Wyklad Michnika

15.08.02, 08:55
Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years
by Professor Israel Shahak

"Jewish History, Jewish Religion" may be purchased at:
http://www.amazon.com

Contents:
Foreword by Gore Vidal

1. A Closed Utopia?

2. Prejudice and Prevarication

3. Orthodoxy and Interpretation

4. The Weight of History

5. The Laws against Non-Jews

6. Political Consequences

Notes and References

Index



Foreword:
Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian,
John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much
abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American
Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his
whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed
through so fast.' As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father
and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman
and the serene corruption of American politics.

Unfortunately, the hurried recognition of Israel as a state has resulted in
forty-five years of murderous confusion, and the destruction of what Zionist
fellow travellers thought would be a pluralistic state - home to its native
population of Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as a future home to
peaceful European and American Jewish immigrants, even the ones who affected
to believe that the great realtor in the sky had given them, in perpetuity,
the lands of Judea and Sameria. Since many of the immigrants were good
socialists in Europe, we assumed that they would not allow the new state to
become a theocracy, and that the native Palestinians could live with them as
equals. This was not meant to be. I shall not rehearse the wars and alarms of
that unhappy region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel has
poisoned the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel's unlikely
patron.

Unlikely, because no other minority in American history has ever hijacked so
much money from the American taxpayers in order to invest in a 'homeland'. It
is as if the American taxpayer had been obliged to support the Pope in his
reconquest of the Papal States simply because one third of our people are
Roman Catholic. Had this been attempted, there would have been a great uproar
and Congress would have said no. But a religious minority of less than two
per cent has bought or intimidated seventy senators (the necessary two thirds
to overcome an unlikely presidential veto) while enjoying support of the
media.

In a sense, I rather admire the way that the Israel lobby has gone about its
business of seeing that billions of dollars, year after year, go to make
Israel a 'bulwark against communism'. Actually, neither the USSR nor
communism was ever much of a presence in the region. What America did manage
to do was to turn the once friendly Arab world against us. Meanwhile, the
misinformation about what is going on in the Middle East has got even greater
and the principal victim of these gaudy lies - the American taxpayer to one
side - is American Jewry, as it is constantly bullied by such professional
terrorists as Begin and Shamir. Worse, with a few honorable exceptions,
Jewish-American intellectuals abandoned liberalism for a series of demented
alliances with the Christian (antisemtic) right and with the Pentagon-
industrial complex. In 1985 one of them blithely wrote that when Jews arrived
on the American scene they 'found liberal opinion and liberal politicians
more congenial in their attitudes, more sensitive to Jewish concerns' but now
it is in the Jewish interest to ally with the Protestant fundamentalists
because, after all, "is there any point in Jews hanging on dogmatically,
hypocritically, to their opinions of yesteryear?' At this point the American
left split and those of us who criticised our onetime Jewish allies for
misguided opportunism, were promptly rewarded with the ritual epithet
'antisemite' or 'self-hating Jew'.

Fortunately, the voice of reason is alive and well, and in Israel, of all
places. From Jerusalem, Israel Shahak never ceases to analyse not only the
dismal politics of Israel today but the Talmud itself, and the effect of the
entire rabbinical tradition on a small state that the right-wing rabbinate
means to turn into a theocracy for Jews only. I have been reading Shahak for
years. He has a satirist's eye for the confusions to be found in any religion
that tries to rationalise the irrational. He has a scholar's sharp eye for
textual contradictions. He is a joy to read on the great Gentile-hating Dr
Maimonides.

Needless to say, Israel's authorities deplore Shahak. But there is not much
to be done with a retired professor of chemistry who was born in Warsaw in
1933 and spent his childhood in the concentration camp at Belsen. In 1945, he
came to Israel; served in the Israeli military; did not become a Marxist in
the years when it was fashionable. He was - and still is - a humanist who
detests imperialism whether in the names of the God of Abraham or of George
Bush. Equally, he opposes with great wit and learning the totalitarian strain
in Judaism. Like a highly learned Thomas Paine, Shahank illustrates the
prospect before us, as well as the long history behind us, and thus he
continues to reason, year after year. Those who heed him will certainly be
wiser and - dare I say? - better. He is the latest, if not the last, of the
great prophets.
- Gore Vidal



CHAPTER 1
A Closed Utopia?

THIS BOOK, although written in English and addressed to people living outside
the State of Israel, is, in a way, a continuation of my political activities
as an Israeli Jew. Those activities began in 1965-6 with a protest which
caused a considerable scandal at the time: I had personally witnessed an
ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in
order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in
his Jerusalem neighbourhood. Instead of simply publishing the incident in the
press, I asked for a meeting which is composed of rabbis nominated by the
State of Israel. I asked them whether such behavior was consistent with their
interpretation of the Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question
had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by
referring me to a passage in an authoritative compendium of Talmudic laws,
written in this century. I reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily,
Ha'aretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal.

The results of the scandal were, for me, rather negative. Neither the
Israeli, nor the diaspora, rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling
that a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a
Gentile. They added much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the
consequence of such an act puts Jews in danger, the violation of the Sabbath
is permitted, for their sake. It became apparent to me, as drawing on
Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither
Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics since the
inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of the Jewish
supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper
influence of those laws, and the worldview which they both create and express
is taken into account. The actual policies Israel pursued after the Six Day
War, and in particular the apartheid character of the Israeli regime in the
Occupied Territories and the attitude of the majority of Jews to the issue of
the rights of the Palestinians, even in the abstract, have merely
strengthened this conviction.

By making this statement I am not trying to ignore the political or strat
    • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:01
      By making this statement I am not trying to ignore the political or strategic
      considerations which may have also influenced the rulers of Israel. I am merely
      saying that actual politics is an interaction between realistic considerations
      (whether valid or mistaken, moral or immoral in my view) and ideological
      influences. The latter tend to be more influential the less they are discussed
      and 'dragged into the light'. Any form of racism, discrimination and xenophobia
      becomes more potent and politically influential if it is taken for granted by
      the society which indulges in it. This is especially so if its discussion is
      prohibited, either formally or by tacit agreement. When racism, discrimination
      and xenophobia is prevalent among Jews, and directed against non-Jews, being
      fueled by religious motivations, it is like its opposite case, that of
      antisemitism and its religious motivations. Today, however, while the second is
      being discussed, the very existence of the first is generally ignored, more
      outside Israel than within it.

      Without a discussion of the prevalent Jewish attitudes to non-Jews, even the
      concept of Israel as 'a Jewish state', as Israel formally defines itself,
      cannot be understood. The widespread misconception that Israel, even without
      considering its regime in the Occupied Territories, is a true democracy arises
      from the refusal to confront the significance of the term 'a Jewish state' for
      non-Jews. In my view, Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to
      itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states
      in the Middle East and beyond. I also consider that other Middle Eastern states
      or entities which define themselves as 'Arab' or 'Muslim', like the Israeli
      self-definition as being 'Jewish', likewise constitute a danger. However, while
      this danger is widely discussed, the danger inherent in the Jewish character of
      the State of Israel is not.

      The principle of Israel as 'a Jewish state' was supremely important to Israeli
      politicians from the inception of the state and was inculcated into the Jewish
      population by all conceivable ways. When, in the early 1980s, a tiny minority
      of Israeli Jews emerged which opposed this concept, a Constitutional Law (that
      is, a law overriding provisions of other laws, which cannot be revoked except
      by a special procedure) was passed in 1985 by an enormous majority of the
      Knesset.

      By this law no party whose programme openly opposes the principle of 'a Jewish
      state' or proposes to change it by democratic means, is allowed to participate
      in the elections to the Knesset. I myself strongly oppose this constitutional
      principle. The legal consequence for me is that I cannot belong, in the state
      of which I am a citizen, to a party having principles with which I would agree
      and which is allowed to participate in Knesset elections. Even this example
      shows that the State of Israel is not a democracy due to the application of a
      Jewish ideology directed against all non-Jews and those Jews who oppose this
      ideology. But the danger which this dominant ideology represents is not limited
      to domestic affairs. It also influences Israeli foreign policies. This danger
      will continue to grow, as long as two currently operating developments are
      being strengthened: the increase in the Jewish character of Israel and the
      increase in its power, particularly in nuclear power. Another ominous factor is
      that Israeli influence in the USA political establishment is also increasing.
      Hence accurate information about Judaism, and especially about the treatment of
      non-Jews by Israel, is now not only important, but politically vital as well.

      Let me begin with the official Israeli definition of the term 'Jewish',
      illustrating the crucial difference between Israel as 'a Jewish state' and the
      majority of other states. By this official definition, Israel 'belongs' to
      persons who are defined by the Israeli authorities as 'Jewish', irrespective of
      where they live, and to them alone. On the other hand, Israel doesn't
      officially 'belong' to its non-Jewish citizens, whose status is considered even
      officially as inferior. This means in practice that if members of a Peruvian
      tribe are converted to Judaism, and thus regarded as Jewish, they are entitled
      at once to become Israeli citizens and benefit from the approximately 70 per
      cent of the West Bank land (and the 92 per cent of the area of Israel proper),
      officially designated only for the benefit of Jews. All non-Jews ( not only all
      Palestinians) are prohibited from benefiting from those lands. (The prohibition
      applies even to Israeli Arabs who served in the Israeli army and reached a high
      rank.) The case involving Peruvian converts to Judaism actually occurred a few
      years ago. The newly-created Jews were settled in the West Bank, near Nablus,
      on land from which non-Jews are officially excluded. All Israeli governments
      are taking enormous political risks, including the risk of war, so that such
      settlements, composed exclusively of persons who are defined as 'Jewish' (and
      not 'Israeli' as most of the media mendaciously claims) would be subject to
      only 'Jewish' authority.

      I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britian would regard it as antisemitic
      if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a
      'Christian state', belonging only to citizens officially defined as
      'Christians'. The consequence of such doctrine is that Jews converting to
      Christianity would become full citizens because of their conversion. It should
      be recalled that the benefits of conversions are well known to Jews from their
      own history. When the Christian and the Islamic states used to discriminate
      against all persons not belonging to the religion of the state, including the
      Jews, the discrimination against Jews was at once removed by their conversion.
      But a non-Jew discriminated against by the State of Israel will cease to be so
      treated the moment he or she converts to Judaism.This simply shows that the
      same kind of exclusivity that is regarded by a majority of the diaspora Jews as
      antisemitic is regarded by the majority of all Jews as Jewish. To oppose both
      antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism is widely regarded among Jews as a 'self-
      hatred', a concept which I regard as nonsensical.

      The meaning of the term 'Jewish' and its cognates, including 'Judaism', thus
      becomes in the context of Israeli politics as important as the meaning of
      'Islamic', when officially used by Iran, or 'communist' when it was officially
      used by the USSR. However, the meaning of the term 'Jewish' as it is popularly
      used is not clear, either in Hebrew or when translated into other languages,
      and so the term had to be defined officially.

      According to Israeli law a person is considered 'Jewish' if either their
      mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother were
      Jewesses by religion; or if the person was converted to Judaism in a way
      satisfactory to the Israeli authorities, and on condition that the person has
      not converted from Judaism to another religion, in which case Israel ceases to
      regard them as 'Jewish'. Of the three conditions, the first represents the
      Talmudic definition of 'who is a Jew', a defintion followed by Jewish
      Orthodoxy. The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also recognise the
      conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-Jewish
      slave by a Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of
      becoming Jewish, provided that the conversion is performed by authorised rabbis
      in a proper manner. This 'proper manner' entails for females, their inspection
      by three rabbis while naked in a 'bath of purification', a ritual which,
      although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew press, is not often mentioned
      by the English media
      • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:05
        According to Israeli law a person is considered 'Jewish' if either their
        mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother were
        Jewesses by religion; or if the person was converted to Judaism in a way
        satisfactory to the Israeli authorities, and on condition that the person has
        not converted from Judaism to another religion, in which case Israel ceases to
        regard them as 'Jewish'. Of the three conditions, the first represents the
        Talmudic definition of 'who is a Jew', a defintion followed by Jewish
        Orthodoxy. The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also recognise the
        conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-Jewish
        slave by a Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of
        becoming Jewish, provided that the conversion is performed by authorised rabbis
        in a proper manner. This 'proper manner' entails for females, their inspection
        by three rabbis while naked in a 'bath of purification', a ritual which,
        although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew press, is not often mentioned
        by the English media in spite of its undoubted interest for certain readers. I
        hope that this book will be the beginning of a process which will rectify this
        discrepancy.

        But there is another urgent necessity for an official definitionof who is, and
        who is not 'Jewish'. The State of Israel officially discriminates in favour of
        Jews and against non-Jews in many domains of life, of which I regard three as
        being most important: residency rights, the right to work and the right to
        equality before the law. Discrimination in residency is based on the fact that
        about 92 per cent of Israel's land is the property of the state and is
        administered by the Israel Land Authority according to regulations issued by
        the Jewish National Fund (JNF), and affiliate of the World Zionist
        Organization. In its regualtions the JNFdenies the right to reside, to open a
        business, and often to work, to anyone who is not Jewish, only because he is
        not Jewish. At the same time, Jews are not prohibited from taking residence or
        opening businesses anywhere in Israel. If applied in another state against the
        Jews, such discriminatory practice would instantly and justifiably be labelled
        antisemitism and would no doubt spark massive public protests. When applied by
        Israel as a part of its 'Jewish ideology', they are usually studiously ignored
        or excused when rarely mentioned.

        The denial of the right to work means that non-Jews are prohibited officially
        from working on land administered by the Israel Land Authority according to the
        JNF regulations. No doubt these regulations are not always, or even often,
        enforced but they do exist. From time to time Israel attempts enforcement
        campaigns by state authorities, as, for example, when the Agriculture Ministry
        acts against 'the pestilence of letting fruit orchards belonging to Jews and
        situated on National Land [i.e., land belonging to the State of Israel] be
        harvested by Arab labourers', even if the labourers in question are citizens of
        Israel. Israel also strictly prohibits Jews settled on 'National Land' to sub-
        rent even a part of their land to Arabs, even for a short time; and those who
        do so are punished, usually by heavy fines. There is no prohibitions on non-
        Jews renting their land to Jews. This means, in my own case, that by virtue of
        being a Jew I have the right to lease an orchard for harvesting its produce
        from another Jew, but a non-Jew, whether a citizen of Israel or a resident
        alien, does not have this right.

        Non-Jewish citizens of Israel do not have the right to equality before the law.
        This discimination is expressed in many Israeli laws in which, presumably in
        order to avoid embarressment, the terms 'Jewish' and 'non-Jewish' are usually
        not explicitly stated, as they are in the crucial Law of Return. According to
        that law only persons officially recognised as 'Jewish' have an automatic right
        of entry to Israel and of settling in it. They automatically receive an
        'immigration certificate' which provides them on arrival with 'citizenship by
        virtue of having returned to the Jewish homeland', and with the right to many
        financial benefits, which vary somewhat according to the country from which
        they emmigrated. The Jews who emigrate from the states of the former UUSR
        receive 'an absorption grant' of more than $20,000 per family. All Jews
        immigrating to Israel accordingthis law immediately acquire the right to vote
        in elections and to be elected to the Knesset
        • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:09
          The Ideology of 'Redeemed' Land
          Israel also propagates among its Jewish citizens an exclusivist ideology of the
          Redemption of Land. Its official aim of minimizing the number of non-Jews can
          be well perceived in this ideology , which is inculcated to Jewish
          schoolchildren in Israel. They are taught that it is applicable to the entire
          extent of either the State of Israel or, after 1967, to what is referred to as
          the Land of Israel. According to this ideology, the land which has been
          'redeemed' is the land which has passed from non-Jewish ownership to Jewish
          ownership. The ownership can be either private, or belong to either the JNF or
          the Jewish state. The land which belongs to non-Jews is, on the contrary,
          considered to be 'unredeemed'. Thus, if a Jew who committed the blackest crimes
          which can be imagined buys a piece of land from a virtuous non-Jew, the
          'unredeemed' land becomes 'redeemed' by such a transaction. However, if a
          virtuous non-Jew purchases land from the worst Jew, the formerly pure and
          'redeemed' land becomes 'unredeemed' again. The logical conclusion of such an
          ideology is the expulsion, called 'transfer', of all non-Jews from the area of
          land which has to be 'redeemed'. Therefore the Utopia of the 'Jewish ideology'
          adopted by the State of Israel is a land which is wholly 'redeemed' and none of
          it is owned or worked by non-Jews. The leaders of the Zionist labour movement
          expressed this utterly repellent idea with the greatest clarity. Walter Laquer
          a devoted Zionist, tells in his History of Zionism1 how one of these spiritual
          fathers, A.D. Gordon, who died in 1919, 'objected to violence in principle and
          justified self defence only in extreme circumstances. But he and his friends
          wanted every tree and bush in the Jewish homeland to be planted by nobody else
          except Jewish pioneers'. This means that they wanted everybody else to just go
          away and leave the land to be 'redeemed' by Jews. Gordon's successors added
          more violence than he intended but the principle of 'redemption' and its
          consequences have remained.

          In the same way, the kibbutz, widely hailed as an attempt to create a Utopia,
          was and is an exclusivist Utopia; even if it is composed of atheists, it does
          not accent Arab members on principle and demands that potential members from
          other nationalities be first converted to Judaism. No wonder the kibbutz boys
          can be regarded as the most militaristic segment of the Israeli jewish society.

          It is this exclusivist ideology, rather than all the 'security needs' alleged
          by Israeli propaganda, which determines the takeovers of land in Israel in the
          1950s and again in the mid-1960s and in the Occupied Territories after 1967.
          This ideology also dictated official Israeli plans for 'the Judaizition of
          Galilee'. This curious term means encouraging Jews to settle in Galilee by
          giving them financial benefits. (I wonder what would be the reaction of US Jews
          if a plan for 'the Christianization of New York' or even only of Brooklyn,
          would be proposed in their country.) But the Redemption of the Land implies
          more than regional 'Judaization'. In the entire area of Israel the JNF,
          vigorously backed by Israeli state agencies (especially by the secret police)
          is spending great sums of public money in order to 'redeem' any land which non-
          Jews are willing to sell, and to preempt any attempt by a Jew to sell his land
          to a non-Jew by paying him a higher price.


          Israeli Expansionism
          The main danger which Israel, as 'a Jewish state', poses to its own people, to
          other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of
          territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this
          aim. The more Israel becomes Jewish or, as one says in Hebrew, the more it
          'returns to Judaism' (a process which has been under way in Israel at least
          since 1967), the more its actual politics are guided by Jewish ideological
          considerations and less by rational ones. My use of the term 'rational' does
          not refer here to a moral evaluation of Israeli policies, or to the supposed
          defence or security needs of Israel - even less so to the supposed needs of
          'Israeli survival'. I am referring here to Israeli imperial policies based on
          its presumed interests. However morally bad or politically crass such policies
          are, I regard the adoption of policies based on 'Jewish ideology', in all its
          different versions as being even worse. The ideological defence of Israeli
          policies are usually based on Jewish religious beliefs or, in the case of
          secular Jews, on the 'historical rights' of the Jews which derive from those
          beliefs and retain the dogmatic character of religious faith.

          My own early political conversion from admirer of Ben-Gurion to his dedicated
          opponent began exactly with such an issue. In 1956 I eagerly swallowed all of
          Ben-Gurion's political and military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War,
          until he (in spite of being an atheist, proud of his disregard of the
          commandments of Jewish religion) pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of
          that war, that the real reason for it is 'the restoration of the kingdom of
          David and Solomon' to its Biblical borders. At this point in his speech, almost
          every Knesset member spontaneously rose and sang the Israeli national anthem.
          To my knowledge, no zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea
          that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of pragmatic
          considerations) on the restoration of the Biblical borders as the borders of
          the Jewish state. Indeed, close analysis of Israeli grand strategies and actual
          principles of foreign policy, as they are expressed in Hebrew, makes it clear
          that it is 'Jewish ideology', more than any other factor, which determines
          actual Israeli policies. The disregard of Judaism as it really is and of
          'Jewish ideology' makes those policies incomprehensible to foreign observers
          who usually know nothing about Judaism exept crude apologetics.

          Let me give a more recent illustration of the essential difference which exists
          between Israeli imperial planning of the most inflated but secular type, and
          the principles of 'Jewish ideology'. The latter enjoins that land which was
          either ruled by any Jewish ruler in ancient times or was promised by God to the
          Jews, either in the Bible or - what is actually more important politically -
          according to a rabbinic interpretation of the Bible and the Talmud, should
          belong to Israel since it is a Jewish state. No doubt, many Jewish 'doves' are
          of the opinion that such conquest should be deferred to a time when Israel will
          be stronger than it is now, or that there would be, hopefully, a 'peaceful
          conquest', that is , that the Arab rulers or peoples would be 'persuaded' to
          cede the land in question in return for benefits which the Jewish state would
          then confer on them.

          A number of discrepant versions of Biblical borders of the Land of Israel,
          which rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish
          state, are in circulation. The most far-reaching among them include the
          following areas within these borders: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of
          nothern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a
          large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the
          Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge
          part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus. An enormous body of
          research and learned discussion based on these borders, embodied in atlases,
          books, articles and more popular forms of propaganda is being published in
          Israel, often with state subsidies, or other forms of support. Certainly the
          late Kahane and his followers, as will as influential bodies such as Gush
          Emunim, not only desire the conquest of those territories by Israel,
          • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:11
            A number of discrepant versions of Biblical borders of the Land of Israel,
            which rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish
            state, are in circulation. The most far-reaching among them include the
            following areas within these borders: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of
            nothern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a
            large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the
            Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge
            part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus. An enormous body of
            research and learned discussion based on these borders, embodied in atlases,
            books, articles and more popular forms of propaganda is being published in
            Israel, often with state subsidies, or other forms of support. Certainly the
            late Kahane and his followers, as will as influential bodies such as Gush
            Emunim, not only desire the conquest of those territories by Israel, but regard
            it as a divinely commanded act, sure to be successful since it will be aided by
            God. In fact, important Jewish religious figures regard the Israeli refusal to
            undertake such a holy war, or even worse, the return of Sinai to Egypt, as a
            national sin which was justly punished by God. One of the more influential Gush
            Emunim rabbis, Dov Lior, the rabbi of Jewish settlements of Kiryat Arba and of
            Hebron, stated repeatedly that the Israeli failure to conquer Lebanon in 1982-5
            was a well-merited divine punishment for its sin of 'giving a part of Land of
            Israel', namely Sinai, to Egypt.

            Although I have chosen an admittedly extreme example of the Biblical borders of
            the Land of Israel which 'belong' to the 'Jewish state', those borders are
            quite popular in national-religious circles. There are less extreme versions of
            Biblical borders, sometimes also called 'historical borders'. It should however
            be emphasized that within Israel and the community of its diaspora Jewish
            supporters, the validity of the concept of either Biblical borders or
            historical borders as delineating the bordrers of land which belongs to Jews by
            right is not denied on grounds of principle, except by the tiny minority which
            opposes the concept of a Jewish state. Otherwise, objections to the realisation
            of such borders by a war are purely pragmatical. One can claim that Israel is
            now too weak to conquer all the land which 'belongs' to the Jews, or that the
            loss of Jewish lives (but not of Arab lives!) entailed in a war of conquest of
            such magnitude is more important than the conquest of the land, but in
            normative Judaism one cannot claim that 'the Land of Israel', in whatever
            borders, does not 'belong' to all the Jews. In May 1993, Ariel Sharon formally
            proposed in the Likud Convention that Israel should adopt the 'Biblical
            borders' concept as its official policy. There were rather few objections to
            this proposal, either in the Likud or outside it, and all were cased on
            pragmaic grounds. No one even asked Sharon where exactly are the Biblical
            borders which he was urging that Israel should attain. Let us recall that among
            those who call themselves Leninists there was no doubt that history follows the
            principles laid out by Marx and Lenin. It is not only the belief itself,
            however dogmatic, but the refusal that it should ever be doubted, by thwarting
            open discussion, which creates a totalitarian cast of mind. Israeli-Jewish
            society and diaspora Jews who are leading 'Jewish lives' and organised in
            purely Jewish organisations, can be said therefore to have a strong streak of
            totalitarianism in their character.

            However, an Israeli grand strategy, not based on the tenets of 'Jewish
            ideology', but based on purely strategic or imperial considerations had also
            developed since the inception of the state. An authoriative and lucid
            description of the principles governing such strategy was given by General
            (Reserves) Shlomo Gazit, a former Military Intelligence commander.
            • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:14
              A Closed Utopia?
              Until such attitudes are widely adopted, the actual danger of Israeli policies
              based on 'Jewish ideology' remains greater than the danger of policies based on
              purely strategic considerations. The difference between the two kinds of
              policies was well expressed by Hugh Trevor-Roper in his essay 'Sir Thomas More
              and Utopia' 3 in which he termed them Platonic and Machiavellian:
              "Machiavelli at least apologized for the methods which he thought necessary in
              politics. He regretted the necessity of force and fraud and did not call them
              by any other name. But Plato and More sanctified them, provided that they were
              used to sustain their own Utopian republics."
              In a similiar way true believers in that Utopia called the 'Jewish state',
              which will strive to achieve the 'Biblical borders', are more dangerous than
              the grand strategists of Gazit's type because their policies are being
              sanctified either by the use of religion or, worse, by the use of secularized
              religious principles which retaim absolute validity. While Gazit at least sees
              a need to argue that the Israel diktat benefits the Arab regimes, Ben-Gurion
              did not pretend that the re-establishment of the kingdom of David and Solomon
              will benefit anybody except the Jewish state.

              Using the concepts of Platonism to analyse Israeli policies based on 'Jewish
              ideology' should not seem strange. It was noticed by several scholars, of whom
              the most important was Moses Hadas, who claimed that the foundations of
              'classical Judaism', that is, of Judaism as it was established by talmudic
              sages, are based on Platonic influences and especially on the image of Sparta
              as it appears in Plato.4 According to Hadas, a crucial feature of the Platonic
              political system, adopted by Judaism as early as the Maccabean period (142-63
              BC), was 'that every phase of human conduct be subject to religious sanctions
              which are in fact to be manipulated by the ruler'. There can be no better
              definition of 'classical Judaism' and of the ways in which the rabbis
              manipulated it than this Platonic definition. In particular, Hadas claims that
              Judaism adopted what 'Plato himself summarized [as] the objectives of his
              program', in the following well-known passage:
              "The principle thing is that no one, man or woman, should ever be without an
              officer set over him, and that none should get the mental habit of taking any
              step, whether in earnest or in jest, on his individual responsibility. In peace
              as in war he must live always with his eyes on his superior officer... In a
              word, we must train the mind not to even consider acting as an invidual or know
              how to do it." (Laws, 942ab)
              If the word 'rabbi' is substituted for 'an officer' we will have a perfect
              image of classical Judaism. The latter is still deeply influencing Israeli-
              Jewish society and determing to a large extent the Israeli policies.

              It was the above quoted passage which was chosen by Karl Popper in The Open
              Society and Its Enemies as describing the essence of 'a closed society'.
              Historical Judaism and its two successors, Jewish Orthodoxy and Zionism, are
              both sworn enemies of the concept of the open society as applied to Israel. A
              Jewish state, whether based on its present Jewish ideology or, if it becomes
              even more Jewish in character than it is now, on the principles of Jewish
              Orthodoxy, cannot ever contain an open society. There are two choices which
              face Israeli-Jewish society. It can become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a
              Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in existence by its
              influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use its nuclear
              power, or it can try to become an open society. The second choice is dependent
              on an honest examination of its Jewish past, on the admission that Jewish
              chauvinism and exclusivism exist, and on an honest examination of the attitudes
              of Judaism towards the non-Jews.

              END - Chapt.1
              CHAPTER 2
              Prejudice and Prevarication
              From: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
              The Weight of Three Thousand Years"
              by Professor Israel Shahak

              THE FIRST DIFFICULTY in writing about this subject is that the term 'Jew' has
              been used during the last 150 years with two rather different meanings. To
              understand this, let us imagine ourselves in the year 1780. Then the
              universally accepted meaning of the term 'Jew' basically coincided with what
              the Jews themselves understood as constituting their own identity. This
              identity was primarily religious, but the precepts of religion governed the
              details of daily behavior in all aspects of life, both social and private,
              among the Jews themselves as well as in their relation to non-Jews. It was then
              literally true that a Jew could not even drink a glass of water in the home of
              a non-Jew. And the same basic laws of behavior towards non-Jews were equally
              valid from Yemen to New York. Whatever the term by which the Jews of 1780 may
              be described - and I do not wish to enter into a metaphysical dispute about
              terms like, 'nation' and 'people'1 - it is clear that all Jewish communities at
              that time were separate from the non-Jewish societies in the midst of which
              they were living.
              However, all this was changed by two parallel processes - beginning in Holland
              and England, continuing in revolutionary France and in countries which followed
              the example of the French Revolution, and then in the modern monarchies of the
              19th century: the Jews gained a significant level of individual rights (in some
              cases full legal equality), and the legal power of the Jewish community over
              its members was destroyed. It should be noted that both developments were
              simultaneous, and that the latter is even more important, albeit less widely
              known, than the former.
              Since the time of the late Roman Empire, Jewish communities had considerable
              legal powers over their members. Not only powers which arise through voluntary
              mobilization of social pressure (for example refusal to have any dealing
              whatsoever with an excommunicated Jew or even to bury his body), but a power of
              naked coercion: to flog, to imprison, to expel - all this could be inflicted
              quite legally on an individual Jew by the rabbinical courts for all kinds of
              offenses. In many countries - Spain and Poland are notable examples - even
              capital punishment could be and was inflicted, sometimes using particularly
              cruel methods such as flogging to death. All this was not only permitted but
              positively encouraged by the state authorities in both Christian and Muslim
              countries, who besides their general interest in preserving 'law and order' had
              in some cases a more direct financial interest as well. For example, in Spanish
              archives dating from the 13th and 14th centuries there are records of many
              detailed orders issued by those most devout Catholic Kings of Castile and
              Aragon, instructing their no less devout officials to co-operate with the
              rabbis in enforcing observance of the Sabbath by the Jews. Why? Because
              whenever a Jew was fined by a rabbinical court for violating the Sabbath, the
              rabbis had to hand nine tenths of the fine over to the king - a very profitable
              and effective arrangement. Similarly, one can quote from the responsa written
              shortly before 1832 by the famous Rabbi Moshe Sofer of Pressburg (now
              Bratislava), in what was then the autonomous Hungarian Kingdom in the Austrian
              Empire, and addressed to Vienna in Austria proper, where the Jews had already
              been granted some considerable individual rights.2 He laments the fact that
              since the Jewish congregation in Vienna lost its powers to punish offenders,
              the Jews there have become lax in matters of religious observance, and adds:
              'Here in Pressburg, when I am told that a Jewish shopkeeper dared to open his
              shop during the Lesser Holidays, I immediately send a policeman to imprison
              him.'
              This was
              • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:17
                This was the most important social fact of Jewish existence before the advent
                of the modern state: observance of the religious laws of Judaism, as well as
                their inculcation through education, were enforced on Jews by physical
                coercion, from which one could only escape by conversion to the religion of the
                majority, amounting in the circumstances to a total social break and for that
                reason very impracticable, except during a religious crisis.3
                However, once the modern state had come into existence, the Jewish community
                lost its powers to punish or intimidate the individual Jew. The bonds of one of
                the most closed of 'closed societies', one of the most totalitarian societies
                in the whole history of mankind were snapped. This act of liberation came
                mostly from outside; although there were some Jews who helped it from within,
                these were at first very few. This form of liberation had very grave
                consequences for the future. Just as in the case of Germany (according to the
                masterly analysis of A.J.P. Taylor) it was easy to ally the cause of reaction
                with patriotism, because in actual fact individual rights and equality before
                the law were brought into Germany by the armies of the French Revolution and of
                Napoleon, and one could brand liberty as 'un-German', exactly so it turned out
                to be very easy among the Jews, particularly in Israel, to mount a very
                effective attack against all the notions and ideals of humanism and the rule of
                law (not to say democracy) as something 'un-Jewish' or 'anti-Jewish' - as
                indeed they are, in a historical sense - and as principles which may be used in
                the 'Jewish interest', but which have no validity against the 'Jewish
                interest', for example when Arabs invoke these same principles. This has also
                led - again just as in Germany and other nations of Mitteleuropa - to a
                deceitful, sentimental and ultra-romantic Jewish historiography, from which all
                inconvenient facts have been expunged.
                So one will not find in Hannah Arendt's voluminous writings, whether on
                totalitarianism or on Jews, or on both,4 the smallest hint as to what Jewish
                society in Germany was really like in the 18th century: burning of books,
                persecution of writers, disputes about the magic powers of amulets, bans on the
                most elementary 'non-Jewish' education such as the teaching of correct German
                or indeed German written in the Latin alphabet. Nor can one find in the
                numerous English-language 'Jewish histories' the elementary facts about the
                attitude of Jewish mysticism (so fashionable at present in certain quarters) to
                non-Jews: that they are considered to be, literally, limbs of Satan, and that
                the few non-satanic individuals among them (that is, those who convert to
                Judaism) are in reality 'Jewish souls' who got lost when Satan violated the
                Holy Lady (Shekhinah or Matronit, one of the female components of the Godhead,
                sister and wife of the younger male God according to the cabbala) in her
                heavenly abode. The great authorities, such as Gershom Scholem, have lent their
                authority to a system of deceptions in all the 'sensitive' areas, the more
                popular ones being the most dishonest and misleading.
                But the social consequence of this process of liberalization was that, for the
                first time since about AD 200, 6 a Jew could be free to do what he liked,
                within the bounds of his country's civil law, without having to pay for this
                freedom by converting to another religion. The freedom to learn and read books
                in modern languages, the freedom to read and write books in Hebrew not approved
                by the rabbis (as any Hebrew or Yiddish book previously had to be), the freedom
                to eat non-kosher food, the freedom to ignore the numerous absurd taboos
                regulating sexual life, even the freedom to think - for 'forbidden thoughts'
                are among the most serious sins - all these were granted to the Jews of Europe
                (and subsequently of other countries) by modern or even absolutist European
                regimes, although the latter were at the same time antisemitic and oppressive.
                Nicholas I of Russia was a notorious antisemite and issued many laws against
                the Jews of his state. But he also strengthened the forces of 'law and order'
                in Russia - not only the secret police but also the regular police and the
                gendarmerie - with the consequence that it became difficult to murder Jews on
                the order of their rabbis, whereas in pre-1795 Poland it had been quite easy.
                'Official' Jewish history condemns him on both counts. For example, in the late
                1830s a 'Holy Rabbi' (Tzadik) in a small Jewish town in the Ukraine ordered the
                murder of a heretic by throwing him into the boiling water of the town baths,
                and contemporary Jewish sources note with astonishment and horror that bribery
                was 'no longer effective' and that not only the actual perpetrators but also
                the Holy Man were severely punished. The Metternich regime of pre-1848 Austria
                was notoriously reactionary and quite unfriendly to Jews, but it did not allow
                people, even liberal Jewish rabbis, to be poisoned. During 1848, when the
                regime's power was temporarily weakened, the first thing the leaders of the
                Jewish community in the Galician city of Lemberg (now Lvov) did with their
                newly regained freedom was to poison the liberal rabbi of the city, whom the
                tiny non-Orthodox Jewish group in the city had imported from Germany. One of
                his greatest heresies, by the way, was the advocacy and actual performance of
                the Bar Mitzvah ceremony, which had recently been invented.
                Liberation from Outside
                In the last 150 years, the term 'Jew' has therefore acquired a dual meaning, to
                the great confusion of some well-meaning people, particularly in the English-
                speaking countries, who imagine that the Jews they meet socially are
                'representative' of Jews 'in general'. In the countries of east Europe as well
                as in the Arab world, the Jews were liberated from the tyranny of their own
                religion and of their own communities by outside forces, too late and in
                circumstances too unfavorable for genuine internalized social change. In most
                cases, and particularly in Israel, the old concept of society, the same
                ideology - especially as directed towards non-Jews - and the same utterly false
                conception of history have been preserved. This applies even to some of those
                Jews who joined 'progressive' or leftist movements. An examination of radical,
                socialist and communist parties can provide many examples of disguised Jewish
                chauvinists and racists, who joined these parties merely for reasons of 'Jewish
                interest' and are, in Israel, in favor of 'anti-Gentile' discrimination. One
                need only check how many Jewish 'socialists' have managed to write about the
                kibbutz without taking the trouble to mention that it is a racist institution
                from which non-Jewish citizens of Israel are rigorously excluded, to see that
                the phenomenon we are alluding to is by no means uncommon.7
                Avoiding labels based on ignorance or hypocrisy, we thus see that the word
                'Jewry' and its cognates describe two different and even contrasting social
                groups, and because of current Israeli politics the continuum between the two
                is disappearing fast. On the one hand there is the traditional totalitarian
                meaning discussed above; on the other hand there are Jews by descent who have
                internalized the complex of ideas which Karl Popper has called 'the open
                society'. (There are also some, particularly in the USA, who have not
                internalized these ideas, but try to make a show of acceptance.)
                It is important to note that all the supposedly 'Jewish characteristics' - by
                which I mean the traits which vulgar so-called intellectuals in the West
                attribute to 'the Jews' - are modern characteristics, quite unknown during most
                of Jewish history, and appeared only when the totalitarian Jewish community
                began to lose its power. Take, for example, the famous Jewish s
                • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:21
                  Avoiding labels based on ignorance or hypocrisy, we thus see that the word
                  'Jewry' and its cognates describe two different and even contrasting social
                  groups, and because of current Israeli politics the continuum between the two
                  is disappearing fast. On the one hand there is the traditional totalitarian
                  meaning discussed above; on the other hand there are Jews by descent who have
                  internalized the complex of ideas which Karl Popper has called 'the open
                  society'. (There are also some, particularly in the USA, who have not
                  internalized these ideas, but try to make a show of acceptance.)
                  It is important to note that all the supposedly 'Jewish characteristics' - by
                  which I mean the traits which vulgar so-called intellectuals in the West
                  attribute to 'the Jews' - are modern characteristics, quite unknown during most
                  of Jewish history, and appeared only when the totalitarian Jewish community
                  began to lose its power. Take, for example, the famous Jewish sense of humor.
                  Not only is humor very rare in Hebrew literature before the 19th century (and
                  is only found during few periods, in countries where the Jewish upper class was
                  relatively free from the rabbinical yoke, such as Italy between the 14th and
                  17th centuries or Muslim Spain) but humor and jokes are strictly forbidden by
                  the Jewish religion - except, significantly, jokes against other religions.
                  Satire against rabbis and leaders of the community was never internalized by
                  Judaism, not even to a small extent, as it was in Latin Christianity. There
                  were no Jewish comedies, just as there were no comedies in Sparta, and for a
                  similar reason.8 Or take the love of learning. Except for a purely religious
                  learning, which was itself in a debased and degenerate state, the Jews of
                  Europe (and to a somewhat lesser extent also of the Arab countries) were
                  dominated, before about 1780, by a supreme contempt and hate for all learning
                  (excluding the Talmud and Jewish mysticism). Large parts of the Old Testament,
                  all nonliturgical Hebrew poetry, most books on Jewish philosophy were not read
                  and their very names were often anathematized. Study of all languages was
                  strictly forbidden, as was the study of mathematics and science. Geography,9
                  history - even Jewish history - were completely unknown. The critical sense,
                  which is supposedly so characteristic of Jews, was totally absent, and nothing
                  was so forbidden, feared and therefore persecuted as the most modest innovation
                  or the most innocent criticism.
                  It was a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism and ignorance,
                  a world in which the preface to the first work on geography in Hebrew
                  (published in 1803 in Russia) could complain that very many great rabbis were
                  denying the existence of the American continent and saying that it is
                  'impossible'. Between that world and what is often taken in the West to
                  'characterize' Jews there is nothing in common except the mistaken name.
                  However, a great many present-day Jews are nostalgic for that world, their lost
                  paradise, the comfortable closed society from which they were not so much
                  liberated as expelled. A large part of the Zionist movement always wanted to
                  restore it - and this part has gained the upper hand. Many of the motives
                  behind Israeli politics, which so bewilder the poor confused western 'friends
                  of Israel', are perfectly explicable once they are seen simply as reaction,
                  reaction in the political sense which this word has had for the last two
                  hundred years: a forced and in many respects innovative, and therefore
                  illusory, return to the closed society of the Jewish past.
                  Obstacles to Understanding
                  Historically it can be shown that a closed society is not interested in a
                  description of itself, no doubt because any description is in part a form of
                  critical analysis and so may encourage critical 'forbidden thoughts'. The more
                  a society becomes open, the more it is interested in reflecting, at first
                  descriptively and then critically, upon itself, its present working as well as
                  its past. But what happens when a faction of intellectuals desires to drag a
                  society, which has already opened up to a considerable extent, back to its
                  previous totalitarian, closed condition? Then the very means of the former
                  progress - philosophy, the sciences, history and especially sociology - become
                  the most effective instruments of the 'treason of the intellectuals'. They are
                  perverted in order to serve as devices of deception, and in the process they
                  degenerate.
                  Classical Judaism 10 had little interest in describing or explaining itself to
                  the members of its own community, whether educated (in talmudic studies) or
                  not.11 It is significant that the writing of Jewish history, even in the driest
                  annalistic style, ceased completely from the time of Josephus Flavius (end of
                  first century) until the Renaissance, when it was revived for a short time in
                  Italy and in other countries where the Jews were under strong Italian
                  influence.12 Characteristically, the rabbis feared Jewish even more than
                  general history, and the first modern book on history published in Hebrew (in
                  the 16th century) was entitled History of the Kings of France and of the
                  Ottoman Kings. It was followed by some histories dealing only with the
                  persecutions that Jews had been subjected to. The first book on Jewish history
                  proper l3 (dealing with ancient times) was promptly banned and suppressed by
                  the highest rabbinical authorities, and did not reappear before the 19th
                  century. The rabbinical authorities of east Europe furthermore decreed that all
                  non-talmudic studies are to be forbidden, even when nothing specific could be
                  found in them which merits anathema, because they encroach on the time that
                  should be employed either in studying the Talmud or in making money - which
                  should be used to subsidize talmudic scholars. Only one loophole was left,
                  namely the time that even a pious Jew must perforce spend in the privy. In that
                  unclean place sacred studies are forbidden, and it was therefore permitted to
                  read history there, provided it was written in Hebrew and was completely
                  secular, which in effect meant that it must be exclusively devoted to non-
                  Jewish subjects. (One can imagine that those few Jews of that time who - no
                  doubt tempted by Satan - developed an interest in the history of the French
                  kings were constantly complaining to their neighbors about the constipation
                  they were suffering from ...) As a consequence, two hundred years ago the vast
                  majority of Jews were totally in the dark not only about the existence of
                  America but also about Jewish history and Jewry's contemporary state; and they
                  were quite content to remain so.
                  A Totalitarian History
                  There was however one area in which they were not allowed to remain self-
                  contented - the area of Christian attacks against those passages in the Talmud
                  and the talmudic literature which are specifically anti-Christian or more
                  generally anti-Gentile. It is important to note that this challenge developed
                  relatively late in the history of Christian-Jewish relations - only from the
                  13th century on. (Before that time, the Christian authorities attacked Judaism
                  using either Biblical or general arguments, but seemed to be quite ignorant as
                  to the contents of the Talmud.) The Christian campaign against the Talmud was
                  apparently brought on by the conversion to Christianity of Jews who were well
                  versed in the Talmud and who were in many cases attracted by the development of
                  Christian philosophy, with its strong Aristotelian (and thus universal)
                  character.14
                  It must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and the talmudic literature -
                  quite apart from the general anti-Gentile streak that runs through them, which
                  will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 - contain very offensive
                  statements and precepts directed specifically aga
                  • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:23
                    It must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and the talmudic literature -
                    quite apart from the general anti-Gentile streak that runs through them, which
                    will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 - contain very offensive
                    statements and precepts directed specifically against Christianity. For
                    example, in addition to a series of scurrilous sexual allegations against
                    Jesus, the Talmud states that his punishment in hell is to be immersed in
                    boiling excrement - a statement not exactly calculated to endear the Talmud to
                    devout Christians. Or one can quote the precept according to which Jews are
                    instructed to burn, publicly if possible, any copy of the New Testament that
                    comes into their hands. (This is not only still in force but actually practiced
                    today; thus on 23 March 1980 hundreds of copies of the New Testament were
                    publicly and ceremonially burnt in Jerusalem under the auspices of Yad
                    Le'akhim, a Jewish religious organization subs subsidized by the Israeli
                    Ministry of Religions.)
                    Anyway, a powerful attack, well based in many points, against talmudic Judaism
                    developed in Europe from the 13th century. We are not referring here to
                    ignorant calumnies, such as the blood libel, propagated by benighted monks in
                    small provincial cities, but to serious disputations held before the best
                    European universities of the time and on the whole conducted as fairly as was
                    possible under medieval circumstances.15
                    What was the Jewish - or rather the rabbinical - response? The simplest one was
                    the ancient weapon of bribery and string-pulling. In most European countries,
                    during most of the time, anything could be fixed by a bribe. Nowhere was this
                    maxim more true than in the Rome of the Renaissance popes. The Edigio Princeps
                    of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah - replete not
                    only with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with
                    explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds
                    piously, 'May the name of the wicked perish') - was published unexpurgated in
                    Rome in the year 1480 under Sixtus IV, politically a very active pope who had a
                    constant and urgent need for money. (A few years earlier, the only older
                    edition of The Golden Ass by Apulcius from which the violent attack on
                    Christianity had not been removed was also published in Rome.) Alexander VI
                    Borgin was also very liberal in this respect.
                    Even during that period, as well as before it, there were always countries in
                    which for a time a wave of anti-Talmud persecution set in. But a more
                    consistent and widespread onslaught came with the Reformation and Counter
                    Reformation, which induced a higher standard of intellectual honesty as well as
                    a better knowledge of Hebrew among Christian scholars. From the 16th century,
                    all the talmudic literature, including the Talmud itself, was subjected to
                    Christian censorship in various countries. In Russia this went on until 1917.
                    Some censors, such as in Holland, were more lax, while others were more severe;
                    and the offensive passages were expunged or modified.
                    All modern studies on Judaism, particularly by Jews, have evolved from that
                    conflict, and to this day they bear the unmistakable marks of their origin:
                    deception, apologetics or hostile polemics, indifference or even active
                    hostility to the pursuit of truth. Almost all the so-called Jewish studies in
                    Judaism, from that time to this very day, are polemics against an external
                    enemy rather than an internal debate.
                    It is important to note that this was initially the character of historiography
                    in all known societies (except ancient Greece, whose early liberal historians
                    were attacked by later sophists for their insufficient patriotism!). This was
                    true of the early Catholic and Protestant historians, who polemicized against
                    each other. Similarly, the earliest European national histories are imbued with
                    the crudest nationalism and scorn for all other, neighboring nations. But
                    sooner or later there comes a time when an attempt is made to understand one's
                    national or religious adversary and at the same time to criticize certain deep
                    and important aspects of the history of one's own group; and both these
                    developments go together. Only when historiography becomes - as Pieter Geyl put
                    it so well - 'a debate without end' rather than a continuation of war by
                    historiographic means, only then does a humane historiography, which strives
                    for both accuracy and fairness, become possible; and it then turns into one of
                    the most powerful instruments of humanism and self-education.
                    It is for this reason that modern totalitarian regimes rewrite history or
                    punish historians.16 When a whole society tries to return to totalitarianism, a
                    totalitarian history is written, not because of compulsion from above but under
                    pressure from below, which is much more effective. This is what happened in
                    Jewish history, and this constitutes the first obstacle we have to surmount.
                    Defense Mechanisms
                    What were the detailed mechanisms (other than bribery) employed by Jewish
                    communities, in cooperation with outside forces, in order to ward off the
                    attack on the Talmud and other religious literature? Several methods can be
                    distinguished, all of them having important political consequences reflected in
                    current Israeli policies. Although it would be tedious to supply in each case
                    the Beginistic or Labour-zionist parallel, I am sure that readers who are
                    somewhat familiar with the details of Middle East politics will themselves be
                    able to notice the resemblance.
                    The first mechanism I shall discuss is that of sereptitious defiance, combined
                    with outward compliance. As explained above, talmudic passages directed against
                    Christianity or against non-Jews l7 had to go or to be modified - the pressure
                    was too strong. This is what was done: a few of the most offensive passages
                    were bodily removed from all editions printed in Europe after the mid-16th
                    century. In all other passages, the expressions 'Gentile', 'non-Jew',
                    'stranger' (goy, eino yehudi, , nokhri) - which appear in all early manuscripts
                    and printings as well as in all editions published in Islamic countries - were
                    replaced by terms such as 'idolator', 'heathen' or even 'Canaanite' or
                    'Samaritan', terms which could be explained away but which a Jewish reader
                    could recognize as euphemisms for the old expressions.
                    As the attack mounted, so the defence became more elaborate, sometimes with
                    lasting tragic results. During certain periods the Tsarist Russian censorship
                    became stricter and, seeing the above mentioned euphemisms for what they were,
                    forbade them too. Thereupon the rabbinical authorities substituted the terms
                    'Arab' or 'Muslim' (in Hebrew, Yishma'eli - which means both) or occasionally
                    'Egyptian', correctly calculating that the Tsarist authorities would not object
                    to this kind of abuse. At the same time, lists of Talmudic Omissions were
                    circulated in manuscript form, which explained all the new terms and pointed
                    out all the omissions. At times, a general disclaimer was printed before the
                    title page of each volume of talmudic literature, solemnly declaring, sometimes
                    on oath, that all hostile expressions in that volume are intended only against
                    the idolators of antiquity, or even against the long-vanished Canaanites,
                    rather than against 'the peoples in whose land we live'. After the British
                    conquest of India, some rabbis hit on the subterfuge of claiming that any
                    particularly outrageous derogatory expression used by them is only intended
                    against the Indians. Occasionally the aborigines of Australia were also added
                    as whipping-boys.
                    Needless to say, all this was a calculated lie from beginning to end; and
                    following the establishment of the State of Israel, once the rabbis felt
                    secure, all the offensive passages and expressions were resto
                    • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:25
                      Needless to say, all this was a calculated lie from beginning to end; and
                      following the establishment of the State of Israel, once the rabbis felt
                      secure, all the offensive passages and expressions were restored without
                      hesitation in all new editions. (Because of the enormous cost which a new
                      edition involves, a considerable part of the talmudic literature, including the
                      Talmud itself, is still being reprinted from the old editions. For this reason,
                      the above mentioned Talmudic Omissio,ts have now been published in Israel in a
                      cheap printed edition, under the title Hesronot Shas.) So now one can read
                      quite freely - and Jewish children are actually taught - passages such as that
                      l8 which commands every Jew, whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a
                      blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead 19 if
                      it is non-Jewish. In the old editions the curse was omitted, or one of the
                      euphemisms was substituted for 'Gentiles'. But in the new Israeli edition of
                      Rabbi Adin Steinsalz (complete with Hebrew explanations and glosses to the
                      Aramaic parts of the text, so that schoolchildren should be in no doubt as to
                      what they are supposed to say) the unambiguous words 'Gentiles' and 'strangers'
                      have been restored.
                      Under external pressure, the rabbis deceptively eliminated or modified certain
                      passages - but not the actual practices which are prescribed in them. It is a
                      fact which must be remembered, not least by Jews themselves, that for centuries
                      our totalitarian society has employed barbaric and inhumane customs to poison
                      the minds of its members, and it is still doing so. (These inhumane customs
                      cannot be explained away as mere reaction to antisemitism or persecution of
                      Jews: they are gratuitous barbarities directed against each and every human
                      being. A pious Jew arriving for the first time in Australia, say, and chancing
                      to pass near an Aboriginal graveyard, must - as an act of worship of 'God' -
                      curse the mothers of the dead buried there.) Without facing this real social
                      fact, we all become parties to the deception and accomplices to the process of
                      poisoning the present and future generations, with all the consequences of this
                      process.
                      The Deception Continues
                      Modern scholars of Judaism have not only continued the deception, but have
                      actually improved upon the old rabbinical methods, both in impudence and in
                      mendacity. I omit here the various histories of antisemitism, as unworthy of
                      serious consideration, and shall give just three particular examples and one
                      general example of the more modern 'scholarly' deceptions.
                      In 1962, a part of the Maimonidean Code referred to above, the so-called Book
                      of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice,
                      was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation
                      facing the Hebrew text.20 The latter has been restored to its original purity,
                      and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: 'It is a
                      duty to exterminate them with one's own hands.' In the English translation this
                      is somewhat softened to: 'It is a duty to take active measures to destroy
                      them.' But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of
                      'infidels' who must be exterminated: 'Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils,
                      and Tzadoq and Baitos 21 and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot'. Not
                      one 'word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a). And,
                      even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book among
                      scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has, as far as I
                      know, protested against this glaring deception.
                      The second example comes from the USA, again from an English translation of a
                      book by Maimonides. Apart from his work on the codification of the Talmud, he
                      was also a philosopher and his Guide to the Perplexed is justly considered to
                      be the greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy and is widely read and used
                      even today. Unfortunately, in addition to his attitude towards non-Jews
                      generally and Christians in particular, Maimonides was also an anti-Black
                      racist. Towards the end of the Guide, in a crucial chapter (book III, chapter
                      51) he discusses how various sections of humanity can attain the supreme
                      religious value, the true worship of God. Among those who are incapable of even
                      approaching this are:
                      "Some of the Turks [i.e., the Mongol race] and the nomads in the North, and the
                      Blacks and the nomads in the South, and those who resemble them in our
                      climates. And their nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to
                      my opinion they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among
                      existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they
                      have the image and the resemblance of a man more than a monkey does."
                      Now, what does one do with such a passage in a most important and necessary
                      work of Judaism? Face the truth and its consequences? God forbid! Admit (as so
                      many Christian scholars, for example, have done in similar circumstances) that
                      a very important Jewish authority held also rabid anti-Black views, and by this
                      admission make an attempt at self-education in real humanity? Perish the
                      thought. I can almost imagine Jewish scholars in the USA consulting among
                      themselves, 'What is to be done?' - for the book had to be translated, due to
                      the decline in the knowledge of Hebrew among American Jews. Whether by
                      consultation or by individual inspiration, a happy solution' was found: in the
                      popular American translation of the Guide by one Friedlander, first published
                      as far back as 1925 and since then reprinted in many editions, including
                      several in paperback, the Hebrew word Kushi,,:, which means Blacks, was simply
                      transliterated and appears as 'Kushites', a word which means nothing to those
                      who have no knowledge of Hebrew, or to whom an obliging rabbi will not give an
                      oral explanation.22 During all these years, not a word has been said to point
                      out the initial deception or the social facts underlying its continuation - and
                      this throughout the excitement of Martin Luther King's campaigns, which were
                      supported by so many rabbis, not to mention other Jewish figures, some of whom
                      must have been aware of the anti-Black racist attitude which forms part of
                      their Jewish heritage.23
                      Surely one is driven to the hypothesis that quite a few of Martin Luther King's
                      rabbinical supporters were either anti-Black racists who supported him for
                      tactical reasons of 'Jewish interest' (wishing to win Black support for
                      American Jewry and for Israel's policies) or were accomplished hypocrites, to
                      the point of schizophrenia, capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden
                      enjoyment of rabid racism to a proclaimed attachment to an anti-racist struggle
                      - and back - and back again.
                      The third example comes from a work which has far less serious scholarly intent
                      - but is all the more popular for that: The Joys of Yiddish by Leo Rosten. This
                      light-hearted work - first published in the USA in 1968, and reprinted in many
                      editions, including several times as a Penguin paperback - is a kind of
                      glossary of Yiddish words often used by Jews or even non-Jews in English-
                      speaking countries. For each entry, in addition to a detailed definition and
                      more or less amusing anecdotes illustrating its use, there is also an etymology
                      stating (quite accurately, on the whole) the language from which the word came
                      into Yiddish and its meaning in that language. The entry Shaygets - whose main
                      meaning is 'a Gentile boy or young man - is an exception: there the etymology
                      cryptically states 'Hebrew Origin', without giving the form or meaning of the
                      original Hebrew word. However, under the entry Shiksa - the feminine form of
                      Shaygets - the author does give the original Hebrew word, sheqetz (or, in his
                      • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:28
                        The third example comes from a work which has far less serious scholarly intent
                        - but is all the more popular for that: The Joys of Yiddish by Leo Rosten. This
                        light-hearted work - first published in the USA in 1968, and reprinted in many
                        editions, including several times as a Penguin paperback - is a kind of
                        glossary of Yiddish words often used by Jews or even non-Jews in English-
                        speaking countries. For each entry, in addition to a detailed definition and
                        more or less amusing anecdotes illustrating its use, there is also an etymology
                        stating (quite accurately, on the whole) the language from which the word came
                        into Yiddish and its meaning in that language. The entry Shaygets - whose main
                        meaning is 'a Gentile boy or young man - is an exception: there the etymology
                        cryptically states 'Hebrew Origin', without giving the form or meaning of the
                        original Hebrew word. However, under the entry Shiksa - the feminine form of
                        Shaygets - the author does give the original Hebrew word, sheqetz (or, in his
                        transliteration, sheques) and defines its Hebrew meaning as 'blemish'. This is
                        a bare-faced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-
                        English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines shegetz as follows:
                        'unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination (colloquial - pronounced
                        shaygets) wretch, unruly youngster; Gentile youngster'.
                        My final, more general example is, if possible, even more shocking than the
                        others. It concerns the attitude of the Hassidic movement towards non-Jews.
                        Hassidism - a continuation (and debasement!) of Jewish mysticism - is still a
                        living movement, with hundreds of thousands of active adherents who are
                        fanatically devoted to their 'holy rabbis', some of whom have acquired a very
                        considerable political influence in Israel, among the leaders of most parties
                        and even more so in the higher echelons of the army.
                        What, then, are the views of this movement concerning non-Jews? As an example,
                        let us take the famous Hatanya, fundamental book of the Habbad movement, one of
                        the most important branches of Hassidism. According to this book, all non-Jews
                        are totally satanic creatures 'in whom there is absolutely nothing good'. Even
                        a non-Jewish embryo is qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very
                        existence of a non-Jew is essential', whereas all of creation was created
                        solely for the sake of the Jews.
                        This book is circulated in countless editions, and its ideas are further
                        propagated in the numerous 'discourses' of the present hereditary Fuhrer of
                        Habbad, the so-called Lubavitcher rabbi, M.M. Schneurssohn, who leads this
                        powerful world-wide organization from his New York headquarters. In Israel
                        these ideas are widely disseminated among the public at large, in the schools
                        and in the army. (According to the testimony of Shulamit Aloni, Member of the
                        Knesset, this Habbad propaganda was particularly stepped up before Israel's
                        invasion of Lebanon in March 1978, in order to induce military doctors and
                        nurses to withhold medical help from 'Gentile wounded'. This Nazi-like advice
                        did not refer specifically to Arabs or Palestinians, but simply to 'Gentiles',
                        goyim.) A former Israeli President, Shazar, was an ardent adherent of Habbad,
                        and many top Israeli and American politicians - headed by Prime Minister Begin
                        - publicly courted and supported it. This, in spite of the considerable
                        unpopularity of the Lubavitcher rabbi - in Israel he is widely criticized
                        because he refuses to come to the Holy Land even for a visit and keeps himself
                        in New York for obscure messianic reasons, while in New York his anti-Black
                        attitude is notorious.
                        The fact that, despite these pragmatic difficulties, Habbad can be publicly
                        supported by so many top political figures owes much to the thoroughly
                        disingenuous and misleading treatment by almost all scholars who have written
                        about the Hassidic movement and its Habbad branch. This applies particularly to
                        all who have written or are writing about it in English. They suppress the
                        glaring evidence of the old Hassidic texts as well as the latter-day political
                        implications that follow from them, which stare in the face of even a casual
                        reader of the Israeli Hebrew press, in whose pages the Lubavitcher rabbi and
                        other Hassidic leaders constantly publish the most rabid bloodthirsty
                        statements and exhortations against all Arabs.
                        A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of the
                        deception, was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic
                        movement (including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of
                        Hassidism concerning non-Jews. The crime of deception is all the greater in
                        view of the fact that Buber's eulogies of Hassidism were first published in
                        German during the period of the rise of German nationalism and the accession of
                        Nazism to power. But while ostensibly opposing Nazism, Buber glorified a
                        movement holding and actually teaching doctrines about non-Jews not unlike the
                        Nazi doctrines about Jews. One could of course argue that the Hassidic Jews of
                        seventy or fifty years ago were the victims, and a 'white lie' favoring a
                        victim is excusable. But the consequences of deception are incalculable.
                        Buber's works were translated into Hebrew, were made a powerful element of the
                        Hebrew education in Israel, have greatly increased the power of the blood-
                        thirsty Hassidic leaders, and have thus been an important factor in the rise of
                        Israeli chauvinism and hate of all non-Jews. If we think about the many human
                        beings who died of their wounds because Israeli army nurses, incited by
                        Hassidic propaganda, refused to tend them, then a heavy onus for their blood
                        lies on the head of Martin Buber.
                        I must mention here that in his adulation of Hassidism Buber far surpassed
                        other Jewish scholars, particularly those writing in Hebrew (or, formerly, in
                        Yiddish) or even in European languages but purely for a Jewish audience. In
                        questions of internal Jewish interest, there had once been a great deal of
                        justified criticism of the Hassidic movement. Their mysogynism (much more
                        extreme than that common to all Jewish Orthodoxy), their indulgence in alcohol,
                        their fanatical cult of their hereditary 'holy rabbis' who extorted money from
                        them, the numerous superstitions peculiar to them - these and many other
                        negative traits were critically commented upon. But Buber's sentimental and
                        deceitful romantization has won the day, especially in the USA and Israel,
                        because it was in tune with the totalitarian admiration of anything 'genuinely
                        Jewish' and because certain 'left' Jewish circles in which Buber had a
                        particularly great influence have adopted this position.
                        Nor was Buber alone in his attitude, although in my opinion he was by far the
                        worst in the evil he propagated and the influence he has left behind him. There
                        was the very influential sociologist and biblical scholar, Yehezkiel Kaufman,
                        an advocate of genocide on the model of the Book of Joshua, the idealist
                        philosopher Hugo Shmuel Bergman, who as far back as 1914-15 advocated the
                        expulsion of all Palestinians to Iraq, and many others. All were outwardly
                        'dovish', but employed formulas which could be manipulated in the most extreme
                        anti-Arab sense, all had tendencies to that religious mysticism which
                        encourages the propagation of deceptions, and all seemed to be gentle persons
                        who, even when advocating expulsion, racism and genocide, seemed incapable of
                        hurting a fly - and just for this reason the effect of their deceptions was the
                        greater.
                        It is against the glorification of inhumanity, proclaimed not only by the
                        rabbis but by those who are supposed to be the greatest and certainly the most
                        influential scholars of Judaism, that we have to struggle; and it is against
                        those modern successors of the false prophets and dishonest p
                        • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 09:30
                          Uff! Zmeczylem sie. W nastepnych rozdzialach jest mniej wiecej o tym, zeby nie
                          podawac gojowi drabiny jak wpadnie do dziury, bo to nie grzech.
                          • Gość: גשאדי Z ciebie to Pana Myślnika nigdy nie będzie....:((( IP: *.cm-upc.chello.se 15.08.02, 15:01
                            tel. (48 22) 555 49 90; 55549 94
                            • Gość: OKAJ cZY BYLES OFIARA MOLESTOWANIA IP: *.client.attbi.com 15.08.02, 20:19
                              Ponizej podajjemy makbryczny opis zboczonej orgii
                              Czy slyszles o kims ktkogo spotkalo podobne nieszczescie
                              Przeczytaj i odpisz
                              adres na koncu textu


                              Co sadzisz o molestacji malych clopcow jaka sie odbywa jescze w niektorych
                              krajach o satanistycznej kulturze?

                              Wiecej pedofile czesto wspolpracuja z rodzicami a caly gwalt jest utrwalany na
                              pornograficznych zdjeciach.

                              Pedofil wyjmuje maly penis z rozporka, kaleczy go do krwi nozem, a potem bierze
                              w usta i obsysa ociekajaca z niego krew. Czesto w molestowaniu bierze udzial
                              dwoch pedofili. Do wolnego swita docieraja informacje ze poparcia i schronienia
                              pedofilom udziela niewielkie pustynne azjatyckie panstwo.

                              Czy ten obzydzony harbor pedofili dolaczy do reszty cywilizacji jest watpliwa
                              sprawa. Wiekszosc rodicow chlopcow tam bowiem wspolpracuje z pedofilami dla
                              zysku i ze strachu.

                              Jaki jest twoj rozumny forforze stosunek do zorganizowanej dzieciecej
                              pornografi i molestacji pedofilnej na ktorej tropy coraz czesciej trafia FBI ?

                              Czy twoi rodzice naklaiali cie do podobnych molestacji? Co sadzisz o rodzicah
                              ktore male penisiki oddaja w lapy brodatych pedofili i pozwalaja na ich
                              okaleczanie, o deprawacje psychiki dziecka?


                              dosyc.molestowawania_dzieci_zydowskich.com !!!pospiesz sie bo strone to
                              moga zablokowac!!!

                              Ponizej prezentujemy zeznania oraz toczace sie procesy o doszkodowania ktore
                              obrzezane dzieci wytaczaja swoim prawnym opiekunom, oraz ich gminnym pedofilom


                              zajzyj na ansze strony.
                              jezeli dotknelo cie nieszczescie wez udzial w class suit o duze odzszkodowania.



















































































































                              Dosyc tej manipulacji na naturze
                              Zawolajmy jednym glosem

                              ni chµja

                              Uwolnijcie swoje chµje ze szpon religi ze szpon brodatych pedofili.




                              ==========
                              Azeby sie zarejestrowac jako ofiara nalezy przygotowac okolo $ 100.

                              To na koszty rozruchowe procesu. (C) LIBED Posdtet on free intrnet media . Copy
                              protected. Any claims to profit prohibited whithout writen permitions
    • bzyk7 Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 18:09
      Mógłbyś przesłać mi cały tekst w formacie notepad, albo jakims innym?
      • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 18:54
        Pelny tekst mozna znalezc pod tym
        adresem:www.robotwisdom.com/issues/shahak.html
        Gdy wejdziesz na strone, dojdz do nastepujacego miejsca:

        1994: Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years
        [Amazon] forward by Vidal, full etext [alternate toc] [mirror] ditto [German
        language] [Swedish] excerpt [review] mirror review [critique

        Nacisnij "full etext"

        Na tej stronie jest wiele innych tekstow Shahaka z gazet izraelskich.
        Powodzenia.
        • michnikk Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 19:00
          jesli nacisniesz obok: [alternate toc], moze byc nawet latwiej skopiowac -
          mniej szaqty graficznej.
          • bzyk7 Re: Wyklad Michnika 15.08.02, 19:28
            Dzięki.
    • Gość: Hanstra Polityczne konsekwencje rewizjonizmu historycznego IP: *.cvx29-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net 16.08.02, 05:01
      REWIZJONIZM SZANSĄ OCALENIA TAKŻE POLSKI

      ████ REWIZJONIZM HISTORYCZNY MOŻE BYĆ PIERWSZYM KROKIEM
      ████ DO SUWERENNOŚCI POLSKI

      Dlaczego rewizjoniści historii zostali uznani za wrogów publicznych nr 1?

      Dlaczego nie traktuje się ich jako nieszkodliwych dziwaków?
      _______________________________________________________________


      RELIGIA “HOLOCAUSTU”

      Co mogłoby się stać z obecnym systemem kapitalistycznym, gdyby okazało się, że
      rewizjoniści mają rację?

      A ściślej rzecz ujmując - gdyby w ich tezy, niezależnie od tego, czy są
      prawdziwe czy fałszywe, zaczęło wierzyć tylu ludzi ilu wierzy dziś w
      religię "Holocaustu".

      "Niezwykle drażliwym przedmiotem historycznego rewizjonizmu są rzekome
      gazowania milionów ludzi w Polsce w czasie drugiej wojny światowej” (angielski
      prawicowiec Michael Walker).

      “ PRZESZKODZIĆ OTWARTEJ DEBACIE !!! ”

      Kapitalistyczne rządy państw zachodniach dostrzegają w tym polityczny dynamit i
      robią wszystko co w ich mocy, aby przeszkodzić otwartej debacie. Nie jest to
      łatwe. Wymaga to prowadzenia polityki twardych lecz n i e w i d o c z n y c h
      represji, które muszą zastraszać ale nie w tak dramatyczny sposób, żeby stało
      się to warte umieszczenia w “news-ach”.

      Arabscy politycy, poczynając od Nasera, nie uwierzyli w zarzuty o gazowaniu.
      Natomiast rządy zachodnie uchwalają prawa karzące tych, którzy otwarcie choćby
      tylko śmieją w nie wątpić - co nie dowodzi niczego na temat ich prawdziwości
      lub nie. Pokazuje natomiast, że:
      1. masowa wiara lub niewiara ma ogromne polityczne znaczenie.
      2. rewizjonizm historyczny jest pierwszym krokiem do władzy politycznej w nowym
      wieku ("The Scorpion" nr 16, lato 1993), w czym jest szansa dla polskiej
      suwerenności.

      Cóż więc stałoby się, gdyby wielu ludzi zaczęło wierzyć, że rewizjoniści mają
      rację?

      ● Rzecz jasna, upadłaby wtedy religia "Holocaustu", zniszczony by został jeden
      z centralnych elementów kultury, polityki i ideologii współczesnego Zachodu.

      ● Zniknąłby główny fundament tożsamości współczesnych Żydów zarówno tych
      żyjących w Izraelu, jak i tych żyjących w diasporze.

      ● Państwo Izrael straciłoby swoją legitymację i możliwość
      wykorzystania "Holocaustu" jako podstawowego instrumentu swojej polityki.
      Spadłoby do poziomu normalnego państwa i być może przestałoby istnieć,
      szczególne, że Stany Zjednoczone nie mogłyby już otaczać go specjalną
      protekcją, i wyschłyby źródła finansowego zasilania z zewnątrz niezbędnego dla
      podtrzymania jego sztucznej egzystencji.

      ●"Gdyby Holocaust został przedstawiony jako 'syjonistyczny mit', rozpadłaby się
      najsilniejsz broń w propagandowym arsenale Izraela", jak napisał prof. W. D.
      Rubinstein z Australii ("Quadrant", wrzesień 1979).

      ● Wyparowałoby lepiszcze spajające diasporę (emigrację) żydowską.

      ● Nastapiłaby godzina zero dla narodu żydowskiego. Mogłaby nastąpić olbrzymia
      katastrofa przede wszystkim dla elity żydowskiej, dla żydowskiego
      establishmentu, który, o czym nie należy zapominać, używa religii "Holocaustu"
      jako narzędzia ideologicznego panowania nad masami zwyczajnych Żydów, z niej
      czerpie legitymację dla przemawiania w ich imieniu, ona pozwala utrzymać ich w
      posłuszeństwie, zdyscyplinować dla swoich akcji politycznych pod hasłem: nam
      ufajcie, nas się trzymajcie, bo to my robimy wszystko co w naszej mocy, aby
      uchronić was przed nowym "Holocaustem".
      Dzięki religii "Holocaustu" wytworzyny został u Żydów syndrom oblężonej
      twierdzy, na zewnątrz której czyha wróg z nowym "Holocaustem" w zanadrzu. Nie
      ma innego wyjścia jak poprzeć komendantów twierdzy, zjednoczyć się wokół nich i
      poddać się ich rozkazom. Religia "Holocaustu" jest sposobem, aby utrzymać
      solidarność wewnątrzgrupową Żydów, zespolić ich mimo rozproszenia w
      jedną "wspólnotę losu" i zagwarantować żydowskiej klasie rządzącej, czyli
      klerowi religii "Holocaustu", panowanie nad nimi.

      ● Gdyby upadła religia "Holocaustu", establishment żydowski po prostu by się
      rozpadł, a ludzie tacy jak Ellie Wiesel, Claude Lanzmann, Henryk Grynberg
      odeszliby w polityczny i medialny niebyt. Organizacje żydowskie utraciłyby
      możliwość wywierania moralnego nacisku na różne państwa.

      ● Jednakże dla milionów zwykłych Żydów mogłoby to oznaczać radosne wyzwolenie
      ze straszliwego koszmaru, zrodzonego ze świadomości, że 6 milionów ich rodaków
      zostało wymordowanych dlatego, że byli Żydami, i z ciągłego strachu, że może
      się to powtórzyć. Odnosi się niekiedy wrażenie, że religia "Holocaustu" spycha
      wielu Żydów na granicę histerii, neurozy, czy wręcz manii prześladowczej,
      biorącej się z przekonania, że nikomu nie mogą ufać, skoro naród o takiej
      wspaniałej kulturze jak Niemcy mógł dokonać "Holocaustu".

      ● Gdyby niewidzialne mury getta zbudowane z dogmatów religii "Holocaustu"
      runęły, przed diasporą żydowską byłyby tylko dwie drogi: albo ponowna
      judaizacja przez powrót do religii i kultury przodków, albo asymilacja w
      przyspieszonym tempie.

      ● Upadek religii "Holocaustu" byłby również poważnym ciosem dla amerykańskiego
      mesjanizmu mającego swe źródło w opisanej wyżej koncepcji samojudaizacji jako
      sposobu na osiągnięcie statusu narodu wybranego.

      ● Co by się stało, gdyby masy turystów przestałyby pielgrzymować do Muzeum
      Holocaustu i przed gmachem tej świątyni postawionoby tabliczkę "For sale" (“Na
      sprzedaż”wink? Demoliberalna klasa Ameryki, chyba tylko cudem utrzymałaby się przy
      władzy, (ale potrzebny byłby jakiś "Chruszczow" dokonujący rozrachunku z tzw.
      minionym okresem i potępiający rządzących wcześniej demoliberalnych towarzyszy
      za "błędy i wypaczenia").

      ● Koniec religii "Holocaustu" byłby jednoznaczny z końcem Republiki Bońskiej,
      gdzie rządzący nie mają żadnego pola manewru: mogą jedynie wzmacniać represje,
      zaostrzyć cenzurę, prześladować dysydentów. Ale "zmierzch bożyszcz", oczywiście
      w bardziej fałszywym wydaniu, jest nad Renem nieuchronny. Kto wie, może bońska
      elita nie zdąży przeprowadzić się do Berlina.

      ● Nie tylko polityczna egzystencja Bonn, ale trwanie całego systemu
      politycznego Europy Zachodniej byłoby zgrożone. Jeśli "Holocaust" okazałby się
      mitem, to wszystkie inne prawdy głoszone przez demoliberalne elity Zachodu po
      wojnie także utraciłyby wartość.

      ● Obecna klasa rządząca utraciłaby panowanie nad przeszłością a tym samym nad
      teraźniejszością i przyszłością. Trzebaby było zrehabilitować pośmiertnie
      skazanych w proceasach norymberskich, uznać Eichmanna i Hoessa za
      ofiary "sądowego mordu" etc. etc.

      ● Nastąpiłby prawdziwy koniec II. wojny światowej, rozpadłaby się koalicja
      interesów łącząca po dziś dzień dawnych aliantów. Okazałoby się po latach, że
      sojusz zachodnich demokracji z reżimem Stalina był pomyłką lub godną moralnego
      potępienia "cyniczną polityką siły". Na pierwszy plan wysunęłyby się zbrodnie
      bolszewizmu, co rzuciłoby cień na zachodnie elity uwikłane w takie czy inne
      związki z komunizmem. Nastąpiłoby zrównanie zbrodni wojennych obozu
      demokratyczno-stalinowskiego i Rzeszy Niemieckiej. Cały porządek polityczny
      świata zachodniego zbudowany po 1945 roku musiałby runąć.

      ● Nigdy też nie zostałby zbudowany Nowy Ład Światowy - bo przecież "pamięć o
      Holocauście" jest dla jego budowy czymś zasadniczym, ponieważ
      religia "Holocaustu" zlała się w jedno ze współczesną ideologią demoliberalną -
      i jej upadek pociagnąłby za sobą upadek również tej ideologii.

      ● Niemcy i Polacy wyzwoliliby się z "teologicznego poniżenia" i ze
      statusu "metafizycznych wrogów".

      ● Stolica Apostolska nie byłaby już oskarżana o to, że milczała w
      czasie "Holocaustu", a chrześcijaństwo o antysemityzm, który doprowadził
      do "Holocaustu". Zahamowany by zostal proces judaizacji i protestantyzacji
      katolicyz
      • Gość: Hanstra Re: Polityczne konsekwencje rewizjonizmu historyc IP: *.cvx29-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net 16.08.02, 05:04
        ● Stolica Apostolska nie byłaby już oskarżana o to, że milczała w
        czasie "Holocaustu", a chrześcijaństwo o antysemityzm, który doprowadził
        do "Holocaustu". Zahamowany by zostal proces judaizacji i protestantyzacji
        katolicyzmu.

        ● Wszystkie teologie "Holocaustu" poszłyby na makalaturę, otworzyłaby się droga
        do "renacjonalizacji" narodów, do odrodzenia europejskiej tradycji uwolnionej
        od zarzutu odpowiedzialności za "Holocaust", zakonczyłaby się "holocaustyczna
        indoktrynacja" i "psychoterror" stosowany przez demoliberalne elity jako
        instrument panowania. Na złom powędrowałaby "oświęcimska maczuga" używana do
        zwalczania prawicowej ideologii politycznej, oskarżania
        o "antysemityzm", "rasizm" i "nacjonalizm", utraciłyby swoją perswazyjną moc,
        nastąpiłby krach "shoah-biznesu", miliardy dolarów możnaby zainwestować
        pożytecznie.

        ● Nastąpiłoby nowe świeto narodów, uroczysta wiosna przynosząca im orzeźwiającą
        moc stanowienia o sobie, jak napisał wyżej cytowany niemiecki prawicowiec
        Eduard Peter Koch.

        ● Jest więc tak, jakby losy świata w następnych dziesięcioleciach zależały od
        tych kilku pomieszczeń w Oświęcimiu/Brzezince uważanych przez jednych za komory
        gazowe, czyli narzędzie "najstraszliwszej zbrodni w dziejach”, a przez drugich
        za zwykłe kostnice. Tutaj przebiega dziś oś historii świata, tu jest
        archimedesowy punkt światowej polityki. Ten kto utrzyma w swych rękach
        umieszczoną na nim dźwignię, ten zwycięży.
        Wspomniany wyżej Germar Rudolf nawołuje Niemców do "sekularyzacji" debaty
        o "Holocauście", do zaprzestania "holocaustowej" czy "antyholocaustowej"
        propagandy, do koncentrowania się wyłącznie na naukowych i czysto historycznych
        aspektach problemu. W przeciwnym razie, jak pisze, sytuacja niebezpiecznie się
        zaostrzy: "Czas propagandystów-podżegaczy do waśni narodowościowych przyjdzie
        po stronie rewizjonistów dopiero wówczas, gdy dyskusja rozleje się wszerz. (…wink
        W końcu staną naprzeciwko siebie dwie partie, obie w pierwszym rzędzie
        kierowane emocjami. Wtedy wystarczy iskra, aby beczka prochu wybuchła" ("Czy
        nadciąga niemiecka wojna domowa?" […] 1995 nr 6).
        Nawoływania Rudolfa są spóźnione. Należy raczej przewidywać, że spełni się
        pesymistyczny scenariusz. Nie można przewidziec jak zachowa się naród, kiedy
        przejrzy, że był oszukiwany.

        Hans-Dietrich Sander, przedstawiciel niemieckiej prawicy narodowościowo-
        konserwatywnej pisał, obserwując w Niemczech obchody 50-tej rocznicy
        wyzwolenia obozu w Oświęcimiu, że:
        Z saturnaliów rocznicowych Oświęcimia buchał strach. Organizatorzy włączyli
        wszystkie trąby propagandy i grali na wszystkich rejestrach uczuć, chcieli
        wszelkimi środkami zapobiec, aby nie przytrafiło się to, co jest dla nich nie
        do pomyślenia ("Panika podbramkowa?", "Staatsbriefe", 1995 nr 2), gdyż wejście
        mas w strefę politycznej prawdy może dokonać się tylko eksplozywnie".
        Toteż on ostrzegł Żydów w Niemczech: "Zostawcie prawicę w spokoju. Kiedy
        motłoch dziś filosemicki jutro zamieni się w swoje rozwścieczone
        przeciwieństwo, to tylko ona jedna będzie mogła was uchronić". ("O głupocie
        Żydów i Niemców", "Staatsbriefe", 1993 nr 9.)

        W krajach arabskich Roger Garaudy witany był jako bohater. Promocja jego
        książki przetłumaczonej na arabski odbyła się w Bejrucie z udziałem tłumu.
        Pochwalne były recenzje w prasie. "Wraz z tą książką era powojenna, w której
        polityka światowa w sposób przesadny zdominowana była przez kwestię żydowską,
        dobiegła końca" (arabski pisarz i polityk Manah al-Salah). Również inne
        książki rewizjonistów są przekładane na arabski. Wychodząca dwa razy w tygodniu
        kairska gazeta "Al-Shaab" uznawana za najbardziej wpływowy organ islamistów na
        świecie (milion egzemplarzy nakładu - 700.00 w Egipcie i 300.00 poza granicami)
        zamieściła wywiady z Faurissonem i generałem Remerem, które przeprowadził
        marokański aktywista rewizjonistyczny Ahmed Rami, obecnie mieszkający w
        Szwecji.

        Od 1993 roku gazeta, docierająca również do skupisk muzułmańskich w Europie,
        regularnie zajmuje się rewizjonizmem. Programy rewizjonistyczne nadaje Moslem
        Community Radio działające w Wielkiej Brytanii. Przywódca działającej w
        Londynie organizacji islamskiej stwierdził podczas zgromadzenia liczącego 3000
        osób, że "Holocaust" jest mitem. Dzięki rewizjonizmowi Arabowie zyskali potężną
        broń przeciw Izraelowi i przeciw amerykańskiej obecności na Bliskim Wschodzie.

        Nie ulega wątpliwości, że również inne siły polityczne użyją rewizjonizmu dla
        własnych celów. W Stanach Zjednoczonych rewizjonizm staje się coraz bardziej
        popularny w środowiskach murzyńskich, szczególnie wśród czarnych rasistów z
        Nation of Islam Louisa Farrakhana. Wkrótce jego znaczenie w walce politycznej
        odkryją inne środowiska kontestujące obecny system polityczny. Jeden z autorów
        prorokuje: "Rewizjoniści podłożyli lont pod bożka Holocaustu. i potrzeba tylko
        kogoś, kto by go podpalił. Gdy ogień na loncie zapłonie, to upadek wstrętnego
        bożka będzie już tylko kwestią roku czy dwóch lat. Jego upadek wstrząśnie
        światem".

        "Stary kret" ("La Veille Taupe") jest nazwą rewizjonistycznego wydawnictwa
        francuskich anarchistów. Demarkuje on symbolicznie demonstracje protestantujące
        obradom World Trade Organization. Nazwa kojarzy się z "krecią robotą", minerską
        sztuką rewolucji, już od szekspirowskiego Hamleta. Karol Marks napisał: “Stary
        kret” pracuje metodycznie. Gdy dojdzie do drugiej połowy jego pracy wstępnej,
        Europa zawoła w triumfalnym porywie: Dzielnie ryłeś stary krecie!”

        Rewizjonizm "Holocaustu" to prawdziwe narzędzie rewolucji, nie tej,
        oczywiście, która marzyła się Marksowi, ale tej która podkopie "zmurszały gmach
        starego świata" aż ten sam runie, tak jak zawalił się inny twór żydowski -
        komunizm.
        I reszta będzie historią.

        Tomasz Gabiś

        ------------------------------------------------------

        I Polska będzie miała szansę na suwerenność. Wrogiem był Niemiec, Rosjanin,
        Austryjak i Żyd komunista i syjonista. Jeżeli skreślimy z tej ewidencji co
        najmniej jednego, dwóch, to zbierzemy siły do następnego. Inaczej, jeżeli nie
        porzucimy tą demokrację syjonistyczną i nie znajdziemy wodza, który zjednoczy
        nasze siły, to nieuchronnie, na zawsze oddamy ziemię, na której się urodziliśmy
        i gdzie są groby naszych ojców.
        I reszta będzie historią.

    • Gość: nik Re: Wyklad Michnika IP: *.216-194-1-82.nyc.ny.metconnect.net 17.08.02, 23:19
      Ciekawy link. Można przeczytać książkę Shahaka w oryginale.
Pełna wersja