As most are surely aware, the last year or two has seen a growing crackdown on free speech and free thought across the Internet, with our constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights being circumvented through the agency of monopolistic private sector corporations such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Although as yet our government has not gained the power to ban discordant views nor punish their advocates, anonymous tech company censors regularly take these steps, seemingly based upon entirely opaque and arbitrary standards which lack any power of appeal. No one really knows why some individuals are banned or “de-platformed” and others are not, and surely this looming uncertainty has imposed self-censorship upon hundreds of individuals for every publicized victim who receives an exemplary punishment.
Some critics have attacked this policy as a new form of “McCarthyism,” but this characterization seems based upon historical ignorance. Although the notorious junior senator from Wisconsin was an alcoholic prone to making reckless, unsubstantiated charges and therefore served as an extremely poor vessel for the movement he eventually came to symbolize, his accusations of massive Communist political subversion were absolutely correct and indeed somewhat understated. Over the last quarter-century, the public release of the Venona Decrypts has demonstrated that throughout most of the Franklin Roosevelt Administration and even afterward, the top levels of our national government were honeycombed with numerous spies and traitors deeply loyal to the Soviet Union rather than the United States. Today’s ritualistic denunciations of McCarthyism are made by ignorant journalists who derive their understanding of the past from misleading Hollywood dramas rather than the meticulously researched volumes produced by leading academic scholars such as John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.
In fact, just a few years before Sen. McCarthy burst upon the national scene, control of our federal government was nearly seized by agents of Stalin. From 1941 to 1944 FDR’s Vice President was Henry Wallace, who would have succeeded to the presidency if Roosevelt had renominated him in that latter year or had died prior to early 1945. And although Wallace himself was not disloyal, his top advisors were mostly Communist agents. Indeed, he later stated that a Wallace Administration would have included Laurence Duggan as Secretary of State and Harry Dexter White as Secretary of the Treasury, thereby installing Stalinist henchmen at the top of the Cabinet, presumably supported by numerous lower-level officials of a similar political ilk. One might jokingly speculate whether the Rosenbergs—later executed for treason—would have been placed in charge of our nuclear weapons development program.
That America’s national government of the early 1940s actually came came within a hair’s breadth—or rather a heart-beat—of falling under Communist control is a very uncomfortable truth. And our history books and popular media have maintained such total silence about this remarkable episode that even among today’s well-educated Americans I suspect that fewer than five in one hundred are aware of this grim reality. Surely this should cause all sensible people to become quite cautious about blithely accepting the standard narrative of other important historical events promoted by those same sources of obfuscation.
Even leaving aside this total whitewash of Communist infiltration during the 1930s and 1940s, the measures imposed upon the supposed martyrs of that era utterly differ in degree from those visited upon today’s ideological dissenters. In the best-known cases, a few of Hollywood’s most highly-paid screenwriters saw their income dry up due to their Communist affiliations and were forced to cut back on their lavish lifestyles, a personal suffering treated with utmost sympathy in recent mainstream films produced by their spiritual descendants. Meanwhile, today’s targets of social wrath are almost always just working-stiffs, powerless nobodies fearfully voicing their controversial online opinions under a pseudonym before having their identities “doxxed” and then sometimes getting fired from their merely hum-drum jobs.
And even that gross disparity drastically understates the difference between then and now. During the 1950s, any proposal to ban suspected Communists from making telephone calls, watching television, renting cars, or having bank accounts surely would have been universally ridiculed as utter lunacy. But in today’s America, entirely equivalent measures are steadily growing more frequent and more severe, with very little public opposition.
Social media platforms have become the new electronic town square, and just a few weeks ago our own Israel Shamir’s recounted how he was “Banned by Facebook for Telling the Truth.” He described the absurd levels of censorship that he and so many others have suffered on that platform, sometimes even being punished with a lengthy ban merely for posting a link to his own writings.
I don’t much use Social Media myself since my long-form writings are hardly suitable for Facebook let alone the tiny character budget of Twitter. And although the latter seems effective as a means of promoting articles or distributing images or videos, the strict limits of a few dozen words surely render it much more appropriate for slogans or insults than anything more thoughtful or substantive. I find it difficult to believe that too many intelligent people have ever had their minds changed on anything significant by a few Tweets.
Amazon, however, is something else entirely. Its unmatched collection of available books comes close to fulfilling one of the original utopian goals of the very early days of the Computer Age. Over the last twenty years I’ve surely ordered many hundreds of volumes from that source, and reading them has played a huge role in transforming my beliefs on numerous important issues. For this reason, the growing wave of Amazon book-bannings carries very ominous overtones.
On February 19th, an article in Quartzdenounced Amazon for continuing to carry “neo-Nazi and White Supremacist” books, and the following week most of the books in question were suddenly “disappeared” after many years of availability, in some cases apparently even vanishing from personal Kindle devices. An article published in American Renaissance provided one of the earliest accounts, and Counter-Currents has attempted to put together a comprehensive list of the dozens of vanished volumes.
The overwhelming majority of the banned works appear to be rightwing texts of a hortatory nature, generally falling under the rubric of White Nationalism or the Alt-Right. Glancing over the list, I found that I was only very slightly familiar with most of them, the most notable exception The Turner Diaries by William Pierce, which became something of a national best-seller in 1995 when the media claimed that it had served as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City Bombing. My own suspicion is that essays and articles of similar ideological sentiments exist in enormous numbers all across the Internet, and these possess vastly greater aggregate readership. It is not entirely clear what those pressuring Amazon had hoped to achieve by making those same ideas of white advocacy less available in concentrated book form. However, the almost unnoticed purge of various other Amazon books, of an entirely different nature, may have far greater negative ramifications.
The ADL ranks as one of our most formidable Jewish activist organizations, and according to media accounts it has been playing a central role in efforts to censor “hate speech” on leading Internet platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube. So it seems very likely to have also been behind Amazon’s recent purge, especially once we discover the nature of some of the more significant books now banned.
Such a role for the ADL is extremely unfortunate, given that organization’s long and very sordid history, which includes massive amounts of outright criminal activity, as I had discussed in a long article a few months ago. In fact, if not for the very widespread cowardice and dishonesty of our establishment media, the ADL would have long since lost all shreds of public credibility, and indeed most of its top leadership might well be serving long sentences in federal prison.
In recent years, almost no media mention of the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover fails to include condemnation of his sordid role in illegally recording Martin Luther King’s personal activities, and using that secret evidence in attempts at blackmail or intimidation, a devastating charge given King’s subsequent elevation to secular sainthood. However, none of these accounts ever reveal that it was actually ADL operatives who were spying on King and bugging his hotel rooms, then passing their tapes on to Hoover, who merely listened to them.
And that telling example of illegal 1960s ADL surveillance represents merely the smallest tip of the organization’s enormous domestic espionage activities, which have been directed against all individuals or organizations—left, right, or center—suspected of being insufficiently favorable toward Israel or Jews. By the time the FBI and local police departments broke a massive ADL spying operation in the early 1990s, the ADL was reported to be maintaining intelligence files on over one million Americans, a level of private domestic surveillance surely unequaled in our entire national history, with even some suggestions of possible involvement in political assassinations and terrorist attacks. But since the media quickly suppressed news of the scandal and the organization was punished merely with a slight slap on the wrist, there seems every likelihood ADL spying activities on ordinary Americans have actually metastasized since that point in time.
In effect, the ADL seems to function as a privatized version of our secret political police, seeking to maintain the power of the interlocking Jewish groups which dominate our society, much like the Stasi did on behalf of East Germany’s ruling Communist regime.
But for me, the most remarkable ADL revelation came in a book I purchased last year on Amazon, a book Amazon has now banned from sale. It seems that the ADL’s very origin story of one hundred years ago, frequently mentioned in my introductory history textbooks and which I had never previously questioned, actually represented an absolute inversion of historical reality. As I wrote:
Then perhaps a year or two ago, I happened to come across some discussion of the ADL’s 2013 centenary celebration, in which the leadership reaffirmed the principles of its 1913 founding. The initial impetus had been the vain national effort to save the life of Leo Frank, a young Southern Jew unjustly accused of murder and eventually lynched. Not long before, Frank’s name and story would have been equally vague in my mind, with the man half-remembered from my introductory history textbooks as one of the most notable early KKK victims in the fiercely anti-Semitic Deep South of the early twentieth century. However, not long before seeing that piece on the ADL I’d read Albert Lindemann’s highly-regarded study The Jew Accused, and his short chapter on the notorious Frank case had completely exploded all my preconceptions.
First, Lindemann demonstrated that there was no evidence of any anti-Semitism behind Frank’s arrest and conviction, with Jews constituting a highly-valued element of the affluent Atlanta society of the day, and no references to Frank’s Jewish background, negative or otherwise, appearing in the media prior to the trial. Indeed, five of the Grand Jurors who voted to indict Frank for murder were themselves Jewish, and none of them ever voiced regret over their decision. In general, support for Frank seems to have been strongest among Jews from New York and other distant parts of the country and weakest among the Atlanta Jews with best knowledge of the local situation.
Furthermore, although Lindemann followed the secondary sources he relied upon in declaring that Frank was clearly innocent of the charges of rape and murder, the facts he recounted led me to the opposite conclusion, seeming to suggest strong evidence of Frank’s guilt. When I much more recently read Lindemann’s longer and more comprehensive historical study of anti-Semitism, Esau’s Tears, I noticed that his abbreviated treatment of the Frank case no longer made any claim of innocence, perhaps indicating that the author himself might have also had second thoughts about the weight of the evidence.
Since I had had the impression that virtually all researchers who had investigated the Frank case had concluded that he was innocent of the rape and murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, I regarded my own contrary opinion as very tentative. But then someone pointed me to a 2016 book from an unexpected source that argued for Frank’s guilt. With some doubts, I clicked a couple of Amazon buttons and ordered the volume, written by the unnamed researchers of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI). As I explained at considerable length:
Anonymous works published by heavily-demonized religious-political movements naturally engender considerable caution, but once I began reading the 500 pages of The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man I was tremendously impressed by the quality of the historical analysis. I think I have only very rarely encountered a research monograph on a controversial historical event that provided such an enormous wealth of carefully-argued analysis backed by such copious evidence. The authors seemed to display complete mastery of the major secondary literature of the last one hundred years while drawing very heavily upon the various primary sources, including court records, personal correspondence, and contemporaneous publications, with the overwhelming majority of the 1200 footnotes referencing newspaper and magazine articles of that era. The case they made for Frank’s guilt seemed absolutely overwhelming.
The facts of the case against Frank eventually became a remarkable tangle of complex and often conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony, with sworn statements regularly being retracted and then counter-retracted. But the crucial point that the NOI authors emphasize for properly deciphering this confusing situation is the enormous scale of the financial resources that were deployed on Frank’s behalf, both prior to the trial and afterward, with virtually all of the funds coming from Jewish sources. Currency conversions are hardly precise, but relative to the American family incomes of the time, the total expenditures by Frank supporters may have been as high as $25 million in present-day dollars, quite possibly more than any other homicide defense in American history before or after, and an almost unimaginable sum for the impoverished Deep South of that period. Years later, a leading donor privately admitted that much of this money was spent on perjury and similar falsifications, something which is very readily apparent to anyone who closely studies the case. When we consider this vast ocean of pro-Frank funding and the sordid means for which it was often deployed, the details of the case become far less mysterious. There exists a mountain of demonstrably fabricated evidence and false testimony in favor of Frank, and no sign of anything similar on the other side.
The police initially suspected the black night watchman who found the girl’s body, and he was quickly arrested and harshly interrogated. Soon afterward, a bloody shirt was found at his home, and Frank made several statements that seemed to implicate his employee in the crime. At one point, this black suspect may have come close to being summarily lynched by a mob, which would have closed the case. But he stuck to his story of innocence with remarkable composure, in sharp contrast to Frank’s extremely nervous and suspicious behavior, and the police soon shifted their scrutiny toward the latter, culminating in his arrest. All researchers now recognize that the night watchman was entirely innocent, and the material against him planted.
As the investigation moved forward, a major break occurred as a certain Jim Conley, Frank’s black janitor, came forward and confessed to having been Frank’s accomplice in concealing the crime. At the trial he testified that Frank had regularly enlisted him as a lookout during his numerous sexual liaisons with his female employees, and after murdering Phagan, had then offered him a huge sum of money to help remove and hide the body in the basement so that the crime could be pinned upon someone else. But with the legal noose tightening around Frank, Conley had begun to fear that he might be made the new scapegoat, and went to the authorities in order to save his own neck. Despite Conley’s damning accusations, Frank repeatedly refused to confront him in the presence of the police, which was widely seen as further proof of Frank’s guilt.
By the time of the trial itself, all sides were agreed that the murderer was either Frank, the wealthy Jewish businessman, or Conley, the semi-literate black janitor with a first-grade education and a long history of public drunkenness and petty crime. Frank’s lawyers exploited this comparison to the fullest, emphasizing Frank’s Jewish background as evidence for his innocence and indulging in the crudest sort of racial invective against his black accuser, whom they claimed was obviously the true rapist and murderer due to his bestial nature.
Taking a broader overview, the theory advanced by Frank’s legion of posthumous advocates seems to defy rationality. These journalists and scholars uniformly argue that Conley, a semi-literate black menial, had brutally raped and murdered a young white girl, and the legal authorities soon became aware of this fact, but conspired to set him free by supporting a complex and risky scheme to instead frame an innocent white businessman. Can we really believe that the police officials and prosecutors of a city in the Old South would have violated their oath of office in order to knowingly protect a black rapist and killer from legal punishment and thereby turn him loose upon their city streets, presumably to prey on future young white girls? This implausible reconstruction is particularly bizarre in that nearly all its advocates across the decades have been the staunchest of Jewish liberals, who endlessly condemned the horrific racism of the Southern authorities of that era, but then unaccountably chose to make a special exception in this one particular case.
The NOI authors devote nearly all of their lengthy book to a careful analysis of the Frank case provided in suitably dispassionate form, but a sense of their justifiable outrage does occasionally poke through. In the years prior to Frank’s killing, many thousands of black men throughout the South had been lynched, often based on a slender thread of suspicion, with few of these incidents receiving more than a few sentences of coverage in a local newspaper, and large numbers of whites had also perished in similar circumstances. Meanwhile, Frank had received benefit of the longest trial in modern Southern history, backed by the finest trial lawyers that money could buy, and based on overwhelming evidence had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl. But when Frank’s legal verdict was carried out by extra-judicial means, he immediately became the most famous lynching victim in American history, perhaps even attracting more media attention than all those thousands of other cases combined. Jewish money and Jewish media established him as a Jewish martyr who thereby effectively usurped the victimhood of the enormous number of innocent blacks who were killed both before and after him, none of whom were ever even recognized as individuals.
The NOI authors note that prior to Frank’s trial American history had been virtually devoid of any evidence of significant anti-Semitism, with the previous most notable incident being the case of an extremely wealthy Jewish financier who was refused service at a fancy resort hotel. But by totally distorting the Frank case and focusing such massive national media coverage on his plight, Jewish leaders around the country succeeded in fabricating a powerful ideological narrative despite its lack of reality, perhaps intending the story to serve as a bonding experience to foster Jewish community cohesion.
Let us summarize what seems to be the solidly established factual history of the Frank case, quite different than the traditional narrative. There is not the slightest evidence that Frank’s Jewish background was a factor behind his arrest and conviction, nor the death sentence he received. The case set a remarkable precedent in Southern courtroom history with the testimony of a black man playing a central role in a white man’s conviction. From the earliest stages of the murder investigation, Frank and his allies continually attempted to implicate a series of different innocent blacks by planting false evidence and using bribes to solicit perjured testimony, while the exceptionally harsh racial rhetoric that Frank and his attorneys directed towards those blacks was presumably intended to provoke their public lynching. Yet despite all these attempts by the Frank forces to play upon the notorious racial sentiments of the white Southerners of that era, the latter saw through these schemes and Frank was the one sentenced to hang for his rape and murder of that young girl.
Now suppose that all the facts of this famous case were exactly unchanged except that Frank had been a white Gentile. Surely the trial would be ranked as one of the greatest racial turning points in American history, perhaps even overshadowing Brown v. Board because of the extent of popular sentiment, and it would have been given a central place in all our modern textbooks. Meanwhile, Frank, his lawyers, and his heavy financial backers would probably be cast as among the vilest racial villains in all of American history for their repeated attempts to foment the lynching of various innocent blacks so that a wealthy white rapist and murderer could walk free. But because Frank was Jewish rather than Christian, this remarkable history has been completely inverted for over one hundred years by our Jewish-dominated media and historiography.
Prior to the creation of the Internet and the establishment of Amazon’s book-selling operation, this fascinating history would have remained completely unknown to me. Given its influential political role in our society, the ADL must certainly be concerned if it became widely known that the organization was founded with the central mission of ensuring that no wealthy and powerful Jew ever suffered punishment for the rape and murder of a young Christian girl, nor for trying to orchestrate the lynching of innocent black men in order to cover his own guilt.
When I published my original article in October, I naturally encouraged readers to order the remarkable book in question and decide for themselves. But Amazon has now chosen to ban that book of outstanding black historical scholarship at the height of Black History Month, a step taken just a few days after the ADL President made his annual glowing tribute to that national celebration of black pride. Those interested can still read my lengthy analysis of that book and the important historical event it describes.
The true circumstances surrounding the establishment of the ADL is not the only work of serious historical scholarship to have suddenly been removed from Amazon’s shelves, and most of the others seem to follow a very consistent pattern, certainly suggesting the hand of that organization and its kindred spirits.
For more than a half-century, Jewish political activists and engaged academics have pilloried white American society for its longstanding mistreatment of blacks, especially focusing upon the “original sin” of black slavery, and almost every morning my New York Times carries one or more articles filled with such denunciations. Americans of Anglo-Saxon founding stock are invariably portrayed as the villains of the story, with American Jews frequently cited as among the heroic supporters of the Civil Rights Movement that eventually rectified some of those injustices.
Yet just as in the case of Leo Frank, the true facts may be somewhat more complex. Over a quarter-century ago, the same group of provocative NOI researchers published a fascinating volume gathering together a huge quantity of historical evidence suggesting that prior to the Civil War, America’s tiny Jewish population had actually played an enormously disproportionate role in establishing and promoting black slavery, with their co-ethnics even sometimes outright dominating that institution in the vast and exceptionally cruel slave plantations of Latin America, which were frequently operated like death-camps. These claims are hardly so implausible given that slave-trading had been a very traditional Jewish occupation in much of Europe and the Middle East for the last thousand years, and it is probably more than coincidence that the largest centers of Jewish settlement in Colonial America tended to be those cities focused on the slave trade.
I am hardly a specialist in pre-Civil War history, and weighing the strength of the evidence presented is beyond my expertise. But I did also order and read an angry rebuttal book published a couple of years later by a Dr. Harold Brackman, a Jewish historian working in conjunction with the auspices of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and found his arguments quite thin and unpersuasive.
Under normal circumstances, scholars of varied opinions would debate this controversial thesis back and forth and eventually come to some conclusion. But when Tony Martin, a prominent black scholar at Wellesley, merely put the provocative book on the reading list of one of his black history courses, he was ferociously vilified in the media and saw his career ruined, with concerted efforts made to fire him despite his tenured position. He later recounted the situation he faced in a short book.
I briefly mentioned the study and its thesis in a July article and suggested those intrigued by the dispute order it from Amazon and evaluate the evidence for themselves. Alas, that is no longer possible since Amazon has now banned the work, although all the subsequent books rebutting the thesis or discussing the huge controversy it aroused are still freely available. This strongly suggests that the evidence presented of a massive Jewish role in black slavery was simply too compelling to be easily refuted.
These anonymous black research studies prepared under the auspices of the Nation of Islam are hardly alone among serious historical texts now banned by Amazon. Indeed, groundbreaking works by eminent Jewish scholars may now also suffer a similar fate if they stray into forbidden territory. As I wrote at length last year:
I do not doubt that much of the candid analysis provided above will be quite distressing to many individuals. Indeed, some may believe that such material far exceeds the boundaries of mere “anti-Semitism” and easily crosses the threshold into constituting an actual “blood libel” against the Jewish people. That extremely harsh accusation, widely used by stalwart defenders of Israeli behavior, refers to the notorious Christian superstition, prevalent throughout most of the Middle Ages and even into more modern times, that Jews sometimes kidnapped small Christian children in order to drain their blood for use in various magic rituals, especially in connection with the Purim religious holiday. One of my more shocking discoveries of the last dozen years is that there is a fairly strong likelihood that these seemingly impossible beliefs were actually true.
I personally have no professional expertise whatsoever in Jewish ritual traditions, nor the practices of Medieval Jewry. But one of the world’s foremost scholars in that field is Ariel Toaff, professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, and himself the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome.
In 2007, he published the Italian edition of his academic study Blood Passovers, based on many years of diligent research, assisted by his graduate students and guided by the suggestions of his various academic colleagues, with the initial print run of 1,000 copies selling out on the first day. Given Toaff’s international eminence and such enormous interest, further international distribution, including an English edition by a prestigious American academic press would normally have followed. But the ADL and various other Jewish-activist groups regarded such a possibility with extreme disfavor, and although these activists lacked any scholarly credentials, they apparently applied sufficient pressure to cancel all additional publication. Although Prof. Toaff initially attempted to stand his ground in stubborn fashion, he soon took the same course as Galileo, and his apologies naturally became the basis of the always-unreliable Wikipedia entry on the topic.
It appears that a considerable number of Ashkenazi Jews traditionally regarded Christian blood as having powerful magical properties and considered it a very valuable component of certain important ritual observances at particular religious holidays. Obviously, obtaining such blood in large amounts was fraught with considerable risk, which greatly enhanced its monetary value, and the trade in the vials of this commodity seems to have been widely practiced.
Obviously, the ritual murder of Christian children for their blood was viewed with enormous disfavor by the local Gentile population, and the widespread belief in its existence remained a source of bitter tension between the two communities, flaring up occasionally when a Christian child mysteriously disappeared at a particular time of year, or when a body was found that exhibited suspicious types of wounds or showed a strange loss of blood. Every now and then, a particular case would reach public prominence, often leading to a political test of strength between Jewish and anti-Jewish groups. During the mid-19th century, there was one such famous case in French-dominated Syria, and just before the outbreak of the First World War, Russia was wracked by a similar political conflict in the 1913 Beilis Affair in the Ukraine.
I first encountered these very surprising ideas almost a dozen years ago in a long article by Israel Shamir that was referenced in Counterpunch, and this would definitely be worth reading as an overall summary, together with a couple of his follow-up columns, while writer Andrew Hamilton offers the most recent 2012 overview of the controversy. Shamir also helpfully provides a free copy of the book in PDF form, an updated version with the footnotes properly noted in the text. Anyway, I lack the expertise to effectively judge the likelihood of the Toaff Hypothesis, so I would invite those interested to read Toaff’s book or better yet the related articles and decide for themselves.
Amazon has now banned the English translation of Prof. Toaff’s astonishing book, though it is still available on the Internet in PDF form at the link provided above.
All of these almost unprecedented Amazon book bannings occurred just in the last couple of weeks, and unless they are soon reversed, they will surely become just the first of many. The 1990s volumes on Judaism written by the late Israel Shahak, an award-winning professor at Hebrew University in Israel, will surely also be headed for oblivion. As I wrote last year:
Although Shahak’s books are quite short, they contain such a density of astonishing material, it would take many, many thousands of words to begin to summarize them. Essentially almost everything I had known—or thought I had known—about the religion of Judaism, at least in its zealously Orthodox traditional form, was utterly wrong.
On the most basic level, the religion of most traditional Jews is actually not at all monotheistic, but instead contains a wide variety of different male and female gods, having quite complex relations to each other, with these entities and their properties varying enormously among the numerous different Jewish sub-sects, depending upon which portions of the Talmud and the Kabala they place uppermost. For example, the traditional Jewish religious cry “The Lord Is One” has always been interpreted by most people to be an monotheistic affirmation, and indeed, many Jews take exactly this same view. But large numbers of other Jews believe this declaration instead refers to achievement of sexual union between the primary male and female divine entities. And most bizarrely, Jews having such radically different views see absolutely no difficulty in praying side by side, and merely interpreting their identical chants in very different fashion.
Furthermore, religious Jews apparently pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God, and depending upon the various rabbinical schools, the particular rituals and sacrifices they practice may be aimed at enlisting the support of the one or the other. Once again, so long as the rituals are properly followed, the Satan-worshippers and the God-worshippers get along perfectly well and consider each other equally pious Jews, merely of a slightly different tradition. One point that Shahak repeatedly emphasizes is that in traditional Judaism the nature of the ritual itself is absolutely uppermost, while the interpretation of the ritual is rather secondary. So perhaps a Jew who washes his hands three times clockwise might be horrified by another who follows a counter-clockwise direction, but whether the hand-washing were meant to honor God or to honor Satan would be hardly be a matter of much consequence.
If these ritualistic issues constituted the central features of traditional religious Judaism, we might regard it as a rather colorful and eccentric survival of ancient times. But unfortunately, there is also a far darker side, primarily involving the relationship between Jews and non-Jews, with the highly derogatory term goyim frequently used to describe the latter. To put it bluntly, Jews have divine souls and goyim do not, being merely beasts in the shape of men. Indeed, the primary reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve as the slaves of Jews, with some very high-ranking rabbis occasionally stating this well-known fact. In 2010, Israel’s top Sephardic rabbi used his weekly sermon to declare that the only reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve Jews and do work for them. The enslavement or extermination of all non-Jews seems an ultimate implied goal of the religion.
Jewish lives have infinite value, and non-Jewish ones none at all, which has obvious policy implications. For example, in a published article a prominent Israeli rabbi explained that if a Jew needed a liver, it would be perfectly fine, and indeed obligatory, to kill an innocent Gentile and take his. Perhaps we should not be too surprised that today Israel is widely regarded as one of the world centers of organ-trafficking.
As a further illustration of the seething hatred traditional Judaism radiates towards all those of a different background, saving the life of a non-Jew is generally considered improper or even prohibited, and taking any such action on the Sabbath would be an absolute violation of religious edict. Such dogmas are certainly ironic given the widespread presence of Jews in the medical profession during recent centuries, but they came to the fore in Israel when a religiously-minded military doctor took them to heart and his position was supported by the country’s highest religious authorities.
And while religious Judaism has a decidedly negative view towards all non-Jews, Christianity in particular is regarded as a total abomination, which must be wiped from the face of the earth.
Whereas pious Muslims consider Jesus as the holy prophet of God and Muhammed’s immediate predecessor, according to the Jewish Talmud, Jesus is perhaps the vilest being who ever lived, condemned to spend eternity in the bottommost pit of Hell, immersed in a boiling vat of excrement. Religious Jews regard the Muslim Quran as just another book, though a totally mistaken one, but the Christian Bible represents purest evil, and if circumstances permit, burning Bibles is a very praiseworthy act. Pious Jews are also enjoined to always spit three times at any cross or church they encounter, and direct a curse at all Christian cemeteries. Indeed, many deeply religious Jews utter a prayer each and every day for the immediate extermination of all Christians.
Over the years prominent Israeli rabbis have sometimes publicly debated whether Jewish power has now become sufficiently great that all the Christian churches of Jerusalem, Bethleham, and other nearby areas can finally be destroyed, and the entire Holy Land completely cleansed of all traces of its Christian contamination. Some have taken this position, but most have urged prudence, arguing that Jews needed to gain some additional strength before they should take such a risky step. These days, many tens of millions of zealous Christians and especially Christian Zionists are enthusiastic advocates for Jews, Judaism, and Israel, and I strongly suspect that at least some of that enthusiasm is based upon ignorance.
Shahak’s scholarly research received glowing praise from some of America’s most prominent public intellectuals, including Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, and Edward Said, as well as prestigious publications such as The London Review of Books and Middle East International. But given the political implications of his revelations, I suspect they will soon only be available on scattered websites across the Internet.
A more detailed discussion of the works of Profs. Toaff and Shahak on these lesser-known aspects of the Jewish religion can be found in my long article from last July:
Other Amazon books seem to have recently fallen into limbo, still being sold by that website, but hidden away so that most readers would never discover them.
More than thirty-five years ago, Lenni Brenner, a Jewish leftist of anti-Zionist sympathies, published his ground-breaking research revealing the extensive Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s, which laid the basis for the creation of the State of Israel. Although our media has almost entirely ignored that fascinating history, subsequent studies have fully confirmed Brenner’s central framework.
I myself only became aware of Brenner’s book last year and immediately purchased it on Amazon, then published an article in which I discussed his important findings:
Although the Germans paid little attention to the entreaties of that minor organization, the far larger and more influential mainstream Zionist movement of Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion was something else entirely. And during most of the 1930s, these other Zionists had formed an important economic partnership with Nazi Germany, based upon an obvious commonality of interests. After all, Hitler regarded Germany’s one percent Jewish population as a disruptive and potentially dangerous element which he wanted gone, and the Middle East seemed as good a destination for them as any other. Meanwhile, the Zionists had very similar objectives, and the creation of their new national homeland in Palestine obviously required both Jewish immigrants and Jewish financial investment.
The importance of the Nazi-Zionist pact for Israel’s establishment is difficult to overstate. According to a 1974 analysis in Jewish Frontier cited by Brenner, between 1933 and 1939 over 60% of all the investment in Jewish Palestine came from Nazi Germany. The worldwide impoverishment of the Great Depression had drastically reduced ongoing Jewish financial support from all other sources, and Brenner reasonably suggests that without Hitler’s financial backing, the nascent Jewish colony, so tiny and fragile, might easily have shriveled up and died during that difficult period.
Such a conclusion leads to fascinating hypotheticals. When I first stumbled across references to the Ha’avara Agreement on websites here and there, one of the commenters mentioning the issue half-jokingly suggested that if Hitler had won the war, statues would surely have been built to him throughout Israel and he would today be recognized by Jews everywhere as the heroic Gentile leader who had played the central role in reestablishing a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine after almost 2000 years of bitter exile.
This sort of astonishing counter-factual possibility is not nearly as totally absurd as it might sound to our present-day ears. We must recognize that our historical understanding of reality is shaped by the media, and media organs are controlled by the winners of major wars and their allies, with inconvenient details often excluded to avoid confusing the public.
Once Hitler consolidated power in Germany, he quickly outlawed all other political organizations for the German people, with only the Nazi Party and Nazi political symbols being legally permitted. But a special exception was made for German Jews, and Germany’s local Zionist Party was accorded complete legal status, with Zionist marches, Zionist uniforms, and Zionist flags all fully permitted. Under Hitler, there was strict censorship of all German publications, but the weekly Zionist newspaper was freely sold at all newsstands and street corners. The clear notion seemed to be that a German National Socialist Party was the proper political home for the country’s 99% German majority, while Zionist National Socialism would fill the same role for the tiny Jewish minority.
In 1934, Zionist leaders invited an important SS official to spend six months visiting the Jewish settlement in Palestine, and upon his return, his very favorable impressions of the growing Zionist enterprise were published as a massive 12-part-series in Joseph Goebbel’s Der Angriff, the flagship media organ of the Nazi Party, bearing the descriptive title “A Nazi Goes to Palestine.”
Just last year, the Brenner books I purchased immediately popped up on the Amazon website, but these days they are hidden away, not even appearing on his nearly empty author page. One suspects that the ADL or similar organizations are very reluctant to have readers discover Brenner’s extensive collection of primary source documents or the paperback edition of his historical narrative, whose cover shows the commemorative medal struck by Nazi Germany to mark its Zionist alliance, displaying the Swastika on one side and the Jewish Star-of-David on the other. Those interested in the entire complex and rather surprising historical relationship between Jews and the Third Reich during its dozen years of existence should consider reading my article on the subject.
Jews today constitute less than 1% of the combined population of North America and the European Union, yet any honest observer would have to admit that organized Jewish groups totally dominate the politics and public life of these once-proud nations, which during past centuries had ruled most of the world.
The primary factor behind this astonishing control now exercised over populations that are 99% non-Jewish is probably the powerful leverage Jews today hold over money and media. But an important secondary factor has been the gradual elevation of the Jewish Holocaust of World War II into the status of a near-sacred doctrine, largely replacing traditional Christianity as an official state religion, with dissenters generally treated as heretics and frequently subjected to government prosecution or imprisonment. Indeed, it seems that virtually every morning my newspapers are filled with Holocaust articles, most of them written with the same sort of sacred reverence that Catholic newspapers a century ago might have given to discussions of the Virgin Birth. However, because this so-called “Holocaustianity” purports to be a secular faith, it remains vulnerable to dispute on factual grounds, and many have suggested that its collapse would strike a mortal blow against reigning Jewish power.
The ADL and other Jewish activist organizations certainly seem extremely reluctant to take that risk. We should hardly be surprised that the first great large wave of Amazon book-bannings was the early 2017 purge of many dozens of scholarly texts by revisionist historians who had argued at great length and in considerable detail that the Holocaust was largely a hoax, concocted by Jewish activists and Hollywood filmmakers as a powerful shield against any criticism of Jewish or Israeli misbehavior. Although many of these books are still available for sale by their publisher, their complete disappearance from Amazon has greatly reduced their potential distribution.
Fortunately, I had purchased copies of several such books while Amazon still stocked them, and last year I published a long article summarizing my own conclusions about that complex and highly contentious topic. Although I am hardly an expert, it seemed to me that there was an enormous amount of persuasive evidence that the Holocaust is indeed substantially fraudulent, and quite possibly, almost entirely so. Those interested in considering my reasoning are welcome to do so and decide for themselves.
Probably the most famous dystopian novel of the last one hundred years is George Orwell’s 1984, and perhaps its most memorable observation is that those who control the past control the future and those who control the present control the past. And we should recognize that serious books constitute the congealed nature of that past.
Our electronic media and its new social offshoot may dominate the thoughts of our population, and perhaps a single Tweet by a third-tier political celebrity might attract more readers in an hour than all the books discussed in this article have drawn in a year. But while effervescent, such electronic media emanations are transitory and fleeting, and quite likely to be forgotten an hour later. Meanwhile, serious books of ideas and scholarship have the potential to permanently reshape the contours of reality accepted by the sort of individuals who may eventually alter our society. During a heated national election campaign, billions of dollars may be expended to temporarily shift public opinion on some issue or candidate, but a few weeks later, the effect has usually dissipated. Books may cost just a few dollars, but their potential impact is of a different order of weight and permanency.
Amazon today possesses a near-total monopoly over Internet book sales, and if American society continues to allow it to ban serious works of scholarship on political or ideological grounds, our future intellectual freedom has already been lost.
By Ron Unz
Source: The Unz Review