next time they land in New York.

The fact that none of them seemed intimidated by such a prospect indicates the extent to which they feel in control of America, even while they posture as terrified victims about to be driven into the sea. We are ruled by bullies with the psyches of cornered rats.

Blumenthal writes about his motives for creating this video and the reactions to its release in an article on the Mondoweiss site, “Censored by the Huffington Post and Imprisoned by the Past: Why I Made ‘Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem.’” Be sure to scroll down and also read the article “Blumenthal’s Video is a Reflection of Lieberman’s Israel.”

A fake hate crime against Jews, but a real hate crime against whites.

Someone spray-painted signs in front of two synagogues–not the synagogues themselves, mind you, but only large signs sitting out front–with the word “Nazis” and a swastika. This happened just days before Yom Kippur.

“Obviously they planned it to have the most impact because this is when the most people are in the synagogue,” moaned cantor Robbie Salamon. As always, the melodrama was built by “Jewish leaders and police” claiming to believe “the vandals could be a bigger threat than initially suspected.” Police increased patrols of the areas. Solemn vows were made to treat the incident as a “hate crime.”

As almost always, though, the culprits turned out to be a far smaller threat than the “victims” want the rest of us to know. Arrested within a week were three teenaged Jews–Matthew Ian Saunders, Daniel Alexander Diaz, and a 17-year-old whose name was not released–captured fittingly on Yom Kippur itself. The three were charged with “destruction of property and damaging the property of a religious entity,” according to the Baltimore Sun. No “hate” charges–or even “self-hate” charges–were filed because, according to a police spokesman “we don’t know the motivation.” They didn’t, of course, know the motivation at the beginning, when they declared these to be “hate” crimes, but that didn’t stop them then.

“The only thing that I can assure the community is that at this point we do not believe that this was a hate-related crime,” said Cpl. Mike Hill of the Baltimore County Police.

Au contraire, Mr. Hill. It was most certainly a “hate crime”–a crime against all Gentiles, the people that the three Jews wanted everyone to believe had done the deed . . . against those they defamed by the phony “victimization” of their own chosen group . . . against the hated goyim, who have no more rights, as far as Jews are concerned, than the cattle that name translates to.

Jewish hatred toward and physical destruction of Gentiles is the oldest recorded “hate crime” known to mankind, lovingly recounted in the Old Testament, where the ancient Hebrews celebrated their multiple holocausts against the goyim by proudly chronicling them in their holy book:

Then they utterly destroyed all within the city [of Jericho], both men and women, young and old, oxen and sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 6, 21

When Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all of Israel returned to Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. And all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand, all the people of Ai.

Joshua 8, 24 and 25

And Joshua took Makkedah on that day and smote it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining; and he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.

Then Joshua passed on from Makkedah, and all Israel passed with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah; and the Lord gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.

And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and the Lord gave Lachish into the hand of Israel; and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.

Then Horam, king of Gezer, came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining.

And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish.

Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it.

Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king.

So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

Joshua 10, 28 through 40

Whew! Sounds like the mass murder of Gentiles is a lot of hard work, even with the all-powerful, bloodthirsty J-H-V-H on your side.

Faking anti-Jewish hate crimes may be a hate crime against non-Jews, but that does not make it any less upsetting to Jews before the true culprits are revealed. And once the culprits are revealed, surely Jews must resent having their property and peace of mind assaulted by fellow Jews. Even worse, many fake hate crimes are perpetrated by Jewish leaders to rally the Jewish community. The communal bonds between Jews are strengthened by making Jews think they are under attack by Gentiles–by heightening the feeling that it is “us against the world” (even though, in fact, it is “some of us against the rest of us”). Why do Jews put up with this?

Making victims of fellow Jews to advance the perceived interests of the community is nothing new. Consider a revelation by anti-Zionist Rabbi Elmer Berger in his book, Judaism or Jewish Nationalism: The Alternative to Zionism (New York: Bookman Associates, 1957).

Berger recounts a tale told by “the distinguished American liberal and fighter for civil liberties, Morris Ernst . . . a close friend and adviser of Franklin D. Roosevelt,” at the annual conference of the American Council for Judaism in 1950:

Roosevelt had an idea that what we ought to do with the people pushed around in Europe was to get up what he called a World Budget and let all the free nations of the world agree as to how many people they would take in as immigrants irrespective of race, creed, color, or political belief. The President told me that he was sure that he could get so many into Canada, so many into Australia, so many in each South American country . . . .

I went over to England on Roosevelt’s hunch that I should speak to the British, the officials, to see if they would agree to take in 100,000 or 200,000 of the people pushed around by the Nazis. It was Roosevelt’s hunch that if we could get England for a hundred or two hundred thousand and pick up a couple of hundred thousand elsewhere in the world, nation by nation, we could then educate the Congress of the United States to go back to our traditional position of asylum: a position that is not only good from the point of view of compassion but is essential for the enrichment of our own culture.[i]

I went to England and I sat with officials and came back one day to the White House, and I said, “We’re at home plate. That little island of Great Britain”–mind you, it was during the blitz that I was there–”that little island I am convinced, on a properly representative program of a World Immigration Budget (or what we now call Displaced Persons) will take in 150,000–or in any event will match the great United States up to 150,000.” The boss turned to me–I thought I had done a good job–and he said, “A hundred and fifty thousand to England; 150,000 to match them in the United States, pick up 200,000 or 300,000 elsewhere; we can start with half a million of the oppressed.”

I came back in about a week . . . . He turned to me, adding: “Nothing doing on the program.” I said, “What’s the matter?” He said, “We can’t put it over because the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won’t stand for it.” And I said, “It’s impossible. Why?”

He said, “Well, they’re right from their point of view. The Zionist movement knows that Palestine is, and will be for some time, a remittance society. They know that they can raise vast sums for Palestine by saying to donors, ‘there is no other place this poor Jew can go.’ But,” said Roosevelt, “if there’s a world political asylum for all people irrespective of race, creed or color, they can’t raise their money. Because the people who don’t want to give money will have an excuse and say, ‘what do you mean there’s no place they can go but Palestine? They are the preferred wards of the world.’”

I could scarcely believe it. I didn’t want to believe it. That a bit of chauvinism and nationalism among a few leaders of the Jewish organizations of America could defeat an overall haven for the oppressed of Europe. I said, “Let me test it out.” I went to friends of mine, without mentioning the British people I had spoken to, without mentioning Roosevelt–I laid down this grand dream, this great plan–of the world joining together to give relief to the people pushed around by Hitler.

I assure you that I was thrown out of parlors of friends of mine. And they said very frankly, and they were right from their point of view, “Morris,” they would say, “this is treason–you’re undermining the Zionist movement.” I’d say, “Yes, maybe I am. But I’m much more interested in a haven for half a million or a million people–oppressed throughout the world . . . .”

Berger then comments:

Zionists themselves were anything but coy or cagey about making it clear that their interest in humanitarianism was incidental to their conviction the so-called “Jewish” problem had to be solved within the framework of world recognition that “the Jewish people” was a nation. International recognition of the Zionist formula for a “Jewish” state in Palestine constituted such international recognition of “Jewish” nationalism. No program to solve the refugee problem or to admit Jews to Palestine which did not proceed from this fundamental Zionist premise was acceptable to Zionism.

The most immediately striking thing here–besides the fact that Ernst related this story at all–is that he quotes FDR as concerned about “people pushed around in Europe . . . regardless of race, creed, color or political belief,” and only later admits that it’s really all about Jews.

After all, if the Jews didn’t want to participate, why should that have stopped hundreds of thousands of Gentiles from fleeing the war zone under Roosevelt’s “humanitarian” scheme? Either because Roosevelt didn’t have the guts to stand up for these goyim in the face of powerful Jewish opposition, or he really intended to help only the Jews all along.

If the scheme had proceeded for the benefit of the Gentiles, international Jewry would doubtless have lied and claimed Jews had been deliberately excluded by the governments involved because of “racism,” and used that falsehood to raise even more money and sympathy for their brethren.

Instead, because Zionists cared more for their racist empire-building than the fate of millions of their own people–over whom they have since cried oceans of phony tears and reaped countless hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations and incalculable political advantages–they also damned millions of Gentiles to death in the war zone. But Israel was first founded by spilling the blood of Gentiles. So surely the Zionists thought that a small price for others to pay to establish Israel again.