Tag Archives: Israel

Introducing Meira Rossum—the most brilliant of the Modern Ashera….

I think Meira Rossum is quite simply one of the most brilliant people I have met in a very long time, not to mention one of the most stunningly beautiful women. But I have a personal research interest in this topic: The very earliest inscriptions in Southern Israel and the Sinai Peninsula, the very earliest ceramics or wall-paintings with alphabetic, early Western Semitic Texts, refer to the Ancient Hebrew Tribal God Yahweh “and his Asherah”. This has been taken by many epigraphers and students of early Western Semitic religion to mean not only that “Monotheism” was utterly unknown to the earliest followers of YHWH (“I am who I am” but that the leader/creator God of the Hebrews had a WIFE—and her name was Asherah. In the story of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel, found in the Book of Kings, Elijah, before ascending to heaven in his chariot of fire, was the nemesis and brutal undoing of Queen Jezebel of Israel. But in the Bible, Jezebel’s greatest sin was worshipping the Goddess Asherah “on every green hill and in every green valley”—in other words, Asherah was a Fertility goddess, closely analogous to Astarte among the Northwestern Semites of Ebla, Mari, and Syria generally, but also to Ishtar and Inanna among the Eastern Semitic Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians and their predecessors, the Sumerians.

a very unique Jewess

Queen of the Ashera

Meira Rossum
1 hr ·
The Late History of the Jewish Tribe of Asher
Asheri Jews, specifically the Tribe of Asher, is one of the original tribes of Israel. We are considered a lost tribe of Israel, having been one of the tribes conquered and exiled by the Assyrians around 700 B.C. Our people were, and still are, considered lost by many people, due mostly to a lack of communication and direct affiliation with other Jews following the conquest of Israel and Judah. My people fled overland to the Caucasus, while others went by ship to the lands of what are today: Iceland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Northern Germany. Arriving there they were enslaved by the native peoples. The women were used as pleasure slaves and the men as artisans and writers.
There was a great migration from 500 A.D. to 700 A.D. in which virtually all Asheri Jews migrated back to the region of Judea and were intercepted and enslaved by the Byzantine Empire. We became favored pleasure slaves for most of the Byzantine Empire’s history, principally in Constantinople, though Asheri Jewish women were traded or given as rare gifts. By 800 A.D., Asheri women were considered national treasures and were forbidden from being sold outside the empire. Exceptions were made for some allies of the Empire in Europe. Asheri Jewish women were well-known for their raven black hair, sky blue or blue-grey eyes, and very pale ivory skin. We were sometimes mistaken for Circassian women, who have a like appearance, though Asheri women tended towards sky blue eyes, while Circassian women tended towards grey.
Early on in the history of the Byzantine Empire and the late Western Roman Empire, Ashkenazi Jews would give Asheri Jewish women as tribute to rulers and Byzantine nobles, rather than give their own women, as was demanded. This was because Asheri Jews were viewed in a negative light amongst other Jews for being too submissive and docile; more suitable as slaves, entertainers, artists, athletes, dancers, and writers, than as warriors or in hard labor. The Asheri Jewish slaves of The Byzantine Empire were freed a year before Constantinople’s fall to the Ottomans. Each was gifted with a sum of money; the Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos did not want the Asheri Jewish racial lines polluted by Turkish conquerors. Some did fall into the hands of the Ottomans nevertheless, and were again enslaved and used as prized entertainers and artisans.
The vast majority escaped however, and fled to Northern Europe where we lived, until Hitler came to power in Germany. While most Jews were taken and put into hard labor or sent to extermination camps, Hitler’s Reichsführer, Heinrich Himmler, envisioned using Asheri Jews as a perfect slave race to serve the Nazis. He had at some point become knowledgeable about the tribe of Asher and their history within the Byzantine Empire.
He had commented in his private notes that the Asheri were so light skinned and blue eyed that he and some Aryan lore masters considered the Asheri as destined to be ideal slaves for a perfect white Aryan race in a postwar Nordic paradise. Roughly 1.5 million Asheri Jews from all of Europe (about 70% of all Asheri Jews worldwide) were sent to North Africa early on in World War II, where they lived in slave camps for purposes of selective breeding. The best, most talented, and most beautiful were isolated and bred over the course of roughly two years. Each woman had one to two children during this time, before Allied forces captured North Africa, and drove the Germans and Italians from the continent.
The women and children were freed and fled to North America or back to Europe, though some would travel to what is now Israel. Muslims in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco launched a series of poorly organized campaigns to capture and enslave the recently freed Asheri Jewish women and their children, but failed in each case due to Allied Western military expeditions. No significant battles took place, as the allies had vastly numerical, technological, and tactical advantages.
We have often been confused with Sephardic Jews or Circassians. We are one of the smallest ethnic groups in the world. We are also considered the most enslaved people in history with fully two thousand years of confirmed history in servitude to western civilizations.
We are also recognized in the American Journal of Medicine, the European Medical Journal, and the New England Journal of Medicine, as having the distinctive trait of disproportionally high birthrate of girls versus boys at a 5 to 1 ratio, while the international ratio amongst other groups is about 1.04 boys to every girl. Additionally, and equally amazing, girls maintain the racial and physical characteristics of the mother, while boys show consistent and significant tendency towards the father’s racial characteristics.
Asheri Jews are still considered a lost tribe of Israel and not officially recognized as an existing Jewish ethnic division by most Jews. Many do not even know of us, except for knowledge related to antiquity. This is because Asheri Jews, much like Roma or gypsies, have mostly kept our history and activities a carefully guarded secret, as a matter of defense and preservation. We are very much Jewish however, and proud of our heritage and identity.

***************************************************************************

I researched all this in preparation for what was intended to be my last major archaeological project, fifteen years ago, namely a study and survey of the Sinai Peninsula, the cultural, geological, and phytogeographical/zoogeographic (biotypic) boundary between Africa and Eurasia. The fieldwork, unfortunately never undertaken due to my suffering a near-fatal injury on November 30, 2015, was to have focused on the Wadi-al-Arish “arroyo” drainage basin covering almost 1/3 of the Sinai Peninsula…. But the express purpose of this research was to have been the Sinaitic origins of the Hebrew religion, and I remain confident that we would have been able to discover further evidence of polytheism among the early Hebrews or their immediate ancestors….

I am contemplating setting up a Meetup: Who would be interested in a full and open forum about Race-Relations in Los Angeles and Southern California?
Meetup is going to invite potential Racially Conscious Americans to

Race, Lies, and American Politics: Southern California 2014
Description:

Is lying about Race Relations the American Way? In this “Summer of Our Discontent” places like “Ferguson” and “Gaza” are very much on our minds. A year ago it was Trayvon Martin. For several years, immigration across the border has been on our minds. So have race relations become more tense or better since Barack Hussein Obama became President? Do we even dare to talk about it? Or are certain topics taboo? Are we becoming a dishonest nation? Will be open to everyone who can engage in civil, intelligent (non-violent) discussion of RACE. Are you: Interested in the Police Abuse in the USA? Ferguson? the Black Panthers? La Raza Unida? Fascism or Neo-Nazi Race Issues? Israeli Politics? The Fate of White South Africa? Jim Crow in the USA? Can you discuss these issues with the calm of LA Magazine, whose cover story in May 2012 was:
“Race In L.A.
Twenty years after the riots, the city has a different complexion. So what does race mean anymore? Everything
Posted on 5/1/2012 12:00:00 PM by Los Angeles magazine

Ours is a city of many voices and cultures, of disparate backgrounds and conflicting interests. Twenty years ago this month, those fault lines ruptured. Whether you call it an uprising, a riot, or civil unrest, what happened on April 29, 1992, changed Los Angeles and the people in it, prompting Rodney King to famously ask, “Can we all get along?” We still want the answer to be yes. But it’s complicated.

Everyone who’s interested, please write me here or call either 504-777-5021 or 504-777-5023.

GILAD ATZMON: The Most Extraordinary Jewish Writer of Modern Times…..he calls himself a “Hebrew-Speaking Palestinian” and I am very proud to know him…

Controlled Opposition –From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond, Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 1:29PM

Gilad Atzmon

http://www.counterpunch.org

By Gilad Atzmon

Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power.   It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.

Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get a way with their lies, and for so long?

If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long?  How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?

Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic?  Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics?  Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.

Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.

But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff, ‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.

Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.

Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.

A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.

So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.

As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.

Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.

The Visible Hand

The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.

Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.

Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.

If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it. that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.

It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.

We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.

Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned, ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.

When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.

This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.

For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.

Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.

So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and Jewish Left’s spin particular Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (http://www.gilad.co.uk/).
See website for complete article licensing information.

Gilad Atzmon on his support for Dieudonne—interviewed on Al Jazeerah—I had the honor and privilege of meeting Gilad Atzmon last week in New York

I have been following Gilad Atzmon’s writings and advocacy for about six years now, and I consider him one of the foremost cultural, ethnic, socio-historical and political philosophers of our time.  Gilad is traveling in the United States and, if you get a chance to listen to his lectures or music, I urge you to do so.  I have NEVER met anyone quite like him.  I met him last week in New York City when he was staying as the guest of Michael Santomauro on the Upper East Side.  The several days spent with these two were one of the most intense intellectual experiences of my life, fully comparable to any seminar discussion on historical formation or cultural process, micro-or-macro evolution and ethnic identity or politics that I ever had in Anthropology, Biology, or History at Harvard or in Law at the University of Chicago—the level of feverish debate was (in my personal memory anyhow) closest to in chambers meetings between law clerks and Externs for the Ninth Circuit between clerks for Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski….  Everyone concerned with American, European, or Middle Eastern Culture, Economy, or Politics today needs to read Gilad Atzmon’s latest book The Wandering Who?

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

Opinion Editorials, February 2014




Dieudonné, Alain Soral, and Zionism:Gilad Atzmon Interviewed By Alimuddin UsmaniAl-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 24, 2014

AU: What led you to offer Dieudonné such support in his struggle against the French government?

GA: Dieudonné is the true meaning of resistance.  Being cogent and coherent, he has managed to expose in France the corrosive bond between contemporary Zionised socialism and Jewish political power.

For some time now, many of us who, in the 60s and 70s, were inspired by Left thinking have been confused by contemporary ‘progressive’ politics. For some reason, the so-called ‘New Left’ was very quick to compromise on crucial issues to do with labour and working class politics. Instead of siding with the workers and those struggling in society, the post-68 Left  adopted an identity-politics discourse that was actually aimed at breaking up society and the working class into isolated marginalisd groups. This led to political paralysis which in turn prepared the way for the invasion of big money, monopoly culture and globalization. It is this that Dieudonné, has managed to expose. He has also identified the power of the Holocaust religion and Jewish lobby power at the very heart of political establishment. Being the author of The Wandering Who – the book that took apart Jewish identity politics, I see Dieudonné as a continuation of myself. He is my twin and I stand up for both him and his cause.

AU: Dieudonné’s detractors accuse him of antisemitism and as evidence they offer that in his show, (now banned) he said this about a prominent Jewish radio journalist: “You see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself : Gas chambers…too bad”. His supporters explain that Dieudonné was simply responding to a provocation from this journalist who said that Dieudonné must be blacklisted from mainstream media and that people with “mental illness ” shouldn’t be invited to comment publically. What do you think? Did he go too far or do you think he had the right to respond to someone who wished for his social, economic and professional demise?

GA: Those Jews who insist that the Holocaust become our new state religion must accept that such a claim comes with a price. If you choose to identify yourself with gas chambers, Auschwitz and victimhood you must also accept that you will be identified as such by others.  I have no problem with Dieudonné’s reaction to Cohen. Dieudonné is an artist, his duty is to reshape and revise the vision of the world around us. Accordingly, placing a mirror in front of Cohen was a most appropriate thing to do.

AU: The only main political party in France who didn’t join in this “Dieudonné bashing” is the nationalist National Front founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. What is your explanation of that?

GA: It obviously means that in terms of tolerance and multi-cultural/ethnic openness your Nationalists are way ahead of any so called ‘progressives’ and the Left. But this does not surprise me. The Left has always found it difficult to bond with working people, in fact, the entire ‘progressive’ ethos is elitist to the bone. And again, this should come as no surprise. After all. identifying oneself as  ‘progressive’ surely means that someone else must be ‘reactionary’ – and that someone else is the working man or woman. This may explain why being ‘progressive’ is so attractive to so many Jews – it offers a godless alternative to their traditional choseness. It also explains why the workers generally stay away as far from the Left as they can. They much prefer identifying with the whole, the grand collective narrative, with the flag and with the language. rather than be progressive, they prefer to be patriotic and nationalist. And the outcome is clear: The  left eventually drifts away into a state of total detachment which is the exact state of the French socialist at the moment.

Now, Dieudonné, has managed to galvanize this Left detachment. Here we have a black person who enjoys the support of the National Front and is cheered on by a massive popular movement consisting of migrants and White working class – and all this has now matured into one giant Left collective neurosis. How amusing is this?

AU: Thanks to Nicolas Anelka, the British Media started to talk about Dieudonné. According to Alain Soral, the  BBC conducted quite fair interview with him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gdbXHsVks

Can you explain to us why the French media seem unable to give the same fair treatment to this story?

GA: To start with, let’s not delude ourselves. It is easy for Brits to mock French kosher totalitarianism but believe me, no one in the BBC dares discuss the embarrassing fact that 80% of our Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel. No one in the BBC has ever been brave enough to delve into the embarrassing fact that when Tony Blair took us into an illegal war in Iraq, his chief fundraiser was Lord Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). But let me answer your question as concisely as I can.

Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion on Jewish power. CRIF and BHL are not the essence of Jewish power, they are just symptoms of this power. The real Jewish power is the capacity to silence all discussion of the Lobby, CRIF and HBL. So Alain Soral should carry the ban against him as a badge of honour. It only reaffirms that the media doesn’t find within itself the intellectual capacity to challenge him and his work. This is hardly surprising, I’ve now begun to realise that George Orwell might well have been the last thinking person in the Left. The contemporary Left is a soundbite culture far removed from any dialectical thinking or intellectual exchange. It is indeed a tragedy.

AU: In our last interview you told us that you “learned that most Palestinian NGOs are funded by liberal Zionist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”  A French cartoonist named Joe le Corbeau, who was briefly arrested over a photo of a quenelle http://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/man-arrested-over-photo-of-quenelle-in-front-of-toulouse-jewish-school/, suggested in one of his cartoons that Femen are funded by Soros : http://judeologie.com/2013/05/28/the-femen-powers-prostitutes-par-joe-le-corbeau/

Do you think that may explain why these women perform only in mosques and churches and never in synagogues?

GA: Obviously, I don’t know whether Femen is funded by Soros but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. Soros’ philosophy, as far as I understand it, is very simple. He is a Liberal Zionist who funds a lot of ‘good causes’ – causes that just happen to also be ‘good for the Jews’.

Now, let me address Femen’s preferred choice of ‘artistic’ venues. As you probably know, Post-Structuralism is pretty much a French philosophical school of thought and may be  defined as an attempt to dismantle all ‘grand narratives’ except the Jewish one. In concert with the spirit of the 68 students’ revolution and the Frankfurt Yeshiva, Femen are more than happy pull apart every French cultural heritage – except the Jewish ones. Just follow the money trail, those people who facilitated their move to France – the record label and the ANR who signed them. Surely, you’ll find the answers within just a few minutes.

Here is an interesting anecdote that may throw some light on the topic. It was recently pointed out to me that in spite of the fact that Jewish radicals despise the Talmud and the Rabbinical culture and have been caught burning many religious congregation houses, mainly churches in Spain and the Ukraine etc.,  they have never burned a single synagogue.

AU: People who support the right of Femen to blaspheme are often the same people who call for the banning of Dieudonné’s shows. Don’t you think that these kinds of double standards will lead people to rise up against the elite?

GA: No doubt at all, and as we see, it’s already happening.

AU: Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni, who recently passed away, once said that accusation of antisemitism is a “trick” used to shut down critics of Israeli policy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbtu0-mgvw  How do you explain the current weakness of the Israeli left?

GA: ‘Weakness’ is an understatement. The Israeli left is non-existent and for a good reason: Jewish Left is an oxymoron. While ‘Left’ is a universal concept, Jewishness is a tribally driven ideology. Even Aloni,  whom I admired, wasn’t exactly a ‘universalist’. She didn’t really campaign for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages, she was mainly concerned with Israel being a ‘Jewish civilization’ as opposed to a universal one.

It is not a secret that the so-called ‘Jewish Left’ is in practice, a form of National Socialism. Those ‘radical’ Israeli leftists support a racially-driven ‘egalitarian’ philosophy – which applies to Jews only. In other words, they are full of contradictions so it’s hardly surprising that they are now pretty much extinct. On the other hand, right wing Israeli politics,  is as consistent as it is crudely unethical. It postulates that Jews are entitled to return to Palestine, and it draws on a vile, militaristic ideology and practice that aims to maintain this  Jewish hold on the land. Right-wing Zionist  leaders admit daily to not being ethical – but they justify their national project in terms of survival. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it is only natural for Israelis to identify with a consistently tribal right-wing ideology instead of some half-baked, convoluted and totally inconsistent (but always kosher), socialist clap-trap.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  Amazon.co.uk

Interview: Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and Zionism

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/interview-atzmon-on-dieudonne-alain-soral-and-zionism.html

Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info editor@ccun.org

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2014/February/24%20o/Dieudonne,%20Alain%20Soral,%20and%20Zionism,%20Gilad%20Atzmon%20Interviewed%20By%20Alimuddin%20Usmani.htm

For All Souls Day (aka “Day of the Dead” and/or Feast of the Faithful Departed): Human Sacrifice in Africa Today

Should we be surprised that Human Sacrifice, Slavery, and Cannibalism are Prevalent All Over Africa, today in late 2013?  In Colonial Mexico and Central America, after the Spanish Conquest, there is good evidence that Human Sacrifice persisted in many rural areas for at least 200 years after the Spanish Conquest despite continual Spanish Rule and the violent and often brutal suppression of the Native Mesoamerican priesthood, the tragic burning of ancient libraries, and the systematic destruction of temples.  There are many parallels between the practices of Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism, and Slavery in Africa and Mesoamerica, as Sir James G. Frazer noted in the Golden Bough, and as in fact was apparent even to the Spanish Conquistadors themselves, as in for example the writings of Bernal Diaz del Castillo.  

Child sacrifice, reported as widespread and common in Africa up through the present day (and even as a “thriving commercial business” in Uganda and Nigeria), was common among the prehispanic Mesoamericans.  There are relics surviving at least until the 1980s (by my own personal observations) of the importance of live children “bound with ropes and croaking like frogs” under the table of the Cha-Chaac, the modern Yucatec Maya Rain Ceremony, during years following the discovery of massive offerings of childrens’ skeletons under the altar of Tlaloc (the Aztec raingod) in the Templo Mayor excavations of Aztec Tenochtitlan in the heart of Mexico City.  Habitual child sacrifice was recorded at least as far north as among the Natchez of the Mississippi Valley up through the final obliteration and extermination of the Natchez by the French in the late 1720s.  Vestiges of Child Sacrifice (including the Sacrifice of adult children, such as the sons of the Kings of Israel and Judah who were made to “walk through the fire” in the Books of Chronicles and Kings) occur throughout the Bible, and legends of Jewish cannibalism of children are part of the “blood libel” that persisted at least through 15th century throughout Europe (consider the story of “Little St. Hugh” of Lincoln, which was one of many stories which led to the expulsion of the Jews from England in the 1320s.  (I had an uncle named “Hugh”, who now counts among the “Faithful Departed”).   As highly prejudicial and undocumented as the charges against Mediaeval European Jewry may be, the archaeological evidence recovered at by Harvard archaeologists at Carthage in Tunisia and by many excavations throughout Syria and Lebanon all document the ubiquity of child sacrifice among the Phoenicians  (most closely related by their alphabet and other customs to the Israelites) and all other Western Semitic peoples of the Bronze and Iron Ages.  Whether this heritage could support the legendary evidence that the Jews carried child sacrifice with them after the diaspora into Western Europe is, without archaeological evidence, a matter of mere conjecture.

Leaving Aside Slavery and Cannibalism, and considering only Human Sacrifice and Ritual Killing (including child sacrifice throughout Africa, and leaving aside the highly controversial questions of racially or politically motivated murders in, for example, Liberia, Sierra Leon, and above all in post-Apartheid South Africa, as of fourteen months ago, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights made this rather timid, cautious, almost apologetic report, allowing as how human sacrifice might violate the UN Charters on Individual Human Rights even if it infringes on the rights to freedom of religion and exercise of human conscience: http://hrbrief.org/2012/09/the-practice-of-ritual-killings-and-human-sacrifice-in-africa/

The Practice of Ritual Killings and Human Sacrifice in Africa

September 6, 2012 By \\

Despite the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights’ that provides an individual is entitled to respect for his life and integrity of his person, ritual killings and the practice of human sacrifice continue in several African countries. These practices entail the hunting down, mutilation, and murder of the most vulnerable people in society**, including people with disabilities, women, and children. Reports indicate that killings of this nature occur in Nigeria, Uganda, Swaziland, Liberia, Botswana, South Africa, Tanzania, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. Because of the secrecy involved in ritual sacrifices, a majority of these incidents go unreported and uninvestigated. Anti-sacrifice advocates face an uphill battle in combating these rituals because the practices are largely denied and touch on cultural underpinnings, resulting in an ideological conflict between protection of human rights and respect for the beliefs and practices of other cultures.

Those who practice sacrifice and ritual killings believe them to be acts of spiritual fortification. Motivations to carry out these acts include the use of human body parts for medicinal purposes and the belief that human body parts possess supernatural powers that bring prosperity and protection. In Uganda, reports indicate that child sacrifice is a business where the wealthy pay witch doctors to conduct sacrifices in an effort to expand their fortunes. In Swaziland and Liberia, politicians allegedly commission ritual killings to improve their odds in elections. In parts of South Africa, ritual killings are culturally accepted, and the practice is often not reported by community members.

Questions of cultural relativism may arise with respect to ritual killings because they may be linked with religious beliefs. Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights guarantees freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion. The article also states that “No one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms.” While a broad reading of Article 8 guaranteeing the right to religious freedom could theoretically permit ritual killings for religious reasons, the “subject to law and order” clause may be invoked to limit the free practice of religion with respect to ritual killings. Furthermore, reading the Charter in its entirety supports a prohibition on ritual killings. For instance, Article 5 states that every individual shall be “entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person.” If ritual killings were permitted as an acceptable exercise of religious freedom, the door is opened to many of potential human rights violations on the basis of religion.

In response to recent reports of ritual killings allegedly conducted by some traditional healers, other healers have spoken out against ritual killings, arguing that those practices are a disgrace to the history and culture of African medicine men and healers. In March 2012, Sierra Leone’s union of traditional healers met to put forward their campaign against ritual killings. Since the union’s founding in 2008, their mandate has always been to stop indiscriminate killings and afflictions of the innocent.

Activists rallying against ritual killings are calling for stronger protections, including legislation that would allow for the regulation of traditional healers. Some countries, such as Uganda, Rwanda, and Nigeria have taken steps to begin regulate traditional healers, but regulation is not widespread. Appropriately regulating traditional healers could provide necessary protection for individuals seeking care from traditional healers and could hold healers accountable for unlawful acts, such as ritual killings. Furthermore, regulation could provide protection for traditional healers, for example, with respect to intellectual property rights.

As they have done for centuries, traditional healers continue to fulfill an important role of providing beneficial medical services to communities. However, the practice of ritual killings and human sacrifice goes against the fundamental human rights norm of ensuring respect for an individual’s life and integrity of person. Although the African Charter guarantees the right to freely practice one’s religion, ritual killings are not permissible on this basis. The positive contributions of traditional healers to many African societies should not be compromised by the practice of ritual killings. Activists and governments can ensure respect for the human rights of all individuals by working to ensure transparency and accountability among traditional healers.

**CEL III Note Added: is it even worth mentioning that the minority Whites in post-Apartheid South Africa, not to mention any whites foolish enough to remain in Zimbabwe or Namibia, are among the most vulnerable members of society?

MATT TAIBBI (Rolling Stones) has written some of the best articles about Banking-Financial Fraud over the past 7 years

Random thought for the day: when there is this much banking fraud going on, and the Trial Courts are barely aware of it, should there be any such thing as “Res Judicata” against any homeowner foreclosed since at least Y2K (the year 2000 A.D.)?   For a Hebrew Bible-based Israeli Jurisprudence argument against finality of litigation, res judicata, or collateral estoppel, see: Reconsidering Res Judicata_ A Comparative Perspective-Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 2011

Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever

The Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There’s no price the big banks can’t fix

Illustration by Victor Juhasz
April 25, 2013 1:00 PM ET

Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world’s largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.

You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that’s trillion, with a “t”) worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it “dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.”

That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world’s largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world’s largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.

Interest-rate swaps are a tool used by big cities, major corporations and sovereign governments to manage their debt, and the scale of their use is almost unimaginably massive. It’s about a $379 trillion market, meaning that any manipulation would affect a pile of assets about 100 times the size of the United States federal budget.

It should surprise no one that among the players implicated in this scheme to fix the prices of interest-rate swaps are the same megabanks – including Barclays, UBS, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland – that serve on the Libor panel that sets global interest rates. In fact, in recent years many of these banks have already paid multimillion-dollar settlements for anti-competitive manipulation of one form or another (in addition to Libor, some were caught up in an anti-competitive scheme, detailed in Rolling Stone last year, to rig municipal-debt service auctions). Though the jumble of financial acronyms sounds like gibberish to the layperson, the fact that there may now be price-fixing scandals involving both Libor and ISDAfix suggests a single, giant mushrooming conspiracy of collusion and price-fixing hovering under the ostensibly competitive veneer of Wall Street culture.

The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia

Why? Because Libor already affects the prices of interest-rate swaps, making this a manipulation-on-manipulation situation. If the allegations prove to be right, that will mean that swap customers have been paying for two different layers of price-fixing corruption. If you can imagine paying 20 bucks for a crappy PB&J because some evil cabal of agribusiness companies colluded to fix the prices of both peanuts and peanut butter, you come close to grasping the lunacy of financial markets where both interest rates and interest-rate swaps are being manipulated at the same time, often by the same banks.

“It’s a double conspiracy,” says an amazed Michael Greenberger, a former director of the trading and markets division at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and now a professor at the University of Maryland. “It’s the height of criminality.”

The bad news didn’t stop with swaps and interest rates. In March, it also came out that two regulators – the CFTC here in the U.S. and the Madrid-based International Organization of Securities Commissions – were spurred by the Libor revelations to investigate the possibility of collusive manipulation of gold and silver prices. “Given the clubby manipulation efforts we saw in Libor benchmarks, I assume other benchmarks – many other benchmarks – are legit areas of inquiry,” CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton said.

But the biggest shock came out of a federal courtroom at the end of March – though if you follow these matters closely, it may not have been so shocking at all – when a landmark class-action civil lawsuit against the banks for Libor-related offenses was dismissed. In that case, a federal judge accepted the banker-defendants’ incredible argument: If cities and towns and other investors lost money because of Libor manipulation, that was their own fault for ever thinking the banks were competing in the first place.

“A farce,” was one antitrust lawyer’s response to the eyebrow-raising dismissal.

“Incredible,” says Sylvia Sokol, an attorney for Constantine Cannon, a firm that specializes in antitrust cases.

All of these stories collectively pointed to the same thing: These banks, which already possess enormous power just by virtue of their financial holdings – in the United States, the top six banks, many of them the same names you see on the Libor and ISDAfix panels, own assets equivalent to 60 percent of the nation’s GDP – are beginning to realize the awesome possibilities for increased profit and political might that would come with colluding instead of competing. Moreover, it’s increasingly clear that both the criminal justice system and the civil courts may be impotent to stop them, even when they do get caught working together to game the system.

If true, that would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above. And those who are doing it can get away with it. Forget the Illuminati – this is the real thing, and it’s no secret. You can stare right at it, anytime you want.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425#ixzz2W8St7HJM
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Richard Wagner: the Founder of the Modern Theatre, Theatrical Style, and Godfather of Modern Love?

What a strange irony that the artistic creator of what is arguably the greatest music created by man in all of human history, the inventor of the modern stage and theatrical style, and the author of beautiful poetry and transformational tellings of ancient myth as Richard Wagner should be remembered by the world at large, as a matter of popular culture, for his anti-semitism.

And in relationship to that quote attributed to Hitler, “Whoever wishes to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner,” for which I still cannot find or verify a single time and place source, what an irony that the Man who dreamt of German Conquest and Domination of the World single-handedly, or as single-handedly as any ruler could, made inevitable the mass destruction of Germany and Austria, and yet is primarily remembered for his “destruction” of the Jews.

The term “Holocaust” is an ancient Greek term for “sacrifice by fire” or as the term is so often translated in the Bible, “a burnt offering.”  The Ancient Kings of Israel and Judah routinely sacrificed their own children as “burnt offerings”—this is a commonplace among the Western Semitic people, best documented archaeologically from the several decades of Harvard University excavations at Carthage in Tunisia (founded by the Phoenicians who sailed west from Tyre and Sidon in modern Lebanon, as closely related to the ancient Israelites as any people of the world could possibly have been).  Pits filed with burnt children sacrificial victims are among the most commonplace  “major ritual and ceremonial” finds at ancient Carthage.

The purpose of all human sacrifice is to generate new life.  It is well known that, early in his Chancellorship, Hitler urged the emigration of Jews to Palestine, and the Constitution of Palestine as a Jewish Homeland.  It is also well known that within 36 months and a fortnight of Hitler’s April 30, 1945 suicide in the Berlin Bunker, the State of Israel was announced by David Ben Gurion on May 14, 1948.  Furthermore, it is all but universally acknowledged that but for the “Holocaust”, Israel would most likely never have come into existence as a Jewish nation and homeland.  

So was Adolf Hitler really the extreme nemesis of the Jewish People of the World?  Or was Adolf Hitler really the Godfather of Israel, much as he was the Godfather of the United Nations and a single world in which nations (including, presumably, eventually, both Germany and Israel, as well as the United States, the United Kingdom, England, France, Spain, Italy, Scotland, and Ireland, are all to be abolished?

Nietzsche is famous for his axiom: what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.  Did Hitler know or could he have envisioned that his actions would lead to the destruction of Germany?  His best generals all believed that this end was foreseeable.   So did Hitler know or could he have envisioned that on the barely cold ashes of Nazi Germany, Israel would be built?  

So who provided the greatest number of sacrificial lambs for the “burnt offering” or Holocaust offered to create the state of Israel?  Was it the Jewish Victims of Nazi Oppression, or was it the People of Germany who saw their world bombed and obliterated to smithereens?  How lost more lives?  Who gave more children?  Are these not legitimate questions for historical dialogue and research?

Wagner Bicentennial Symposium
Evil Genius:
Constructing Wagner as Moral Pariah, Part 2

wagner-013,016 words

Part 2 of 4

Wagner’s Racial Thinking

In addition to his concern about the baleful Jewish influence on German culture, Wagner, under the influence of Darwinism and the French racial theorist Arthur de Gobineau, became increasingly concerned about the fate of the White race generally. Wagner met Gobineau in Rome in 1876, and then again in Venice in 1880 when he read the French author’s bestselling An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Raceswhich had been published 25 years earlier.

Wagner thought that Gobineau had demonstrated in this famous essay that “we should have no History of Man at all, had there been no movements, creations, and achievements of the White man,” and was taken with his pessimistic notion that Western society was doomed because miscegenation would inevitably lead to the degeneration of the White race.

He nevertheless disagreed with Gobineau’s claim that this degeneration was unstoppable. In his essay “Hero-dom and Christianity,” Wagner writes that:“We cannot withhold our acknowledgment that the human family consists of irremediably disparate races, whereof the noblest well might rule the more ignoble, yet never raise them to their level by commixture, but simply sink to theirs.” The Jews, however, offered a unique exception to this general rule:

The Jew, on the contrary, is the most astounding instance of racial congruence ever offered by world history. Without a fatherland, a mother tongue midst every people’s land and tongue he finds himself again, in virtue of the unfailing instinct of his absolute and indelible idiosyncrasy: even commixture of blood does not hurt him; let Jew or Jewess intermarry with the most distinct of races, a Jew will always come to birth. [1] 

While accepting many of Gobineau’s basic premises, Wagner, in his 1881 essay about the German people entitled “Know Thyself” rejects the idea of complete Aryan superiority and writes about the “enormous disadvantage at which the German race . . . appears to stand against the Jewish.” Furthermore, when Gobineau stayed with the Wagners at Wahnfried for five weeks in 1881, their conversations were punctuated with frequent arguments. Cosima Wagner’s diary recounts one exchange in which Wagner “positively exploded in favor of Christianity as compared to racial theory.” Wagner proposed that a “true Christianity” could provide for the moral harmonization of all races, which could, in turn, help prevent the physical unification of the races, and thereby the degeneration of the White race through miscegenation: 

Incomparably fewer in individual numbers than the lower races, the ruin of the white races may be referred to their having been obliged to mix with them; whereby, as remarked already, they suffered more from the loss of their purity than the others could gain by the ennobling of their blood. . . . To us Equality is only thinkable as based upon a universal moral concord, such as we can but deem true Christianity elect to bring about.[2] 

Wagner had first developed the idea of a revolutionary new Christianity in the opera text Jesus of Nazareth (1849), which depicted Jesus as redeeming man from the materialism of the “Roman world . . . and still more, of that [Jewish] world subject to the Romans. . . . I saw the modern world of the present day as a prey to the worthlessness akin to that which surrounded Jesus.”[3] Wagner here drew heavily on Kant’s critique of Judaism. Enslaved to the Law, the Jews had rejected Jesus’ message of love; Jewish egoism and lovelessness had led Judas to betray him. The Jews had preferred “power, domination . . . [and] the loveless forces of property and law, symbolized by Judaism.”[4] Wagner’s hope for the emergence of a “new Christianity” to act as a bulwark against miscegenation and the degeneration of the White race has not transpired, although some Jewish commentators see it as having being realized in the ideology and practice of National Socialism.

For the Jewish music critic Larry Solomon, in Richard Wagner “all the racist historical models from Luther to Fichte, Feuerbach, Gobineau, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Chamberlain, come to full maturity.”[5] Yet, despite the irate epithets routinely directed at Wagner, most of his assertions are objectively true — not least his many warnings about the dangers of the Jewish economic and cultural domination of Western nations. The evidence shows that the races are unequal intellectually and physically, and race mixingdoes lead (on average) to the cognitive decline of the more intelligent racial party to the admixture. It should also be noted that Wagner’s racial views were mainstream opinions at the time he expressed them — not least among the leading Jewish intellectuals I cited in my review of Jews & Race — Writings on Identity and Difference 1880–1940.[6]

Wagner’s views on the Jewish Question strongly paralleled those of the leading Zionist Theodor Herzl. Both Wagner and Herzl saw the Jews as a distinct and foreign group in Europe. Herzl saw anti-Semitism as “an understandable reaction to Jewish defects” brought about by the Jewish persecution of gentiles. Jews had, he claimed, been educated by Judaism to be “leeches” and possessed “frightful financial power.”[7] For Herzl, the Jews were a money worshipping people incapable of understanding any other motives than money. Kevin MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that Herzl argued that “a prime source of modern anti-Semitism was that emancipation had brought Jews into direct economic competition with the gentile middle classes. Anti-Semitism based on resource competition was rational.” Herzl “insisted that one could not expect a majority to ‘let itself be subjugated’ by formally scorned outsiders that they had just released from the ghetto.”[8] Pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim notes that “Wagner’s conclusion about the Jewish problem was not only verbally similar to Herzl’s” but that “both Wagner and Herzl favored the emigration of the German Jews.”[9] Despite their convergence of opinion on the Jewish Question, Herzl avoided the opprobrium that was posthumously heaped on Wagner; intellectual consistency being the first casualty of Jewish ethnic warfare through the construction of culture.

Jewish Responses to Wagner’s Ideas

Basically ignoring whether Wagner’s views on Jewish influence on German art and culture had any validity, a long line of Jewish music writers and intellectuals have furiously attacked the composer for having expressed them. In his essay “Know Thyself” Wagner writes of the fierce backlash that followed his drawing “notice to the Jews’ inaptitude for taking a productive share in our Art,” which was “met by the utmost indignation of Jews alike and Germans; it became quite dangerous to breathe the word ‘Jew’ with a doubtful accent.”[10] Wagner was surprised by the hornet’s nest he had stirred up, and in a letter to Liszt noted that “I seem to have struck home with terrible force, which suits me purpose admirably, since that is precisely the sort of shock that I wanted to give them. For they will always remain our masters — that much is as certain as the fact that it is not our princes who are now our masters, but bankers and philistines.”[11]

Wagner’s critique of Jewish influence on German art and culture could not be dismissed as the ravings of an unintelligent and ignorant fool. Richard Wagner was, by common consent, one of the most brilliant human beings to have ever lived, and his views on the Jewish Question were cogent and rational. Accordingly, Jewish critics soon settled on the response of ascribing psychiatric disorders to Wagner, and this has been a stock approach ever since. As early as 1872 the German Jewish psychiatrist Theodor Puschmann, offered a psychological assessment of Wagner which was widely reported in the German press. He claimed that Wagner was suffering from “chronic megalomania, paranoia . . . and moral derangement.”[12] Cesare Lombroso, the famous nineteenth century Jewish Italian criminologist branded Wagner “a sexual psychopath.”[13]

In 1968 the Jewish writer Robert Gutman published a biography of Wagner (Richard Wagner: the Man, his Mind and his Music) in which he portrayed his subject as a racist, psychopathic, proto-Nazi monster. Gutman’s scholarship was questioned at the time, but this did not prevent his book from becoming a best-seller, and as one source notes: “An entire generation of students has been encouraged to accept Gutman’s caricature of Richard Wagner. Even intelligent people, who have either never read Wagner’s writings or tried to penetrate them and failed . . . have read Gutman’s book and accepted his opinions as facts.”[14] The long-time music critic for the New York Times, the Jewish Harold Schonberg, described Wagner in his Lives of the Great Composers as: “Amoral, hedonistic, selfish, virulently racist, arrogant, filled with gospels of the superman . . . and the superiority of the German race, he stands for all that is unpleasant in human character.”[15]

Another prominent refrain from Jewish commentators like Jacob Katz, the author of The Darker Side of Genius: Richard Wagner’s Anti-Semitism, is that Wagner’s concern about the Jewish influence on German culture stemmed from his morbid jealousy at all the brilliant Jews around him like Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer and Heine. Taking up this theme, the music writer David Goldman insists that: “Wagner ripped off the scenario for his opera ‘The Flying Dutchman’ from Heine and knocked off Mendelssohn’s ‘Fingal’s Cave’ overture in the ‘Dutchman’s’ evocation of the sea. Wagner tried to cover his guilty tracks by denouncing Jewish composers he emulated, including Giacomo Meyerbeer. Wagner was not just a Jew-hater, then, but a backstabbing self-promoter who defamed the Jewish artists he emulated and who (in Meyerbeer’s case) had advanced his career.”[16]Boroson, writing in the Jewish Standard, likewise claims that Wagner’s envy of Meyerbeer’s success “played a pivotal role in Wagner’s suddenly becoming a Jew-hater.”[17]

Numerous sources trace Wagner’s anti-Semitism to his perception that a clique of powerful Jews (led by Meyerbeer and Halévy) had thwarted the staging of his Rienzi in Paris, and “at his dependence on money lenders, mostly presumably Jewish, at this time.”[18] Carr notes that from early in his career Wagner’s profligacy “put him in hock with moneylenders who were usually Jews.” Already in Magdeburg where he courted his first wife Minna, “he railed at having to deal with the ‘Jewish scum’ because ‘our people’ offered no credit. In Paris he pawned his goods to Jews and did work he felt was menial for, amongst others, Maurice Schlesinger, a Jewish music publisher. Schlesinger’s cash helped ward off starvation but that made the struggling composer feel no better.”[19] Magee notes that the two-and-a-half years Wagner spent in Paris trying and failing to establish himself was “the worst period of deprivation and humiliation he ever had to suffer.”[20]

Invoking Freud and the Frankfurt School, the Jewish music writer Marc A. Weiner in hisRichard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination, claims that: “Wagner’s vehement hatred of Jews was based on a model of projection involving a deep-seated fear of precisely those features within the Self (diminutive stature, nervous demeanour and avarice, as well as lascivious nature) that are projected upon and then recognized and stigmatized in the hated Other.”[21] Weiner’s view echoes that of the Jewish psychiatrist Theodore Rubin who views anti-Semitism as a “symbol sickness” that involves envy, low self-esteem, and projection of one’s inner conflicts onto a stereotyped other.[22]

All these various theories, where Wagner’s criticism of Jewish influence is made a scapegoat for his own psychological frustrations, vastly overemphasize the irrational sources of prejudice and effectively serve to “clothe the Jews in defensive innocence.”[23] According to these theories, anti-Jewish statements are never rational, but invariably the product of a warped mind, while Jewish critiques of Europeans and their culture always have a thoroughly rational basis.

Another well-worn theory has it that Wagner may have been part-Jewish, and that his anti-Semitism was his way of dealing this unedifying prospect (a variation of the “self-hating Jew” hypothesis). It is claimed that Wagner’s biological father was not his presumed father, the police registrar Friedrich Wagner who died of typhus shortly after Wagner’s birth, but his stepfather, the successful actor and painter Ludwig Geyer. However, there is no evidence that Geyer had any Jewish roots. In his biography of Wagner, John Chancellor states plainly that he had none, and that: “He [Geyer] claimed the same sturdy descent as the Wagners. His pedigree also went back to the middle of the seventeenth century and his forefathers were also, for the most part, organists in small Thuringian towns and villages.”[24] Magee is even more categorical, stating that: “Geyer was not Jewish, and it had never occurred to anyone who knew him to think that he might be. He came from a long line of church musicians; for generations his forebears had been Lutheran cantors and organists in the town of Eisleben. There was nothing Jewish about his appearance that might have misled people who were ignorant of his background.”[25]

Chancellor blames Friedrich Nietzsche for first raising the question of Geyer’s possible Jewishness to add extra sting to his charge of illegitimacy, after the philosopher famously fell out with Wagner after years of close friendship. In his 1888 book Der Fall Wagner(The Case of Wagner) Nietzsche claimed that Wagner’s father was Geyer, and made the pun that “Ein Geyer ist beinahe schon ein Adler” (A vulture is almost an eagle) — Geyer also being the German word for a vulture and Adler being a common (but not exclusively) Jewish surname. Magee, while agreeing that Nietzsche undoubtedly intended to rile Wagner with the suggestion of his possible Jewish ancestry, believes Nietzsche’s words also represented a jibe of a quite different kind.

Wagner, a provincial with a regional accent, a lower-middle class family background, and a long personal history of penury, had risen late in life to walk with kings and emperors; and somewhere along the way (strikingly reminiscent of Shakespeare, this, as so often) he allotted himself a coat of arms. This was revealingly (it shows what he thought his descent was), the “Geyer” coat of arms, prominently featuring a vulture against the shield while the kings and emperors would have been displaying their royal or imperial eagles. I think it is more than likely that Nietzsche was being sarcastic about Wagner’s self-promotion to the arms-bearing ranks of society with his “a vulture is almost an eagle.”[26]

If, as has been often claimed, Wagner was concerned with denying the possibility that Geyer may have been his father (because of Geyer’s possible Jewish ancestry), why would he have adopted the Geyer coat of arms and insist it be prominently displayed on the cover of his autobiography? This obvious fact apparently did not deter Gutman who contended that Richard Wagner and his wife Cosima tried to outdo each other in their anti-Semitism because they both had Jewish roots to conceal. While offering no proof whatsoever that Geyer was Jewish, Gutman maintained that Wagner in his later years discovered letters from Geyer to his mother which led him to suspect that Geyer was his biological father, and that Geyer might have been Jewish. Wagner’s anti-Semitism was, according to Gutman, his way of dealing with the fear that people would think he was Jewish. Derek Strahan recycles this discredited theme in a recent article, noting that: 

Geyer’s affair with Wagner’s mother pre-dated the death of Wagner’s presumed father, Friedrich Wagner, a Police Registrar who was ill at the time young Richard was conceived, and who died six months after his birth. Soon after this, Wagner’s mother Johanna married Ludwig Geyer. Richard Wagner himself was known as Richard Geyer until, at the age of 14, he had his name legally changed to Wagner. Apparently he had taken some abuse at school because of his Jewish-sounding name. Could his later anti-Semitism have been motivated, at least in part, by sensitivity to this abuse, and by a kind of pre-emptive denial to prevent difficulties and suffering arising from prejudice?[27]   

According to the only evidence we have on this point (Cosima’s diaries, 26 December 1868) Wagner “did not believe” that Ludwig Geyer was his real father. Cosima did, however, once note a resemblance between Wagner’s son Siegfried and a picture of Geyer.[28] Pursuing the theme that anyone who expresses antipathy toward Jews must be psychologically unhealthy, Solomon draws a parallel between Wagner and Adolf Hitler in that: “Both feared they had Jewish paternity, which led to fierce denial and destructive hatred.”[29] For Magee, these theories, which are now widely entrenched in the Wagner literature, are the “crassest falsehood,” and: “The idea that Geyer might have been Jewish, or even that Wagner thought that he might have been, is pure fabrication, distilled nonsense.”[30]

Notes

[1] Richard Wagner, “Hero-dom and Christianity,” trans. by William Ashton Ellis, In:Richard Wagner’s Prose Works Vol. 6 (London: 1897; repr. 1966), 275–84,http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/waghero.htm

[2] Richard Wagner, “Know Thyself,” trans. by William Ashton Ellis, In: Richard Wagner’s Prose Works Vol. 6 (London: 1897; repr. 1966), 264–74,http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagknow.htm

[3] Quoted in Paul Lawrence Rose, German Question/Jewish Question, 361.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Larry Solomon, “Wagner and Hitler,” http://solomonsmusic.net/WagHit.htm

[6] Brenton Sanderson, “Jews and Race: A Pre-Boasian Perspective,” The Occidental Observer, February 1, 2012, http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/02/jews-and-race-a-pre-boasian-perspective/

[7] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 57.

[8] Ibid., 54.

[9] Daniel Barenboim, “Wagner, Israel and the Palestinians,”http://www.danielbarenboim.com/index.php?id=72

[10] Richard Wagner, “Know Thyself,” Ibid.

[11] Magee, Wagner and Philosophy, 352.

[12] Quoted in Martin Kitchen, The Cambridge Illustrated History of GermanyIbid.

[13] Christopher Nicholson, Richard and Adolf: Did Richard Wagner Incite Adolf Hitler to Commit the Holocaust (Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House, 2007), 131.

[14] Monsalvat website, “Parsifal and Race: Wagner’s Last Card,”http://www.monsalvat.no/racism.htm

[15] Harold Schonberg, The Lives of the Great Composers (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), 268.

[16] David P. Goldman, “Muted: Performances of Wagner’s music are effectively banned in Israel. Should they be?” Tablet, August 17, 2011, http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/music/75247/muted

[17] Warren Boroson, “Richard Wagner — The Devil Who Had Good Tunes,” Jewish Standard, August 7, 2009, 16.

[18] Michael Steen, The Lives and Times of The Great Composers (London: Icon Books, 2005), 464.

[19] Carr, The Wagner Clan, 83.

[20] Magee, Aspects of Wagner, 26.

[21] Marc A. Weiner, Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 6.

[22] Theodore Isaac Rubin, Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind (New York: Barricade, 2011), 12.

[23] Quoted in MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 58.

[24] John Chancellor, Wagner (New York: HarperCollins, 1980), 6.

[25] Magee, Wagner and Philosophy, 358.

[26] Ibid., 360.

[27] Derek Strahan, “Was Wagner Jewish: an old question newly revisited,”http://www.revolve.com.au/polemic/wagner.html

[28] Quoted in John Deathridge, Wagner: Beyond Good and Evil (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 1.

[29] Solomon, “Wagner and Hitler,” Ibid.

[30] Magee, Wagner and Philosophy, 358.