Chapter 9 THE VICIOUS CABAL
“O Lord, You made the world for our sakes. As for the other people, which also come of Adam, You have said that they are nothing, but like spittle.”
Fourth Book of Ezra 6:55–56
As we have seen, the end of the 1960s marked a decisive turning point in the United States’ relationship with Israel. One key factor was the emergence of a new American Jewish elite who, under the misleading name of “neoconservatives,” was gradually gaining considerable influence over American foreign policy. The neoconservative movement was born in the editorial office of the monthly magazine Commentary, the press organ of the American Jewish Committee. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” writes Gal Beckerman in The Jewish Daily Forward, January 6, 2006. “It is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”528
The founding fathers of neoconservatism (Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Donald Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Adam Shulsky) are disciples of Leo Strauss. Born into a family of German Orthodox Jews, Strauss taught mainly at the University of Chicago and was a specialist in Thomas Hobbes. Strauss’s thought is often elliptical because he believes that truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds (while religion is for the rest, as the necessary opium of the people). For this reason, Strauss rarely speaks in his own name, but rather expresses himself as a commentator on such classical authors as Plato or Thomas Hobbes. Though Strauss is difficult to read, three basic ideas can easily be extracted from his political philosophy. First, nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for government and governance. Second, national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality, but rather are socio-cultural constructions that the state has a duty to disseminate. Third, to be effective, any national myth must be marked by a clear distinction between good and evil, for it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.529
Strauss greatly admired Machiavelli, the fifteenth-century political philosopher who rejected the classical tradition that sought to make virtue the foundation of power, and asserted that only the appearance of virtue counts, and that the successful prince must be a “great simulator” who “manipulates and cons people’s minds.” In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, Strauss parts from the intellectual trend of trying to rehabilitate the author of The Prince, and instead agrees with the “simple opinion” that regards his political theory as immoral, for it is precisely in this immorality that resides “the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.” Machiavelli, writes Strauss, “is a patriot of a particular kind: He is more concerned with the salvation of his fatherland than with the salvation of his soul.”530
Strauss, like his disciples, could be qualified as a meta-Zionist in the sense that, while he is an ardent supporter of the State of Israel, he rejects the idea that Israel as a nation should be contained within borders; Israel must retain her specificity, which is to be everywhere. In his 1962 lecture “Why We Remain Jews,” Strauss quotes, as “the most profound and radical statement on assimilation that I have read,” Nietzsche’s Dawn of Day aphorism 205, a sort of prophecy of the Jews’ conquest through integration: “It only remains for them either to become the lords of Europe or to lose Europe […] at some time Europe may fall like a perfectly ripe fruit into their hand, which only casually reaches out. In the meantime it is necessary for them to distinguish themselves in all the areas of European distinction and to stand among the first, until they will be far enough along to determine themselves that which distinguishes.”531
Second, the neoconservatives of the first generation mostly came from the left, even the extreme Trotskyist left for some luminaries like Irving Kristol, one of the main editors of Commentary. It was at the end of the 60s that Commentary became, in the words of Benjamin Balint, “the contentious magazine that transformed the Jewish left into the neoconservative right.”532 Sexual liberation, which they had largely supported, suddenly seemed decadent; and pacifism, irresponsible. Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief of Commentary from 1960 to 1995, changed from anti-Vietnam War activist to defense budget booster, leading the rest of the magazine along with him. He gave the explanation of this turning point in 1979: “American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs—from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood [. . .] that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.”533 Since the survival of Israel depends on American protection and help, US military might and global involvement must be reinforced. This is why Irving Kristol committed members of the American Jewish Congress in 1973 to fight George McGovern’s proposal to reduce the military budget by 30 percent: “This is to drive a knife into the heart of Israel. [. . .] Jews don’t like a big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. [. . .] American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”534 It is therefore good for Israel that American Jews become, as American citizens, ardent interventionists. But it was also necessary that this interventionism should appear on the national public scene as American patriotism. This explains why the neoconservatives take such special care to forbid any public mention of their Jewishness. Even Carl Bernstein, though a Jew himself, provoked a scandal by citing, on national television, the responsibility of “Jewish neocons” for the Iraq war.535 The truth is that the neoconservatives are crypto-Zionists. The “neoconservative” label they have given themselves is a mask. (Most “neo” things are fake).
Crypto-Zionism is a phenomenon that goes far beyond neoconservatism, and can even be compared to the crypto-Judaism of the sixteenth century. If, after June 1967, as Norman Podhoretz recalls, Israel became “the religion of the American Jews,”536 it goes without saying that this religion should remain discreet, if possible even secret, since it was incompatible with American patriotism, at least as conceived by those who, in a similar way, consecrate an almost religious worship to America. The loyalty of American Jews to Israel, of course, naturally engendered the fear of being accused of allegiance to a foreign state, and thus aroused in them, as protective camouflage, increased patriotism in their public proclamations. The more American Jews became Israelis, the more they felt the need to be American in the public square. It was not just about being a Jew in the tent and a man in the street, according to the saying of the Haskalah, but of being “an Israeli within the Jewish community, and an American on the public goy stage.” For most of today’s American Jews, this dual identity has become almost an unconscious reflex, as the interests of Israel and the United States seem to coincide in their mind. But to get there, it was necessary that this habit of thought be inculcated into them by their ruling elites. The neoconservatives were the spearhead of this ideological struggle, gradually dragging along with them almost all the Jewish representative elites of America. They highlighted a new form of US patriotism profitable to Israel, just as the sixteenth-century crypto-Jews had encouraged a new pro-Judaism form of Christianity (Calvinism).
The Hijacking of the Republican Party
The neoconservatives initially operated in the Democratic camp because, until the 1980s, interventionism was a Democratic tradition, linked to a “progressive” utopian discourse. It was Woodrow Wilson who had declared in 1912, “We are chosen and prominently chosen to show the way to the nations of the world how they shall walk in the path of liberty.”537 Richard Perle, one of the most influential and most Machiavellian neocons, was from 1969 to 1980 parliamentary assistant to Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who succeeded Johnson as the leader of the militarist and pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party. In 1970, Perle was caught red- handed by the FBI while transmitting to the Israeli embassy classified information obtained from Hal Sonnenfeldt, a member of the National Security Council.538
Perle skillfully took advantage of the Watergate hurricane to bring his two associates, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, into the Republican camp. The two would remain the main mercenaries or “Sabbath goys” of the neoconservatives, placed in strategic posts to open the doors of the kingdom. After succeeding Nixon, Gerald Ford (who had been a member of the Warren Commission) appointed Donald Rumsfeld as his chief of staff; Rumsfeld then chose Dick Cheney as his deputy. Having inspired Ford in the cabinet reshuffle that became known journalistically as the “Halloween Massacre,” Rumsfeld then seized the position of secretary of defense, while Cheney replaced him as chief of staff. Thus there appeared for the first time the explosive combination of Rumsfeld at Defense, Cheney in the White House.
After America evacuated its troops from Vietnam in 1973, the Cold War calmed down, partly thanks to the diplomatic initiatives of Nixon and Kissinger. The CIA produced reassuring analyses of the USSR’s military capabilities and ambitions. It was then that, with the help of a powerful lobby financed by weapons manufacturers—the Committee on the Present Danger— Rumsfeld and Cheney persuaded Ford to appoint an independent committee, known as Team B. Its mandate was to revise upward the CIA estimates of the Soviet threat, and reactivate a war atmosphere in public opinion, Congress, and the administration. Team B was composed of twelve experts chosen from among the most fanatical cold warriors. It was chaired by Richard Pipes and cochaired by Paul Wolfowitz, two protégés of Perle. The committee produced a terrifying report claiming Moscow possessed not only a large and sophisticated arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, but also the will to dominate all of Europe and the Middle East— and the readiness to start a nuclear confrontation. Pointing to a “window of vulnerability” in the US defense system, Team B’s report advocated a broad and urgent increase in the defense budget, which began under Carter and then accelerated under Reagan.
Thus those who were later called the neoconservatives entered the state apparatus for the first time—in the baggage of Rumsfeld and Cheney—and bound their fate to the Republican party. Those previously called “conservatives,” who were non-interventionists, were gradually pushed to the margins and described as paleo-conservatives, while the neoconservatives took over the reins of the Republican Party. During the parenthesis of Democratic president Jimmy Carter (1976–80), the neoconservatives reinforced their influence within the Republican Party. In order to unify the largest number of Jews around their policies, they founded the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which became the second-most powerful pro-Israel lobby after AIPAC. One of its stated aims was: “To inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.”539
Mimicking true conservatives, neoconservatives built their reputations for defending American traditional values. The best-known example is that of Allan Bloom, a disciple of Leo Strauss, who published The Closing of the American Mind in 1988. This moralistic posture, along with their warlike anti-communism, allowed the neocons to rally the Christian right. In 1980 evangelical Christians became for the first time a major electoral force mobilized to support Israel in the name of the struggle against communism. They had the advantage of being extremely manipulable, quaffing as “gospel truth” the inflamed sermons of the stars of their mega-churches, who assumed ever-more-assertive pro-Israel positions. Exemplifying this trend, televangelist Jerry Falwell received the Jabotinsky Centennial Medal from Menachem Begin in 1980 for services rendered to Israel, declaring “he who stands against Israel stands against God.”540
Pastors such as Falwell help influence US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. But even more importantly, they serve as camouflage for the neoconservatives. The obtrusive presence of Christians makes Jewish influence less visible. In reality, evangelical Christians do represent an electoral force, but have no coherent political agenda and therefore no direct political power. When, in 1980, the evangelical Christians voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan, none of their representatives acceded to any position of responsibility.
On the other hand, the neoconservatives were paid with a dozen posts in national security and foreign policy: Richard Perle and Douglas Feith to the Department of Defense, Richard Pipes at the National Security Council, and Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Michael Ledeen in the State Department. They helped Reagan escalate the Cold War, showering billions of dollars on the military-industrial complex. Thanks in particular to the Strategic Defense Initiative, a space shield better known as “Star Wars,” the defense budget exploded, reaching for the first time the landmark of a trillion dollars. Reagan created CENTCOM, the US military command center in the Middle East, and consolidated the American alliance with Israel, declaring: “Israel has the democratic will, national cohesion, technological capacity and military fiber to stand forth as America’s trusted ally.”541 In 1981, the two countries signed their first military pact, then embarked on several shared operations, some legal and others not, as evidenced by the network of arms trafficking and paramilitary operations embedded within the Iran-Contra affair. Militarism and Zionism had become so linked in their common cause that in his 1982 book The Real Anti-Semitism in America, the director of the Anti-Defamation League, Nathan Perlmutter, could portray the pacifism of the “peacemakers of Vietnam vintage, transmuters of swords into plowshares,” as a new form of anti-Semitism.542
It was in this context that Israeli strategists planned the next stage of the project for a Greater Israel extending “from the Nile to the Euphrates” according to the promise of Yahweh to Abraham (Genesis 15:18), and to the vision of the founding fathers of Zionism, including Theodor Herzl.543 One of the most explicit documents on this project, known through its translation from Hebrew into English by Israel Shahak, is a text entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the Eighties,” written for the World Zionist Organization in February 1982 by Oded Yinon, a former senior official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and contributor to The Jerusalem Post. The author presents the pluri-ethnic character of Middle Eastern states as offering “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” for opening “a new epoch in human history.” He advocates a strategy of control of the Middle East by fragmenting all of Israel’s neighbors on the model of what was partially accomplished in Lebanon by a “civil war” which, from 1975 to 1990, ravaged that nation of seventeen religious communities plus Palestinian refugees—a country, in other words, that formed an inverted reflection of the mono-confessional and endogamic nation that is Israel: “The total disintegration of Lebanon into five regional localized governments is the precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arab peninsula, in a similar fashion. The dissolution of Egypt and later Iraq into districts of ethnic and religious minorities following the example of Lebanon is the main long-range objective of Israel on the Eastern Front. The present military weakening of these states is the short-term objective. Syria will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and sectarian structure, as is happening in Lebanon today.” In this process, “Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run.”544
But it wasn’t happening fast enough. The fate of Lebanon, home of the Palestinian resistance since the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, had not yet been sealed. In June 1982, Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon launched the invasion of Lebanon (Operation “Peace in Galilee”) and pulverized the prestigious capital, Beirut, under a carpet of bombs that had been graciously furnished by the United States, killing 10,000 civilians and creating half a million refugees. The massacre of more than 1,500 women, children, and old people in the two Palestinian refugee camps of Beirut gave Sharon the nickname “the Butcher of Sabra and Shatila.” Israel’s aggression brought new chaos to Lebanon, but after the retreat of Israeli troops, Syrian and Iranian influence in the region grew stronger. Though the PLO was militarily weakened, another resistance group was born: Hezbollah, a Shi’ite movement financed by Iran and calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
Under the Israel-friendly presidency of Reagan, America could only respond with feeble gestures. What is euphemistically called the “Israeli lobby”—actually a gargantuan power machine using corruption and blackmail against the US elite—kept the number one global power on a tight leash. The 1988 election of George Bush Sr., Reagan’s vice president, changed things slightly. Bush was less a friend to Israel than to Saudi Arabia, where he had business ties since the 1970s. James Baker, his campaign manager appointed secretary of state, used economic pressure to force Israeli Prime Minister Yitshak Shamir to participate in the Madrid Conference in November 1991, and appeared receptive to Arab proposals during the Conference.545
Bush mostly purged neoconservatives from his government, but nonetheless accorded the secretary of defense post to Dick Cheney, who brought along Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz. The latter was then able to strengthen his position at the Pentagon, where he had already served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under Carter before migrating to the State Department under Reagan. When Bush unleashed Operation Desert Storm in January 1991, he did it to liberate Kuwait, protect Saudi Arabia, and annihilate the Iraqi army. He held to his UN Security Council mandate, resisting demands from the neoconservatives—he called them “the crazies”— to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime. On March 6, 1991, he stood before Congress and declared the war had ended. When he mentioned in his speech “the very real prospect of a new world order,” it was for the purpose of underlining his trust in the mission of the United Nations organization. What he called for was “a world where the United Nations, freed from the Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders.”
This was when a competing doctrine, the so-called “Wolfowitz doctrine,” was formulated in a secret report dated February 1992 and fortuitously “leaked” to The New York Times, which published extracts on March 7. Under the title Defense Planning Guidance, the report, written by Wolfowitz and Libby, vaunted American hegemony: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival,” and to enforce “the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S.” In opposition to Bush’s public discourses, the Wolfowitz report advocated unilateralism, denigrating the role of the United Nations and stating the US cannot “allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different from our own.” Therefore, “we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies.” Finally the report, which would become official policy under Bush Jr. in 2001, promotes the need for preemptive war “for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” The document also makes a specific commitment to the security of Israel.546
Bush’s opposition to the neoconservative agenda probably caused his defeat in the 1992 elections, just as the Democrat Jimmy Carter paid for his dovish policies and his critiques of Israel in 1980. It is a disconcerting fact that, since the end of World War II, the only American presidents deprived of a second term in office (including the partially deprived Nixon) were those who resisted Israel the most. The only exception is Johnson, whose unpopularity was irreversible.
Setting the Stage for the Clash of Civilizations The Clinton Administration (1993–2000) was itself “full of warm Jews,” in the words of an influential rabbi quoted by the Israeli newspaper Maariv. He deemed that the United States no longer possessed “a government of goyim.” In the National Security Council, for example, “7 out of 11 top staffers are Jews.”547
The clan of the neoconservatives, for their part, entrenched themselves in the opposition. They reinforced their influence on the Republican party and on public opinion, thanks to a press more and more subservient to their crypto-imperial version of American patriotism. They indirectly influenced foreign policy in the Middle East by creating or taking control of a large number of think tanks: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), where Richard Perle has served since 1985; the Middle East Forum (MEF) founded in 1990 by Daniel Pipes (son of Richard); and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), founded by Meyrav Wurmser in 1998. William Kristol, son of Irving, founded in 1995 a new magazine, The Weekly Standard, which immediately became the dominant voice of the neoconservatives thanks to funding from the pro-Israel Rupert Murdoch. In 1997 it would be the first publication to call for a new war against Saddam Hussein. The neocons also flooded the book market with propaganda portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to America. Besides Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein by David Wurmser (1999), let us mention Laurie Mylroie’s Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America (2000), which is about “an undercover war of terrorism, waged by Saddam Hussein,” that is nothing more than “a phase in a conflict that began in August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and that has not ended.” Richard Perle has described this book as “splendid and wholly convincing.”548
In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded Shimon Perez as Prime Minister in 1996. Netanyahu is the grandson of a Lithuanian rabbi who immigrated to Palestine in 1920. His father, like many settlers in Eastern Europe, traded his original name for a local one: Benzion Mileikowsky became Benzion Netanyahu. Benzion, whom we have already quoted in earlier chapters, was from 1940 onward the assistant to Zeev Jabotinsky, whose heroic portrait he painted in his book The Founding Fathers of Zionism (alongside Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, and Israel Zangwill). Jabotinsky, creator of the first Israeli armed forces and inspirer of the Irgun, is also the founder of “revisionist Zionism,” a current that broke with Weizmann’s World Zionist Organization in 1925. Convinced that the Zionist project could never be achieved by diplomacy alone, he wrote in 1923, in an article entitled “the Iron Wall”: “All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force, comprising an Iron Wall that the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy. […] Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or it falls by the question of armed force.”
Hypocrisy was the strategic choice of Weizmann as well as Ben-Gurion. The latter was reserved in his public statements, but privately expressed his desire to expel the Arabs from Palestine; whereas revisionist Zionism, an unrepressed movement that wears its violence on its sleeve, is more honest. The coming to power of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 thus marked the hardening of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. In 2009, Netanyahu appointed as minister of foreign affairs and deputy prime minister Avigdor Lieberman, the founder of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which presents itself as “a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave path of Zev Jabotinsky.”549 During the assault on Gaza in January 2009, Lieberman advocated “fighting Hamas just as the United States fought the Japanese during the Second World War.”550
Benjamin Netanyahu also symbolizes the increasingly important role played by neoconservatives and American Jews in general concerning the fate of Israel, which currently enjoys unprecedented support from American Jewish billionaires. He himself lived, studied, and worked in the United States from 1960 to 1978, between his 11th and his 27th year—except during his military service—and again after the age of 33, when he was appointed deputy ambassador to Washington and then permanent delegate to the United Nations. His political destiny was planned in the United States; in that sense, Netanyahu is a creature of the neoconservatives. The only thing that distinguishes him from them is that, for public relations reasons, he does not possess American nationality. Indeed, a significant number of neoconservatives are Israeli citizens, have family in Israel, or have resided there themselves. Elliott Abrams wrote in 1997, before becoming deputy national security adviser in the Bush II administration: “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart—except in Israel—from the rest of the population.”551 In 1996 the neoconservatives threw all their weight behind their ultimate think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), directed by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC recommended taking advantage of the defeat of communism to reinforce American hegemony by preventing the emergence of any rival. Their Statement of Principles vowed to extend the current Pax Americana, which entailed “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges.”552 In its September 2000 report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, PNAC anticipated that US forces must become “able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” This required a profound transformation, including a new military corps, the “US Space Forces,” to control both space and cyberspace, and the development of “a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements.” Unfortunately, according to the authors of the report, “the process of transformation […] is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”553
PNAC’s architects played the American hegemony card by draping themselves in the super- patriotic discourse of America’s civilizing mission. But their duplicity is exposed in a document brought to public knowledge in 2008: a report published in 1996 by the Israeli think tank Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, written specifically for the new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The team responsible for the report was led by Richard Perle, and included Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who figured the same year among the signatories of PNAC. As its title suggests, the Clean Break report invited Netanyahu to break with the Oslo Accords of 1993, which officially committed Israel to the return of the territories it occupied illegally since 1967. The new prime minister should instead “engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism” and reaffirm Israel’s right to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.554
One thing has not changed since the time of Ezra: Israel needs a foreign empire. Since its founding in 1948 and even more so since its expansion in 1967, Israel’s security and sustainability have depended totally on American support. America must therefore remain imperial. But the fall of communism meant the end of the Cold War. And the end of the Cold War would inevitably trigger a refocusing of the United States on internal politics, a return to the founding principles defended by the traditional conservatives (fallen to the rank of “paleoconservatives”). These principles include this famous warning from George Washington during his farewell speech: “The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. […] Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. […] And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity.”555
Israel needed to prevent at all costs an isolationist turn by the United States, which would lead to the abandonment of its “passionate attachment” for Israel. It was therefore necessary to boost the imperialistic spirit of the United States, relying on internal forces already predisposed to such a mission. These historically tended to be on the Democratic side, among the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, notably Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser and member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations. Brzezinski was basically Russophobic due to his Polish origins. He was the figurehead of the geostrategic current advocating a modern version of the Great Game, which he summarizes in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative (1998). His vision, inherited from the British theorists of the end of the nineteenth century, consists essentially of preventing Russia from allying itself with Europe by digging a “blood trench” between the Slavic and Latin peoples and controlling everything from Central Asia to Ukraine. Afghanistan has always played an important role as a buffer state, and it was Brzezinski who, under Carter, had instigated the destabilization of the pro-Soviet secular regime through the financing and arming of the mujahideen (favoring the radical Islamic allies of Pakistan over the moderates like the pro- Iranian Ahmed Massoud).556 However, Brzezinski was far from sharing the neoconservative passion for Israel; he even spoke out against Bush Sr.’s Gulf War I. In any case, he remained on the sidelines of the Clinton government and no longer had much influence in Washington in the 1990s.
The alliance of Brzezinski and his friends at the Council on Foreign Relations was therefore far from sufficient to bring America into a major military adventure in the Middle East. For this, the United States needed an enemy. Just as the First and Second World Wars were necessary to found Israel, the Cold War (or Third World War) provided the necessary context for the implementation of the Zionist program; the 1967 annexations would never have been possible without this context. After the dislocation of the Communist bloc, Israel needed a new world war, or at least a new threat of world war, to retain the support of the United States. So a new enemy, perfectly fitted to Israel’s needs, magically appeared. The new paradigm developed by the masters of hasbara (Israeli propaganda) is summarized in two slogans: the “war on terror” and the “clash of civilizations.”
The first was already widely disseminated since the 1980s, especially by Benjamin Netanyahu himself. During his years at the Washington embassy and the United Nations, Netanyahu contributed more than anyone else to introducing into the American consciousness the idea that Arab terrorism not only threatened Israel, but also the United States and the democratic world in its entirety. It is the central message of his books, International Terrorism: Challenge and Response (1982); Terrorism: How the West can Win (1986); and A Place Among the Nations: Israel and the World (1993). In the latter, he drew a systematic analogy between Arafat and Hitler, and introduced the farfetched claim that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al- Husseini, had been “one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry” by advising Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler (a claim without historical substantiation, but already current in Israeli propaganda). He also wrote: “Violence is ubiquitous in the political life of all Arab countries. […] International terrorism is the quintessential Middle East export and its techniques are those of the Arab regimes and organisations that invented it..”557 In Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists (1995), he coined the term “war on terror.”
Netanyahu appeared regularly on CNN in the early 1990s, contributing to the transformation of the world’s leading news channel into a major Zionist propaganda tool.558 As Kevin Barrett explains, “The effect of the ubiquitous terror trope is to delegitimize the exercise of power by Muslims, and to legitimize the exercise of power against them. Above all, it delegitimizes any Muslim resort to violence—even in self-defense—while offering carte-blanche legitimacy to violent aggression against Muslims.”559
The term “clash of civilizations,” which refers to a broader process encompassing “the war on terror,” was used for the first time by one of the most influential thinkers of the neoconservative current, Bernard Lewis (holder of Israeli, British, and American passports) in an article in the September 1990 issue of Atlantic Monthly, entitled “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” The concept was taken up in a manifesto by Samuel Huntington in Commentary magazine in the summer of 1994 and then in a book by the same author published by the Olin Foundation, a neoconservative think tank. After the Soviet peril, prophesied Huntington, here comes the Islamic peril. And do not be mistaken: “The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.” Huntington functioned as a liaison between Brzezinski (with whom he co-wrote articles) and the neoconservatives. He shared Brzezinski’s pragmatism and vision of the Great Game: “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”560 This was music to the ears of the neoconservatives, who make Huntington a true intellectual star.
Never in history has a book of geopolitics been the subject of such international media hype. Between 1992 and 1994 a parody of intellectual debate was acted in the press, opposing, on one side, Francis Fukuyama and his prophecy of the “end of history”—meaning “the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”—and, on the other side, Samuel Huntington and his vision of the “clash of civilizations.” Interestingly, like Brzezinski, Fukuyama and Huntington are members of the Trilateral Commission, and Fukuyama is a member of PNAC. Both were token goys, with Fukuyama playing the role of Huntington’s stooge, until the attacks of September 11, 2001, validated the latter’s prophecy in an appallingly dramatic way. Huntington’s book, meanwhile, has been translated into fifty languages and commented on by the entire world’s press. At the same time, the “clash of civilizations” has been implanted in mass consciousness by Hollywood, as Jack Shaheen explains in Real Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (Olive Branch Press, 2012), based on the analysis of more than a thousand films over thirty years.561
The neocons pressured the Clinton administration to intervene in Iraq, helped by a network of Zionist moles within the FBI and other secret services. On February 26, 1993, a bomb exploded under the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people, injuring more than a thousand and causing $300 million damage. In the course of the trial it was revealed that an FBI informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem, had been asked to supply the conspirators with explosives he believed to be fake and destined for a sting operation. As reported in The New York Times, October 28, 1993: “Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast. The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.”562
The neocons nevertheless called for a global war on terrorism, but Clinton did not relent. In a possibly unrelated incident, on September 11, 1994, a drunken pilot by the name of Frank Eugene Corder crashed his Cessna 150 L into the White House lawn two floors below Clinton’s bedroom, killing himself in the process.
Next came the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995. It was, according to investigator Michael Collins Piper, orchestrated or perhaps simply monitored and diverted by the Mossad: “The Mossad’s intent was for the tragedy to be linked to the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and that this ‘false flag’ could be used to force then-president Bill Clinton to invade Iraq and bring down Saddam, Israel’s hated enemy.” But “President Bill Clinton refused to go along with the Zionist agenda and directed those responsible for the investigation—namely the Justice Department and the FBI—to cover up the false flags.”563
As late as 2004, a book by former television journalist Jayna Davis, The Third Terrorist, acclaimed by pro-Zionist elements in the monopoly media, purported to demonstrate that Saddam and bin Laden, were involved in a highly unlikely alliance to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City and blame it on American white supremacists. It is in this context that Monica Lewinski was hired as a White House intern, and has sex with President Clinton from November 1995 to March 1997. After the Clinton administration successfully thwarted the Israeli psychological operation, on January 17, 1998, the first revelation of the President’s affair with 22-year-old Monica Lewinsky appeared in Newsweek. Lewinsky, the daughter of Zionist east European immigrants, and a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, was a Queen Esther of a new kind. She had confided in her coworker Linda Tripp, who then proceeded to secretly record her torrid phone conversations with Clinton, while Lewinsky kept, unwashed for two years, her blue dress with the incriminating sperm stains. Syrian newspaper Tishrin Al-Usbu’a speculates that “her goal was to embarrass President Clinton, to blackmail him and weaken his status before Netanyahu’s government.”564
Indeed, on January 21, 1998, while The Washington Post published an article on the Lewinsky case, Clinton urgently received Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for an unannounced 90-minute interview. On January 26, 1998, Clinton received a real ultimatum, in the form of a letter signed by Elliott Abrams, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and other neoconservatives urging him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged to “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.”565 Clinton did nothing: his speech was entirely centered on the economy (the central theme of his election campaigns and his presidency). In the months that followed, the “Monicagate” scandal became an ordeal for Clinton, who was charged with perjury and threatened with impeachment.
The “New Pearl Harbor”
In November 2000, Bush Jr. was elected under conditions that raised protests of electoral fraud. Two dozen neoconservatives took over key positions in foreign policy. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was a neocon, as was the president’s main speechwriter David Frum, who co-authored in 2003 a book with Richard Perle, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Dick Cheney, after leading the victorious Bush campaign, chose for himself the vice presidency, picked Scooter Libby as his deputy, and took the leading role in forming Bush’s government. He entrusted the State Department to Colin Powell, but surrounded him with neocon aides such as David Wurmser. Another “Sabbath goy” was National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, a Russia specialist with no expertise in the Middle East, which made her entirely dependent on her neocon adviser Philip Zelikow. William Luti and Elliot Abrams, and later Eliot Cohen, were also tasked with steering Rice. But it was mainly from within the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld that the most influential neocons were able to fashion US foreign and military policy. Richard Perle occupied the crucial position of director of the Defense Policy Board, responsible for defining military strategy, while Paul Wolfowitz became the “soul of the Pentagon” as deputy secretary with Douglas Feith as under secretary. As for President Bush, he once declared to journalists: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.” Sharansky is a radical Zionist, founder of the party Yisrael Ba’aliya (“Israel for aliyah”) and chairman of One Jerusalem, which advocates Israeli sovereignty over a unified Jerusalem.566
After eight months in the presidency (almost half of them on vacation) Bush was confronted with the “catastrophic event” that PNAC had called for a year earlier. The culprit was immediately identified as Osama bin Laden. It was a real “Hanukkah miracle” for Israel, commented Haaretz journalist Aluf Benn: “Osama bin Laden’s September 11 attacks placed Israel firmly on the right side of the strategic map with the US, and put the Arab world at a disadvantage as it now faces its own difficult decisions about its future.” On the day of the attacks, acting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced at a press conference: “The war against terror is an international war. A war of a coalition of the free world against all of the terror groups…This is a war between the good and the bad, between humanity and those who are bloodthirsty. The criminal attack today on innocent civilians in the United States, is a turning point in war against international terror.”567 As for Netanyahu, he commented: “It’s very good […] it will generate immediate sympathy […], strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.”568
The first to publicly announce the name of bin Laden was Ehud Barak, the outgoing Israeli prime minister (1999–2001), in an interview with the BBC just one hour after the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (and again the following day). He concluded: “It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against terror.”569 The world’s media proclaimed the new era of the clash of civilizations and the war on terrorism. “It is the day that will change our lives. It is the day when the war that the terrorists declared on the US [. . .] has been brought home to the US,” proclaimed Lewis Paul Bremer, chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, on NBC the same day, pointing to bin Laden as “a prime suspect.”570
The message was hammered day after day into the minds of traumatized Americans. On September 21, Netanyahu published an op-ed in the New York Post entitled “Today, We Are All Americans,” in which he delivered his favorite propaganda line: “For the bin Ladens of the world, Israel is merely a sideshow. America is the target.” Three days later The New Republic responded with a headline on behalf of the Americans: “We are all Israelis now.” Americans experienced 9/11 as a product of anti-US hatred from an Arab world engendered by terrorist Islamism, and they felt an immediate sympathy for Israel, which the neoconservatives relentlessly exploited. One of the goals was to encourage Americans to view Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians as part of the global fight against Islamic terrorism.
It was a great success. In the years preceding September 11, Israel’s reputation on the international stage had bottomed out; condemnations had been raining from around the world for its policy of apartheid and annexation, and increasing numbers of American voices questioned the merits of the special relationship between the United States and Israel. Only a few hours after the attacks, former CIA analyst George Friedman could write on his website stratfor.com: “The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel. Israel has been under siege by suicide bombers for more than a year. It has responded by waging a systematic war against Palestinian command structures. The international community, particularly the United States, has pressured Israel heavily to stop its operations. The argument has been made that the threat of suicide bombings, though real, does not itself constitute a genuine threat to Israeli national security and should not trigger the kind of response Israel is making. Today’s events change all of this. […] There is no question, therefore, that the Israeli leadership is feeling relief.”571 As Americans now intended to fight Arab terrorists to the death, they would stop demanding from Israel more proportionate retaliation.
The signatories of the PNAC letter to President Bush on April 3, 2002, (including William Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, and James Woolsey) went so far as to claim that the Arab world hates Israel because it is a friend of the United States, rather than the reverse: “No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an ‘Axis of Evil.’ Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles—American principles—in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.”572 Once again, it was a matter of writing history upside down: in reality, America had no enemy in the Middle East before its alliance with Israel in the late 1960s. But this big lie became the heart of Israel’s new strategy for controlling the West. It would be repeated and illustrated as often as necessary: “Extremist Islam does not hate the West because of Israel; it hates Israel because Israel is an integral part of the West and its values of freedom,” asserted Benjamin Netanyahu in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attack of January 2015, an event that bore the marks of a staged terror attack designed to illustrate precisely this message.573
The secondary objective of September 11 and the other pseudo-Islamist attacks perpetrated on American and European soil is to persuade as many Jews as possible that they are not safe in the West and that they would do well to settle in Israel. Zionist propaganda making Israel a refuge for the Jews of the world is finding a second wind. Israeli writer Yossi Klein Halevi echoed this view in the October 15, 2001, issue of the pro-Israel New Republic: “In the last year, it had become a much-noted irony that Israel was the country where a Jew was most likely to be killed for being a Jew. For many, the United States had beckoned as the real Jewish refuge; in a poll taken just before the bin Laden attacks, 37 percent of Israelis said their friends or relatives were discussing emigration. That probably changed on September 11. I was among the thousands of Israelis who crowded Kennedy Airport on the weekend after the attack, desperate to find a flight to Tel Aviv. ‘At least we’re going back where it’s safe,’ people joked.”574
Thanks to a few skeptical and courageous investigators, many anomalies in the politicians’ and media’s explanation of the events of 9/11 were transmitted on the internet during the following months, providing evidence that this was a false flag operation, and that Osama bin Laden was innocent, as he repeatedly affirmed in the Afghan press and on Al Jazeera.575 The proofs of this appalling fraud have been accumulating ever since, and are now accessible to anyone who takes the trouble to spend a few hours of research on the internet. The scientific evidence is unimpeachable: for example, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org) have demonstrated that it was impossible for plane crashes and jet fuel fires to trigger the collapse of the Twin Towers. The so-called pancake collapse theory initially invoked by the government institutes in charge of the investigation—like the completely different subsequent official theories—was a farce. It is enough to carefully watch the destruction of the Towers to see that they do not collapse, but literally explode, pulverizing concrete and projecting pieces of steel beams weighing several hundred tons hundreds of meters laterally at high speeds. The pyroclastic dust that flooded through the streets at high speed after the collapse, not unlike the dust from a volcano, indicates a high temperature mixture of hot gasses and relatively dense solid particles, an impossible phenomenon in a simple collapse.576 It is also impossible that WTC7, another skyscraper (47 stories), which had not been hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint at near free-fall speed, unless by “controlled demolition.”577 “No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire,” noted Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering magazine in the January 2002 issue, calling the government investigation “a half-baked farce.”578
From their side, members of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth protest that the fires in the Twin Towers were of low intensity and cannot explain their collapse. In 2005, the New York Fire Department (FDNY) released 503 recorded oral testimonies given by firefighters shortly after the events. One hundred and eighteen of them describe sequences of synchronized explosions just before the collapse, well below the zone of impact.579 Firemen were fighting fires at ground zero for ninety-nine days after September 11. The presence of molten metal in the wreckage, observed by countless witnesses for more than three weeks after the attack, is inexplicable within the framework of the official theory, but is easily explained by the presence of incompletely burned explosives, their combustion slowed by lack of oxygen. Firefighter Philip Ruvolo testified before Étienne Sauret’s camera for his film Collateral Damages (2011): “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel—molten steel running down the channelways, like you were in a foundry—like lava.”580
Aviation professionals from the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth also report many impossibilities in the official thesis. And then there are the Shanksville and Pentagon sites: anyone who examines the available photos can see that no crashed jetliners are visible. As for the Twin Towers, opinions differ, but it is in any case established that the charted speeds of the two aircraft, 443 mph and 542 mph respectively, and the precision of the strikes exclude Boeing 767s, because these speeds are virtually impossible near sea level. In the unlikely event such speeds could be attained without the aircraft falling apart, the planes could not be flown accurately, especially by the “terrible pilots” blamed for the attacks. Recall that neither of the black boxes of the jetliners alleged to have hit the World Trade Center was ever found, an incomprehensible situation.
Alleged telephone calls from passengers are equally problematic. Two calls were allegedly made from AA77 by Barbara Olson to her husband Ted Olson. The Olsons are both public figures: Barbara was a well-known CNN reporter, and Ted had been solicitor general during the first Bush term (after defending Bush in the disputed 2000 election, and then Dick Cheney when he refused to submit to Congress Enron-related documents during that investigation). Barbara Olson’s calls, reported on CNN in the afternoon of September 11, contributed to crystallizing some details of the official story, such as the “box cutters” used by the hijackers. Repeatedly invited on television shows, Ted Olson frequently contradicted himself when questioned about the calls from his wife. In a 2006 report, the FBI attributed only one call from Barbara Olson, and it was an unconnected call lasting 0 seconds. Barbara Olson, born Kay Bracher of Jewish parents, had studied at Yeshiva University School of Law. After her studies she was hired by the legal firm WilmerHale, of which Jamie Gorelick, a future member of the 9/11 Commission, was a member, and whose clients include many Israeli firms, such as Amdocs, one of the two digital communications companies (with Comverse Infosys) involved in Israeli espionage in the United States.581
The two phone calls from airline flight attendant Amy Sweeney of AA11 also deserve scrutiny. In a first call, oddly passed to the American Airlines reservation service, air hostess Amy Sweeney identified “the” hijacker as the passenger in seat 9B, before correcting herself in a second call to designate the passenger in 10B instead. Seat 9B was that of Daniel Lewin, a former officer in Sayeret Matkal, a special unit in the Israel Defense Forces specializing in counterterrorism—in other words a professional assassin. The official story claims that the passenger in 10B was the terrorist Satam Al Suqami (whose famous passport would miraculously escape from the plane to be found on a street in Lower Manhattan) and that Al Suqami killed Daniel Lewin, who was sitting immediately in front of him. It should be remembered that, unlike Lewin, Suqami was not included in the flight manifest published by the airlines. Indeed, none of the four passenger lists included a single Arab name.
Researchers who believe Israel with its American Zionist supporters orchestrated 9/11 cite the behavior of a group of individuals who have come to be known as the “dancing Israelis” since their arrest. Their aim was to pass themselves off as “dancing Arabs.” Dressed in ostensibly “Middle Eastern” attire, they were seen by various witnesses on the roof of a van parked in Jersey City, cheering and taking photos with the Twin Towers in the background, at the very moment the first plane hit the North Tower. Alerted by witnesses, the police immediately issued an all-points bulletin. The van was intercepted around 4 pm, with five young men inside: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari. The Kurzberg brothers were formally identified as Mossad agents, and all of them officially worked for a moving company (a classic cover for espionage) named Urban Moving Systems, whose owner, Dominik Otto Suter, quickly fled the country for Tel Aviv.582 These five Israelis, the only suspects arrested on the very day of the attacks, were undoubtedly part of a vast network. Indeed, on that date, the federal police were busy dismantling the largest Israeli spy network ever uncovered on American soil. An official report by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reported that 140 spies had been apprehended since March 2001, most of them posing as art students selling cheap “made in China” reproductions. Aged from twenty to thirty years old and organized in twenty teams of four to eight members, they visited at least “36 sensitive sites of the Department of Defense.” Many of them were identified as members of the Mossad, and six were in possession of phones paid for by a former Israeli vice consul. Sixty arrests occurred after September 11, bringing the total number of Israeli spies arrested to 200. “A majority of those questioned have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military. One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot mission unit.” Another, Peer Segalovitz, officer in the 605 Battalion of the Golan Heights “acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that he needed to.”583 Yet all were finally released. These young Israelis probably played only subordinate roles, but their numbers testify to the important logistics put in place by Israel.
The DEA report also mentions that “the Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point for these individuals.”584 More than 30 out of the 140 fake Israeli students identified before 9/11 lived in that city of 140,000 inhabitants. And this city also happens to be the place where fifteen of the nineteen alleged 9/11 Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the vicinity), including four of the five supposed to have hijacked Flight AA11. What was the relationship between the Israeli spies and the Islamist terrorists? We were told by mainstream media that the former were monitoring the latter, but simply failed to report suspicious activities of these terrorists to American authorities. From such a presentation, Israel comes out only slightly tainted, since a spy agency cannot be blamed for not sharing information with the country it is spying in. At most, Israel can be accused of “letting it happen”—a guarantee of impunity. In reality, the Israeli agents were certainly not just monitoring the future “hijackers,” but financing and manipulating them, before disposing of them. We know that Israeli Hanan Serfaty, who rented two flats near Mohamed Atta, had handled at least $100,000 in three months. And we also learned from The New York Times on February 19, 2009, that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin of the alleged hijacker of Flight UA93 Ziad al-Jarrah, had spent twenty-five years spying for the Mossad as an undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah since 1983.585
Artist cover seems popular with Israeli spies. Shortly before September 11, a group of fourteen “artists” under the name of Gelatin installed themselves on the ninety-first floor of the North Tower. There, as a work of “street art,” they removed a window and extended a wooden balcony—a piece of scaffolding posing as an art work. To understand what role this balcony may have played, it must be remembered that the explosion supposedly resulting from the impact of the Boeing AA11 on the North Tower took place between the ninety-second and the ninety- eighth floors. It should be added that floors ninety-three to one hundred were occupied by Marsh
& McLennan, whose CEO was Jeffrey Greenberg, son of wealthy Zionist (and financier of George W. Bush) Maurice Greenberg, who also happens to be the owner of Kroll Inc., the firm in charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex on 9/11. The Greenbergs were also the insurers of the Twin Towers and, on July 24, 2001, they took the precaution of having the contract reinsured by competitors.
In November 2000, the board of directors of Marsh & McLennan was joined by Lewis Paul Bremer, the chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, who, on September 11, 2001, would appear on NBC to name bin Laden as prime suspect. In 2003, Bremer would be appointed administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to level the Iraqi state to the ground and oversee the theft of almost a trillion dollars intended for its reconstruction. With the only film of the impact on the North Tower being that of the Naudet brothers, who are under suspicion for numerous reasons, many researchers are convinced that no aircraft hit this tower, and that the explosion simulating the impact was provoked by pre-planted explosives inside the tower.
It is still impossible to precisely name the masterminds of the operation. But it should be noted that both Netanyahu and Ehud Barak were temporarily out of the Israeli government in September 2001, just like Ben-Gurion at the time of Kennedy’s assassination: Barak replaced Netanyahu as prime minister in July 1999, but stepped aside in March 2001 in favor of Ariel Sharon, who brought back Netanyahu as minister of foreign affairs in 2002 (with Netanyahu again becoming prime minister in 2009). A few months before 9/11, Barak, the former head of Israeli military intelligence (Salait Makal), had been “recruited” as a consultant to a Mossad front company, SCP Partner, specializing in security and located a few kilometers from Urban Moving Systems.586
A large number of influential Jewish personalities, working inside or outside the government, were important contributors to the operation’s orchestration or subsequent manipulation. I shall cite here only two representative examples. The first is Larry Silverstein, the real estate shark who, with his partner Frank Lowy, leased the Twin Towers from New York City in the spring of 2001. The head of the New York Port Authority, who granted Silverstein and Lowy the lease, was none other than Lewis Eisenberg, another member of the United Jewish Appeal Federation and former vice president of AIPAC. It appeared that Silverstein had made a very bad deal, because the Twin Towers had to be decontaminated for asbestos. The decontamination process had been indefinitely postponed since the 1980s because of its cost, estimated at nearly $1 billion in 1989. In 2001, the New York Port Authority had been all too happy to shift responsibility to Silverstein.587
Immediately after acquiring the Twin Towers, Silverstein renegotiated the insurance contracts to cover terrorist attacks, doubling the coverage to $3.5 billion, and made sure he would retain the right to rebuild after such an event. After the attacks, he took his insurers to court in order to receive double compensation, claiming that the two planes were two separate attacks. After a long legal battle, he pocketed $4.5 billion.588 A leading member of the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, the biggest fundraiser for Israel (after the US government, which pays about $3 billion per year in aid to Israel), Silverstein also maintained “close ties with Netanyahu,” according to Haaretz (November 21, 2001). “The two have been on friendly terms since Netanyahu’s stint as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. For years they kept in close touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein.”589
The second example is Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission created in November 2002. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who officially led the commission, revealed in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006), that the commission “was set up to fail” from the beginning. Zelikow had already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the final report before the first meeting. Zelikow controlled all the working groups, prevented them from communicating with each other, and gave them the singular mission to prove the official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to “tell the story of Al- Qaeda’s most successful operation—the 9/11 attacks.” All information, and any request for information, had to pass through him.
Zelikow is a pure Straussian, a self-proclaimed specialist in terrorism and the creation of “public myths” by “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.”590 In December 1998, he co-signed with John Deutch an article for Foreign Affairs entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which they speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing (already arbitrarily attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. […] Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force.”591 Such is the man who controlled the governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Controlled Opposition
A majority of conspiracy groups and sites avoid discussing the role of Israel in 9/11 and prefer to point the finger at President Bush and his clan. Yet the situation in which the president found himself at the time of the attacks—reading The Pet Goat with primary schoolchildren in Florida—dramatically illustrates how he was removed from direct control of ongoing operations. In my view, the interminable eight minutes during which Bush remains unresponsive after learning that the second WTC tower had just been hit, made famous by Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11, are to 9/11 what the Zapruder film is to the Kennedy assassination: the moment when Bush was turned into a dummy—the next best thing to a corpse—while Cheney was taking over the real government (as Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein have shown in Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency).592
If the president was taken by surprise on the day of the attacks, why did he cover for the real culprits by validating the bin Laden-Al Qaeda thesis? It was necessary that a means of blackmail against the president and, more generally, against the American state, be prepared in advance. Indeed, as with the JFK assassination, the difficulty was not so much the logistics of the operation itself as the obstruction of the investigation. A large number of very high-ranking people needed to be sufficiently implicated to have an interest in the truth not seeing the light, and to understand instantly that lying (the false flag) also served to cover for them. The best way to create such a situation is the “hijacked conspiracy.” This is the hypothesis I developed in my previous book JFK-9/11: that decision-makers in the US deep state had planned a false flag attack on a limited scale (for example, fake aircraft events at the Pentagon and Shanksville) with the limited purpose of justifying the invasion of Afghanistan; but that they were taken over by the infiltrated Zionist network, whose goal was much more ambitious. The invasion of Afghanistan to liquidate the Taliban regime, which had become an obstacle to the UNOCAL (Union Oil of California) pipeline project, was prepared in July 2001 after the failure of the final negotiations (it could not have been launched just one month after the 9/11 attacks without having been planned long before). A false attack blamed on Osama bin Laden, a friend and guest of the Taliban, was ordered to justify this intervention on the international scene and in public opinion. In this way the invasion could be disguised as a manhunt.
But this goal did not in itself interest the neoconservatives. What did they care about Afghanistan? What they wanted was a new war against Iraq and then a general conflagration in the Middle East leading to the crumbling of all the real or potential enemies of Israel. So, with the help of their New York super-sayanim (with Larry Silverstein in the lead), they outbid everyone and gave the operation the scale they wanted, taking everyone by surprise. To trigger a war of civilization against the Middle East, there needed to be something visually dramatic and traumatic, like the explosion of the Twin Towers and several thousand deaths. I cannot address here the technical investigation of these attacks, and would encourage the reader to view the documentary by Ace Baker entitled 9/11: The Great American Psy-Opera593 and to read my articles.594
Thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media, the neoconservatives won the game against small players like George W. Bush, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, who, unintentionally embroiled in geopolitical machinations of global scope, only had to save face. On September 19 and 20, Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board met in the company of Paul Wolfowitz and Bernard Lewis (inventor of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the “clash of civilizations”) but in the absence of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Those assembled agreed on the need to overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the initial phase of the war in Afghanistan. They prepared a letter to Bush, written on PNAC letterhead, to remind him of his historic mission: “Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”595 This, again, was an ultimatum. Bush was certainly aware of the leverage that the neocons had acquired over the major print and television media. He was obliged, under penalty of ending in the proverbial trash bin of history, to endorse the invasion of Iraq that his father had refused the Zionists ten years earlier.
As for Brzezinski and other US imperialists, their support for the invasion of Afghanistan made their timid protests against the Iraq war ineffective. It was a little late in February 2007 when Brzezinski denounced before the Senate “a historical, strategic and moral calamity […] driven by Manichaean impulses and imperial hubris.” Anxious to stop the infernal machine he helped set in motion, the former national security advisor publicly worried that the failure in Iraq would soon be “followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”596 In 2012 he declared, regarding the risk of conflagration with Iran, that Obama should stop following Israel like a “stupid mule.”597
After 9/11, the media played the same double game as after the JFK assassination. Most of the major newspapers and television channels presented the official thesis as verified and incontestable. But some people simultaneously voiced an indirect suspicion of possible complicity of George W. Bush and his father, questioning their relations with the major Saudi families. It was The New York Times of July 26, 2003, that first revealed President Bush had requested that a section of 28 pages be classified secret and withdrawn from the report of the 9/11 Commission—a section detailing possible involvement of specific Saudi officials. One of the key men in this blackmail operation was Senator Bob Graham (brother of Philip Graham, son-in-law and successor to the founder of The Washington Post Eugene Meyer), who as president of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a member of the Joint Congressional Inquiry on 9/11. In his book Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America’s War on Terror (2004), and in articles, interviews, and conferences, Graham claimed that these 28 pages contained “proofs” that members of the Saudi royal family financed Al- Qaeda, and that they had been censored because of “the special personal friendship between the [Saudi] royal family and the highest levels of our national government [meaning the president].” Graham made his first revelation on Democracy Now, the Pacifica network show founded by Amy Goodman,598 who, according to Wikipedia, is “of Orthodox Jewish heritage; her maternal grandfather was an Orthodox rabbi.” Democracy Now, which regularly invites Noam Chomsky, is a typical example of controlled opposition whose aim is to maintain dissent within the dominant paradigm (bin Laden’s guilt) while giving the illusion of adversarial debate. But the threat of disclosing the classified pages, which have since been regularly mentioned by the press, also maintained the pressure on Bush and his clan and prevented them from pointing the finger at Israel.
Simultaneously, the neoconservatives blackmailed the Saudi dynasty. Speaking in an interview with PBS in December 2002, Graham sent a message to Saudi Arabia with his “evidence that foreign governments have helped to facilitate the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.” David Wurmser had already opened hostilities with an article in the Weekly Standard of October 29, 2001, entitled: “The Saudi Connection: Osama bin Laden’s a lot closer to the Saudi royal family than you think.” In June 2002, the Hudson Institute, a bastion of neoconservative doctrine, sponsored a seminar on the theme “Discourses on Democracy: Saudi Arabia, Friend or Foe?”—most guests suggesting that “foe” is the correct answer—then promoted the book Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism by Dore Gold, who has served as advisor to Netanyahu and Sharon as well as ambassador to the United Nations. On July 10, 2002, the Franco-American neoconservative Laurent Murawiec, a member of the Hudson Institute and the Committee on the Present Danger, appeared before Richard Perle’s Defense Policy Board to explain that Saudi Arabia is “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” and recommend that the United States invade, occupy, and fragment the state. He summarized his “Grand Strategy for the Middle East” with these words: “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize.”599 In their book published in 2003, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, Richard Perle and David Frum, Bush’s speechwriter, argue that “the Saudis qualify for their own membership in the axis of evil,” and implore President Bush to “tell the truth about Saudi Arabia,” namely that the Saudi princes finance Al-Qaeda.600 These repeated threats were highly effective, judging by the evolution of Saudi policy, which in the following decades played Israel’s game by redirecting its jihadist networks against Libya and Syria.
In the quest for the truth about September 11 as in the Kennedy case, controlled opposition operates on many levels, and many honest scholars now realize that the 9/11 truth movement itself is largely channeled to hide the role of Israel. The half-truth of the exclusively “inside job” thesis, which denounces 9/11 as a false flag operation perpetrated by the American state on its own citizens, functions like a secondary false flag, insofar as it protects the real masters of the operation, who are in fact agents in the service of a foreign nation. One of the aims of this “inside job” maneuver is to force American leaders to maintain the “bin Laden did it” masquerade, knowing that raising the mask would reveal the features of Uncle Sam. No longer controlling the media, they would not have the means to raise this second veil to reveal the face of the real culprit. Any effort to get at the truth would be political suicide. Everyone understands the issue: if one day, under mounting pressure from public opinion or for some other strategic reason, the mainstream media abandons the official bin Laden story, the well-rehearsed slogan “9/11 was an inside job” will have prepared Americans to turn against their own government, while the neocon Zionists will remain untouchable. And God knows what will happen, if the government has not by then succeeded in disarming its citizens through Sandy Hook-type psy- ops. Government officials have little choice but to stick to the Al-Qaeda story, at least for the next fifty years.
After reaching this conclusion, which I defended in a long Internet article,601 I had the satisfaction of finding that Victor Thorn, in a book that had eluded me, had expressed it much earlier, and in harsher terms:
“In essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By 2002–2003, ‘truthers’ began appearing at rallies holding placards that read ‘9-11 was an inside job.’ Initially, these signs provided hope for those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But then an awful realization emerged: The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised. […] The mantra, ‘9-11 was an inside job’ is only partially true and is inherently damaging to the ‘truth movement’ because it shifts all attention away from Israel’s traitorous assault against America. […] Leaders of these fake 9-11 groups know the truth about Israel’s 9-11 barbarity. Their willingness to perpetuate or cover it up ultimately makes them as guilty and vile as those who launched the attacks. There are no degrees of separation in this matter. It’s a black-and-white issue. Tell the entire truth about Israel’s Murder, Inc. cabal, or sleep in the same infected bed as these murdering dogs lie in. […] Faux conspiratologists complain about the government and news sources not telling the truth, yet they’ve erected an utter blackout on data regarding Israel and 9-11.”602
There is evidence that the 9/11 truth movement was infiltrated and infected very early in order to divert it from the Mossad job track and fix it on the inside job track: the possible forgery of a top-secret memorandum entitled Operation Northwoods, the blueprint for a false flag operation conceived to serve as a casus belli against Cuba in 1962. General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is said to have presented it to Kennedy’s defense secretary Robert McNamara, who rejected it. The project consisted of a wave of terrorist acts falsely attributed to Cuba, culminating in the explosion over Cuban waters of a plane allegedly carrying vacationing American students. The explosion would have been preceded by distress signals indicating an attack by a Cuban fighter. The actual passengers would be secretly transferred to another plane, and a state funeral would be held in their remembrance. This planned operation was revealed to the public by James Bamford in May 2001 in his book Body of Secrets,603 then immediately reported on ABC News, so it was fresh in the public mind on 9/11. The film Loose Change (2005), the most widely watched dissident documentary in the world, opens with a presentation of Operation Northwoods, making its thesis of a plot emanating from the US government extremely compelling. Operation Northwoods is sufficient to prove that in 1962 the US military had the will and the capacity to organize a false flag attack to trigger a war, and that such an operation would have involved the use of drones and fictitious victims.
It should be noted that the three young Jews who produced this film (Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe, and Jason Bermas), associated with Alex Jones, hitched their whole thesis to an operation that was never carried out. They failed to mention the attack on the USS Liberty, which actually took place. They did not breathe a word about the double loyalty of the neoconservatives, and treated anyone who cited the Israeli role in 9/11 as anti-Semitic. The Operation Northwoods revelations killed two birds with one stone. The scandal was also picked up by recent books on the Kennedy assassination incriminating the CIA, the Pentagon, and the military-industrial complex, thus illustrating the Machiavellianism of the military elites and their conflict with the president, who ostensibly sacked Lemnitzer for daring to imagine Operation Northwoods.604
There is even a reasonable chance that the document is a forgery, as Carol Valentine has suggested by pointing out a few anachronistic British colloquialisms.605 When asked about it in 2006, at a time when he spoke openly of many other dark secrets, Robert McNamara, to whom the Northwoods memo was supposedly given, declared: “I have absolutely zero recollection of it.”606 Moreover, in 1962, Lemnitzer was not dismissed but promoted to supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe. The Northwoods document is not listed on any government site. It is apparently Bamford who provided it to the National Security Archive Project at George Washington University, where it is searchable.607 Random House informs us that, to write his book, Bamford—an ex-Navy employee gone into journalism after Watergate, just like Bob Woodward—was granted “unprecedented access to Crypto City (the NSA campus in Ft. Meade, MD), senior NSA officials, and thousands of NSA documents,” by none other than NSA director Michael Hayden.608
In other words, it was Hayden who supplied Bamford with his sources, including, presumably, the Northwoods memorandum. We do not know where he found it since this memo is supposed to be the copy found in the personal papers of Lemnitzer (who, we are told, destroyed all his archives at the Pentagon himself). After moving to the CIA, Hayden retired as a principal at the Chertoff Group, the security consultancy founded by Michael Chertoff.609 Chertoff, son of a rabbi and a pioneer of Mossad, is one of the key moles placed to obstruct any genuine inquiry into 9/11. For example, it was Chertoff who stopped the FBI’s investigation into the five “dancing Israelis,” repatriating them back to Israel for mere “visa violations.” So we should reasonably consider the possibility that Operation Northwoods was invented four months before 9/11 for the purpose of predisposing truth seekers toward the hypothesis of a US rather than Israeli false flag operation, and toward the hypothesis of US military drones crashing into the WTC.
In my opinion, the Northwoods memo, which appeared out of nowhere four months before September 11, is one of the false clues planted before and after the event in order to put skeptics on the trail of an American conspiracy rather than an Israeli one. It was probably with the same aim of preconditioning the protest movement that the Fox TV channel (a sounding board for neoconservative-Zionist propaganda) broadcast on March 4, 2001, the first episode of The Lone Gunmen TV series, seen by 13 million Americans, in which computer hackers working for a secret cabal within the government hijack a jet by remote control with the intention of crashing it into one of the Twin Towers, while making it appear to have been hijacked by Islamic terrorists, with the purpose of triggering a global war on terrorism.610
The Fourth World War In the days that followed 9/11, the president’s speeches (written by the neoconservative David Frum) would characterize the terrorist attack as the trigger for a world war of a new type, one fought against an invisible enemy scattered throughout the Middle East. First, vengeance must come not only against bin Laden, but also against the state harboring him: “We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them” (September 11). Second, the war extends to the world: “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (September 20). Seven countries were declared “rogue states” for their alleged support of global terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea (September 16). Third, any country that does not support Washington will be treated as an enemy: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (September 20).611 These new rules would provide a pretext for endless aggression against any and all Muslim countries: it would be enough to claim that they harbor terrorists. By equating the “war on terrorism” with a “crusade” (September 16), Bush validated the concept of a war between civilizations.
In an article in The Wall Street Journal dated November 20, 2001, the neoconservative Eliot Cohen dubbed the war against terrorism as “World War IV,” a framing soon echoed by other American Zionists. In September 2004, at a conference in Washington attended by Norman Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz entitled “World War IV: Why We Fight, Whom We Fight, How We Fight,” Cohen said: “The enemy in this war is not ‘terrorism’ […] but militant Islam.” Like the Cold War (considered to be WWIII), this imminent Fourth World War, according to Cohen’s vision, has ideological roots, will have global implications, and will last a long time, involving a whole range of conflicts. The self-fulfilling prophecy of a new World War centered in the Middle East has also been popularized by Norman Podhoretz, in “How to Win World War IV” (Commentary, February 2002). It was followed by a second article in September 2004, “World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win,” and finally in 2007 in a book called World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.612
General Wesley Clark (son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne and proud descendant of a lineage of rabbis), former commandant of NATO in Europe, writes in his book Winning Modern Wars (2003) that one month after September 11, 2001, a Pentagon general showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran.”613 In his September 20 speech, President Bush also cited seven “rogue states” for their support of global terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea. It is curious to note in this list the presence of Cuba and North Korea, which replace Lebanon and Somalia on Clark’s list. One possible explanation is that Bush or his entourage refused to include Lebanon and Somalia, but that the number seven was retained for its symbolic value, perhaps as an encrypted signature. Indeed, the motif of the “Seven Nations” doomed by God forms part of the biblical myths instilled in Israeli schoolchildren. According to Deuteronomy, Yahweh says that he will deliver to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than [it],” adding: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them…” (7:1–2). It is further prophesied to Israel: “And he will give their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name perish from under heaven” (7:24). In the twelfth century, Maimonides affirmed in his Book of Commandments that the injunction to “let not a single Canaanite survive” was binding for all time, adding: “Putting the seven nations to the sword is a duty incumbent on us; indeed, it is an obligatory war.”614
Iraq was the first nation attacked by the Anglo-American coalition. The justification given by the government and the media was the stock of “weapons of mass destruction” held by Saddam. CIA director George Tenet was reluctant to confirm this threat. He knew that Saddam no longer had any such arms, thanks to information provided by his son-in-law Hussein Kamel who fled Iraq in 1995 after being in charge of Iraq’s military industry. But the CIA, accused of incompetence for not being able to prevent September 11, was under intense pressure; Britt Snider, a close professional associate of Tenet’s, had already been forced to resign as staff director of the joint House and Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the 9/11 attacks, due to the claim of a conflict of interest made by Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) founded by William Kristol. Cheney and Rumsfeld could then renew their winning Team B strategy, essentially overtaking the CIA with a parallel structure set up to produce the alarmist report they needed: the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a special unit within the Near East and South Asia (NESA) offices at the Pentagon. Nicknamed “the Cabal,” the OSP was controlled by neoconservatives William Luti, Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked for the NESA at this time, testified in 2004 to the incompetence of members of the OSP, whom she saw “usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.”615 Either convinced or pretending to be, the president then announced to the nation, on October 7, 2002, that Saddam Hussein could at any time “provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.” Bush further claimed that Saddam also possessed the aircraft and drones necessary to “disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas [. . .], targeting the United States”; even worse, “the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.” Time was running out, for Saddam “could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. [. . .] Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”616
Despite his initial reluctance, Secretary of State Colin Powell pleaded for war before the United Nations General Assembly on February 5, 2003. In 2005, after resigning to give way to Condoleezza Rice, he publicly regretted his speech to the UN, calling it “a blot on my record” and claiming to have been deceived.617 His chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, likewise would confess in 2006, soon after resigning: “My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council.”618 In 2011, Wilkerson openly denounced the duplicity of neoconservatives such as David Wurmser and Douglas Feith, whom he considered “card-carrying members of the Likud party. […] I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own.”619
The fact that the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of all its state structures was carried out on behalf of Israel is now widely accepted. Even the best liars betray themselves sometimes, and Philip Zelikow let slip the secret during a conference at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002: “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is and actually has been since 1990: it’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”620
And thus did Israel get rid of its worst enemy without losing a single human life or spending a single penny. The cost to Americans was valued at $3 trillion in 2008 by economist Joseph Stiglitz, and would likely exceed $5 trillion.621 The resulting impoverishment was not felt until 2008, and then with extreme violence, because Americans had been artificially immersed in a bubble of economic euphoria. Such was the contribution of Alan Greenspan, president of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, who, through excessive deregulation, favored the growth of subprime mortgage companies and caused the overall rate of individual property ownership to explode. It was, according to the relevant analysis of Gilad Atzmon, a crucial aspect of the neoconservative plan: “These figures led Americans to believe that their economy was indeed booming. And when an economy is booming nobody is really interested in foreign affairs, certainly not in a million dead Iraqis.”622
The Iraq War represented, for the crypto-Zionists who launched it, a decisive step toward the ever-closer goal of Greater Israel. It was in this context that the October 2003 “Jerusalem Summit” was held in the symbolically significant King David Hotel. It was meant to forge an alliance between Zionist Jews and evangelical Christians around a “theopolitical” project. This project would consider Israel, in the words of the “Jerusalem Declaration” signed by its participants, “the key to the harmony of civilizations,” replacing the United Nations that had become “a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships”: “Jerusalem’s spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world’s unity. [. . .] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.” Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle, the guest of honor, received on this occasion the Henry Scoop Jackson Award.623
The evangelical Christian support for this project should not come as a surprise. With more than fifty million members, the Christians United for Israel movement, founded by John Hagee, had become a considerable political force in the United States. Its president, Pastor John Hagee, author of Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude to War (2007), called without hesitation for “a preemptive military strike against Iran.”
Iran, in fact, is the ultimate target of the neoconservatives. An Iran armed with the atomic bomb is indeed the nightmare of Israel. “Never let an enemy country acquire nuclear weapons” is a fundamental principle formulated since the 60s by the leaders of Israel. Netanyahu has for ten years demonized Tehran by accusing it of the darkest designs, before the General Assembly of the UN (September 27, 2012) and before the US Congress (May 24, 2011 and March 3, 2015). “The United States should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran to spur the country to end its nuclear program,” proposed American billionaire Sheldon Adelson in 2013. Adelson is one of the biggest donors to both the American Republican party and the Israeli Likud. In 2015 he threatened to use all his money to humiliate and prevent the re-election of any Congressional representative who boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in the US Congress.624
The second fundamental principle of Israel’s foreign policy is known as “the Samson Option.” Formulated in the 1970s, when Israel had acquired a sufficient stock of atomic bombs, it is summarized by Ron Rosenbaum in How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III (2012): “Abandonment of proportionality is the essence of the so-called Samson Option in all its variants. A Samson Option is made possible by the fact that even if Israel has been obliterated, it can be sure that its Dolphin-class nuclear missile submarines cruising the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf at depths impervious to detection, can carry out a genocidal-scale retaliation virtually anywhere in the world.” Israel could easily “bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals, for instance)” as well as the “holy places of Islam.”625
A third, tacit principle determines the character of twenty-first-century Israeli proxy wars in the Middle East: the abandonment of the distinction between soldiers and civilians through the category of “terrorist”—which justifies, moreover, contempt for all the “laws of war” by which men have attempted to civilize barbarism. Inhuman treatment in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq will remain in history as one of the most sinister symbols of this total degradation. Is it a coincidence that, according to the great reporter Robert Fisk of The Independent of London: “The head of an American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi tortures [at Abu Ghraib], it now turns out, attended an ‘anti-terror’ training camp in Israel and, earlier this year, was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the right-wing Israeli defense minister.”626
“Color revolutions” are regime changes that give the appearance of a revolution, in that they mobilize large segments of the people, but are actually coups d’état, in that they do not aim at changing structures, but rather at substituting one elite for another to lead a pro-US economic and foreign policy. In 2009 the first “green revolution” was launched against Iran. It was puppeteered by Washington and led by expatriated Americanized bloggers. Though a failure, carbon copies succeeded two years later with the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia and Egypt. In 2009 it was revealed that several of the Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Yemeni, Syrian, and Egyptian internet users who triggered the disturbances had taken a training course in 2009 on techniques of peaceful revolutions offered by CANVAS, the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, funded by Freedom House. Freedom House is an organization funded 75 percent by the federal government (via the National Endowment for Democracy and the State Department), which according to its statutes “assists the development of freedoms in the world,” on the assumption that “The American predominance in international affairs is essential for the cause of human rights and freedom.” Led by James Woolsey, director of the CIA between 1993 and 1995, it has included the famous “philanthropists” Samuel Huntington, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
After Egypt it was Libya’s turn. Dictator Muammar Gaddafi had committed the double mistake of trying to get closer to Europe and the United States while refusing any compromise with Israel. Tribal, ethnic, and religious rivalries are the Achilles heel of the countries of the Middle East, as a result of their arbitrarily drawn borders on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. The strategy of destruction consists of encouraging, arming, and financing the groups opposed to the regime, augmented by fanatics and mercenaries of various types, and then casting the resulting disturbances as “repression” in the eyes of Western public opinion. This then justifies armed intervention to “support the rebels.” The decisive role played by the French government in convincing the UN Security Council to validate such aggression will remain an indelible stain on the history of France. The former chief of staff of the French Armed Forces, Admiral Édouard Guillaud, declared on January 26, 2014, one week before his retirement: “The South of Libya has become a real black hole [. . .] a place for the regeneration of terrorism, of supplying arms to terrorists, it is the new center of gravity for terrorism.”627
The hordes of jihadists recruited to destroy Libya (many of them from Iraq) would then be redirected toward Syria to launch the same type of “Arab Spring.” Threatened with destruction, Syria was offered as an alternative a puppet government whose president, Burhan Ghalioun, promised in 2011 to “end the military relationship to Iran and cut off arms supplies to Hezbollah and Hamas, and establish ties with Israel.”628 The true nature of the Syrian “rebels”—stateless barbarians, drug addicts, and Al Qaeda allies—could not be hidden for long from the public. They had to be supported discreetly, as for example by delivering them weapons by way of phantom “moderate rebels,” or directly but “by mistake.” Meanwhile Israel was taking care of their wounded and sending them back into combat, while occasionally bombing Syrian government positions. As an additional bonus, the image of black-masked medieval butchers served to demonize Islam in the eyes of a public opinion paralyzed by confusion.629
Such is the contribution of this new genre of “Marranos.” Consider the case of Adam Pearlman, grandson of an administrator of the Anti-Defamation League, who under the pseudonym Adam Yahiye Gadahn, unconvincingly bearded and beturbaned, broadcast anti- American Islamic diatribes in 2009 before being unmasked; or Joseph Leonard Cohen, member of the Revolution Muslim group under the name of Youssef al Khattab.630 Meanwhile, the FBI and other Zionist-infiltrated secret services continue to foster terror attacks on American soil under the pretext of thwarting them.631
Chapter 10 THE GREAT GAME OF ZION
“A man whose testicles have been crushed or whose male member has been cut off must not be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh. No half-breed may be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh.”
Darwinism, Racism, and Supremacism We have discussed in chapter 6 the deleterious influence of Thomas Hobbes, the seventeenth- century founder of a new conception of man and the “social contract.” We also mentioned his direct heir Adam Smith, who proposed a mercantile utopia that would allegedly transform the sum of individual egoists into a happy community through the free market alone. Soon after Smith there appeared, in the same ideological lineage, Thomas Malthus. The “law of Malthus,” enunciated in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), postulates that any period of prosperity creates an exponential increase in population that, if not stopped, eventually exceeds food production capacity, resulting in famines, wars, and excess mortality. Malthus therefore opposed social protection legislation, for “these laws create the poor whom they assist.” Therefore: “If a man cannot feed his children, they must die of hunger.” Malthusianism, well- adapted to the Victorian mental climate, inspired Herbert Spencer, who formulated the natural law of “survival of the fittest” in Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) and denounced the absurdity of socialist initiatives aimed at protecting weak individuals from the harsh laws of natural selection.
Spencer’s theory, often called “social Darwinism,” is now stigmatized as an abusive misappropriation of Charles Darwin’s biological evolutionary thought. But it was actually Spencer who prepared the scene for Darwin; Spencer’s book appeared two years before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859). So it is really Darwinism that should be called “biological Spencerism.”
Darwin was well received by the Victorian bourgeoisie because he blended the “natural sciences” with the Spencerian law of “survival of the fittest,” which was already in embryo in the thought of Thomas Hobbes. Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, author of Hereditary Genius, its laws and consequences (1862), invented “eugenics” to correct the perverse effect of civilization, which “diminishes the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection and preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands.” Apparently, Spencer’s laissez-faire was not enough; the state must intervene, not to help the weak, but to prevent them from reproducing themselves. It was Leonard Darwin, Charles’s son, who led the fight as president of the British Eugenics Society from 1911 to 1928.
Karl Marx, after having for some time shared his friend Friedrich Engels’s enthusiasm for Darwin’s Origin of Species as “the natural-history foundation of our viewpoint,” had second thoughts when he recognized that Darwin had merely projected the rules of British capitalism onto the animal kingdom. “It is remarkable,” Marx wrote to Engels on June 18, 1862, “how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence.’ It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes [the war of all against all] and is reminiscent of Hegel’s Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom,’ whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.”632
Indeed, the enthusiasm for Darwinism cannot be explained by its scientific merits, and it was not naturalists who first welcomed it. Let us recall that the idea of evolution, that is to say a genealogical kinship between animal species, had been popular long before Darwin. Darwin’s originality was to suppose that evolution resulted from a blind process of “natural selection” of the Malthusian type, that is, based essentially on competition for resources. From the reasonable hypothesis of the adaptation of species to their environment by natural selection (the common sense hypothesis justified by his observations), Darwin drew up the bold and forever unprovable hypothesis that natural selection is also responsible for the emergence of new species. (A species is defined as a group of individuals capable of breeding among themselves, but not with individuals of another species.) The idea is simple and easily illustrated: When food available to leaf browsers becomes scarce, short-necked browsers die first; and this process, repeated over a very long time scale, produces giraffes. For this to happen requires that some animals be accidentally born with a neck longer than others, and that such accidents accumulate a sufficient number of times to create a new species. By this simple mechanism, Darwin explained how, over a few hundred million years, bacteria became homo sapiens, by way of fish and monkeys.
It is important to understand that, according to Darwin, “natural selection” is not creative in itself, but destructive; it acts only negatively by eliminating the least able individuals. It allows only the preservation of accidental variations, when they are advantageous to the individual under the conditions of existence in which he is placed. Darwin had no idea of the nature and causes of these “accidentally produced variations,” and did not exclude factors yet unknown. (As is generally the case, the master was less dogmatic than his students.) It was not until the genetic discoveries of the 1940s that accidental variations were determined to be mistakes in the reproduction of the DNA code.
However, experiments show that genes are replicators and hence stabilizers, and that their accidental mutations only produce degenerations, which are generally sterile, and in no case carry any “selective advantage” that could be passed down. In other words, natural selection tends to preserve the genetic heritage by eliminating individuals who deviate too much from the standard. It has room for maneuver and may eventually produce some adaptation to changes in the environment, but in general it prevents evolution rather than encouraging it. It is true that “artificial selection” in the long run makes it possible to “improve” a domestic animal species from the point of view of a particular criterion (yield of milk or meat, for example) and thus create a new “race.” But not a new species; even modern genetic technology does not allow us to take this step.
Genetic discoveries and common sense should therefore have caused the extinction of Darwinism among the credible theories of evolution. Yet this was not the case. On the contrary, since it was less a scientific theory than a theology of the death of God, a new form of speculative Darwinism was coined under the name “the synthetic theory of evolution.” It relies entirely on the idea that man has developed purely accidentally from the first bacteria, without the intervention of any intelligent design, by the simple combination of “chance and necessity.”633 Darwinism today synthesizes the idea that modern man is supposed to have of himself and that is inculcated by orthodox education. It is both a doctrine of the essence of man and a myth of the creation of man. Darwinism is the heart of nihilist theology. For this reason, it will probably also resist the new challenge of epigenetics, which proves the genetic inheritance of acquired characteristics, as Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck had theorized. In 1920, the English writer Bernard Shaw saw in Darwinism (or rather the dogmatic form elaborated by August Weismann and popularized at the time under the name of neo-Darwinism) a new secular religion whose philosophical foundation is the denial of any other reality than matter, alongside the ethical principle of competition for the survival of the fittest. In ten years, Shaw wrote, “Neo-Darwinism in politics had produced a European catastrophe of a magnitude so appalling, and a scope so unpredictable, that as I write these lines in 1920, it is still far from certain whether our civilisation will survive it.” But Shaw, who was a proponent of the theory of “creative evolution” or vitalism, like Henri Bergson in France (Creative Evolution, 1907), also understood that Darwinism’s appeal was linked to the growing disgust that rational thought feels for the capricious and genocidal demiurge of the Old Testament: “What made it scientifically intolerable was that it was ready at a moment’s notice to upset the whole order of the universe on the most trumpery provocation.”634 Even today, Darwinian ideology remains in power by fraudulently presenting itself as the only alternative to biblical “creationism.” Darwin or the Bible, such is the ridiculous alternative proposed to the docile intelligence of the schoolchildren and students of the West.
The paradigm of Malthus, Spencer, Darwin, and Galton deserves the name “Darwinian paradigm” for three reasons. First, it is the Darwinian idea of “selection” that best summarizes the paradigm. Secondly, this paradigm is now firmly rooted in the supposed Darwinian (actually pre-Darwinian) idea that “man descends from the ape.” And finally, Darwin is now the venerated prophet of this secular religion. By convention, therefore, let us call the processes of natural or artificial selection “Darwinian mechanisms” or “Darwinian strategies.” This is an abuse of language, since these very real mechanisms do not validate Darwin’s speculative theory on the appearance of species; but the terms are justified by usage.
The Darwinian paradigm goes beyond left-right divisions; Spencer’s “laissez-faire” is rather right-wing, but Galton’s eugenics, which valorizes state interventionism, is historically left- wing.635 Nonetheless, the latter is merely a more sophisticated version of the former, claiming to support the “survival of the fittest” by the sterilization of the less able. In its classical form, “social Darwinism” is a faithful ally of Smith’s economic liberalism. “Millionaires are the product of natural selection, acting on the whole social body to choose those who meet the requirements of a given task,” enthused the American William Graham Sumner in 1907.
Darwin is the direct descendant of Hobbes, via Malthus and Spencer. In fact, he only made literal what was still a metaphor in Hobbes: Man is an animal. Not only is the civilized man descended from the savage, but the savage himself descends from the ape. Darwinism soon imposed itself as the metaphysical framework of all “human sciences,” and the foundation of a new idea of man, who is no longer distinguished from the animal kingdom by a qualitative leap. Sigmund Freud, among others, owed his success to having re-founded psychology on Darwinian principles, that is to say, on the premise that the creative spirit of man was only a by-product of his (repressed) animal instincts: “The development of man till now seems to me to require no other explanation than that of animals” (Beyond the Pleasure Principle, 1920); “It is merely the principle of pleasure [. . .] which from the outset governs the operations of the psychic apparatus” (Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929). Since, according to Darwinian logic, procreation determines selective advantage, it was naturally in the sex drive that Freud found the key to the human psyche.
Darwinism scientifically condoned racism, the ideological justification for colonialism, slavery, and ethnic cleansing. Darwin had extended his theory from animal species to human races in his second work, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), in which he predicted that in a few centuries, “the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” Darwin brought to this idea the stamp of natural science, and above all, by linking it to his theory of the origin of species, he implicitly placed this genocidal process in the continuity of a positive evolution that had earlier produced the savage from the monkey.
The English and the Americans found in Darwin the confirmation of the superiority of the “Anglo-Saxon” or “Nordic” race: “a race of leaders, organizers and aristocrats,” according to the American Madison Grant. In The Passing of the Great Race (1916) Grant advocated limiting the immigration of other European races (“Alpine” and “Mediterranean”) and maintaining segregation between black and white because “once raised to social equality their influence will be destructive to themselves and to the whites.” The worst danger was that whites and blacks would “amalgamate and form a population of race bastards in which the lower type ultimately preponderates.”
Judaism as Darwinian Strategy The Darwinian paradigm has a strong resonance among Jewish supremacists. Harry Waton wrote in his Program for the Jews, published in 1939: “Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth. Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews.”636
In fact, the notion of natural selection among human races came to Jewish thinkers long before it dawned on Spencer and Darwin. As mentioned in chapter 5, the Marrano Isaac de la Peyrère can be considered as a precursor, with his Talmudic theory of the Adamic origin of the Jews and pre-Adamic origin of the Gentiles (Præadamitæ, 1655). Seven years before Darwin’s The Origin of Species, it was Disraeli who developed a proto-Darwinian vision of the struggle of the races: “It is in vain for man to attempt to baffle the inexorable law of nature which has decreed that a superior race shall never be destroyed or absorbed by an inferior” (Lord George Bentinck, 1852). Shortly thereafter, the inventors of the first Darwinian racialist theories were Jewish authors, such as Ludwig Gumplowicz, professor of political science in Graz for twenty years and author of The Struggle of Races (1883).
Many of the most enthusiastic disciples of Spencer, Darwin, and Galton were Jewish. Lucien Wolf, a well-known journalist, editor-in-chief of the Jewish World, but also a politician and historian, was one of the first to develop a “Darwinian” theory of Jewish racial superiority, in an 1884 article entitled “What Is Judaism? A Question of Today,” published in the Fortnightly Review, one of the most popular and influential British magazines. Jewish superiority, he wrote, “constitutes almost a stage in evolution” (unlike the followers of Mohammed, who “are among the rotting branches of the great tree of humanity”). This superiority is the result of eugenic principles enshrined in Jewish law, and encouraged by tradition: “The natural impulse to reject all further infusions of alien blood, as soon as the consciousness of superiority was reached, found every support in their national legends and traditions, and became accentuated by the hostility of their neighbours.” The key to Jewish superiority is, therefore, consanguinity: “Jewish separatism, or ‘tribalism,’ as it is now called, was invented to enable the Jews to keep untainted for the benefit of mankind not only the teachings of Judaism but also their physical results as illustrations of their value.”637 Like many thinkers of his time, Wolf was actually more Larmarckian than Darwinian, since he did not speak of “selection” and thus suggested that Talmudic eugenics produces acquired traits that are transmitted. But let us not forget that Darwin himself did not exclude this Lamarckian factor.
On the other hand, Wolf refers here only to a process internal to “race.” His contemporary and friend Joseph Jacobs, who worked with Francis Galton, emphasized the competitive relationship between races, thus introducing a factor of selection. In his Studies in Jewish Statistics: Social, Vital and Anthropometric (1891), a collection of articles first published in The Jewish Chronicle, Jacobs suggests that persecution has brought out the best of Jewish potentialities: “The weaker members of each generation have been weeded out by persecution which tempted them or forced them to embrace Christianity, and thus contemporary Jews are the survival of a long process of unnatural selection which has seemingly fitted them excellently for the struggle for intellectual existence.”638 This perception of persecution as a selective factor—a Spencerian mechanism ensuring the “survival of the fittest” by way of the expulsion of “soft” Jews from the gene pool—is a commonplace in the Jewish community’s discourse about itself. Theodor Herzl, among many others, evoked this idea without bothering to argue for it, since it went without saying among those he was addressing: “Jew-baiting has merely stripped off our weaklings; the strong among us were invariably true to their race when persecution broke out against them.”639
Jewish literature about the Jews is full of “Darwinian” explanations of the uniqueness of the Jewish people. Here is an example from the Zionist Nahum Goldman: “One of the great prodigies of Jewish psychology, which explains to a large extent the extraordinary survival of our people in spite of two thousand years of dispersion, has consisted in creating an absolutely brilliant defense mechanism against the politico-economic situation in which the Jews found themselves—against persecution and exile. This mechanism can be explained in a few words: The Jews have regarded their persecutors as an inferior race.”640 In other words, persecution reinforced the community’s sense of superiority.
Here is how Yuri Larin, a close associate of Lenin, explained the overrepresentation of Jews “in the apparatus of public organizations”: “The Jewish worker, because of the peculiarity of his past life and because of the additional oppression and persecution he had to endure for many years under tsarism, has developed a large number of special traits that equip him for active roles in revolutionary and public work. The exceptional development of the special psychological makeup necessary for leadership roles has made Jewish revolutionary workers more capable of gaining prominence in public life than the average Russian worker, who lived under very different conditions.” According to Larin, the economic “struggle for survival” in overcrowded shtetls had created above-average individuals. “In other words, the conditions of everyday life produced in urban Jews a peculiar, exceptional energy,” unlike “the bulk of our Russian workers [who] were of peasant origin and thus hardly capable of systematic activity.” Moreover, because of the discrimination against Jewish workers under the tsarist regime, “there developed, among this segment of the Jewish people, an unusually strong sense of solidarity and a predisposition toward mutual help and support.” Finally, because education had always been the main path of Jews toward emancipation, “tens of thousands of Jewish laboring youth used to spend long years, night in night out, bent over their books, in an attempt to break out of the narrow circle of restrictions. It rarely worked […], but the higher cultural level acquired in this manner went on to benefit the revolutionary struggle.”641 Jews, in other words, are closer than others to the proverbial New Man that Revolution aimed at creating.
Whatever factors one invokes (persecution, valorization of intellectual work), the consensus result is that the Jews are on average more intelligent than the Gentiles, and therefore well suited for holding power over them. “Superior Jewish intelligence is part of the Jewish self-stereotype,” writes Raphael Patai, a Hungarian Jew who taught in Israel before emigrating to the United States, in his book The Jewish Mind (1977). “The same rumor is mooted by Gentiles as well. Those of them who are free of the taint of anti-Semitism simply refer to it as a fact, without any emotional overtones, unless it be a twinge of envy or a note of grudging admiration. The anti- Semite will find it possible to speak of Jewish intelligence only in terms of negative connotations such as shrewdness, sharpness, craftiness, cunning, slyness, and the like. […] All people who know Jews, whatever their reaction to them otherwise, subscribe to the rumor of their intelligence.” The rumor is based on fact: studies have shown that Jews have, on average, an IQ well above 100 (the general average), especially, but not exclusively, in the field of “verbal intelligence” (as opposed to “performance intelligence”). Among common Darwinian explanations, Patai mentions the well-known contrast between the Christian tradition of clerical celibacy versus the strong competitiveness of Talmudic scholars in the matrimonial market. In the Middle Ages, intellectually superior men were deprived of progeny if they were Christians, but obtained wives of choice and a large number of descendants if they were Jews.642
The assumed intellectual superiority of the Jews acts as a Darwinian filter in the cultural sphere, which tends to Judaize itself almost automatically through co-optation. Andre Gide noted this phenomenon with some irritation in his diary in 1914: “It seems to me that this tendency to constantly emphasize the Jew, preferring him and taking a special interest in him, this predisposition to recognizing in him talent, even genius, stems from the fact that a Jew is particularly sensitive to Jewish qualities.”643 And thus are mediocre thinkers and creators, even plagiarists, raised atop Mt. Parnassus, their works immortalized, canonized, and deemed mandatory reading. They, in their turn—convinced that genius comes more naturally to Jews— lionize and favor their Jewish brethren.
Blood, Race, and Genes The term “group solidarity,” mentioned by Larine, refers to what Charles Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871): “A tribe including many members who, possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, who were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.”644 This principle, called “group selection,” introduces an internal contradiction in Darwin’s theory: insofar as individuals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the group have less chance of survival, altruism should not be transmitted as a genetic trait in the group. This contradiction does not concern us, since the validity of the Darwinian theory of the evolution of species is irrelevant here. We are interested only in Darwinian mechanisms capable of explaining the superiority of the Jews in their competitive relations with the Gentiles.
Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning Richard Dawkins’s effort to resolve the contradiction of “group selection” in his best-selling book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins believes he can do it by taking the standpoint of the “gene,” defined as “any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection.” From that standpoint, “we and all other animals, are machines created by our genes,” allowing them to replicate indefinitely.645 This view seems to correspond fairly well to the Deuteronomic ideology. The insistence of the Jewish tradition on the law of endogamy from the Bible to the present day makes it possible to consider Judaism as a strategy of preservation, even improvement, of a genetic heritage. It is better understood by reading what Benzion Netanyahu, father of the Israeli prime minister, writes about transgressions against endogamy: “Only by intermarriage can a person uproot himself from a nation, and then only in so far as his descendants are concerned. His individuality, which is an extract and an example of the qualities of his nation, may then be lost in future generations, dominated by qualities of other nations. Quitting a nation is, therefore, even from a biological point of view, an act of suicide.”646 Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel from 1969 to 1974, found a more modern formulation: “To marry a non-Jew is to join the six million [exterminated Jews].”647 Indeed, in Jewish Orthodox communities, the Jew who marries a goy is considered dead, and even given a symbolic funeral by his family.
This obsession with endogamy is the central theme of the book of Ezra, which lists the genealogies of the pure lines worthy of reproduction. These lines obviously refer to an elite class rather than a people. And still today, within the Jewish community, endogamy is all the more valued as one moves up the social hierarchy. The almost caricatural illustration of this principle is the Rothschild dynasty: the most powerful Jewish family in the world is also the most endogamous. Of the 58 marriages contracted by the descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, half were between cousins. In the space of a little more than a hundred years, they married each other 18 times, 16 times between first cousins.648 The rule, written down by Mayer Amschel in his last will, is for Rothschild boys to marry Rothschild girls, while also admitting a few handpicked goyish aristocrats to the lineage. Such unions enrich the Rothschild gene pool, since their offspring are Jewish on the principle that Jewishness is transmitted through the mother.649
In the world of the Jewish super-rich, genetic heritage and financial heritage are closely intertwined. Corporate mergers are consecrated by marriages: Solomon Loeb and Abraham Kuhn of Kuhn Bank, Loeb & Co (founded in 1867) married each other’s sisters, while Jacob Schiff married the daughter of Solomon Loeb to become boss of the bank in 1875. Similarly, the two Sachs sons married two Goldman daughters, forming the bank Goldman Sachs (founded in 1869). Conversely, marriages with non-Jews, amounting to genetic defections, are most frequent among the less well-off sections of the Jewish community—a phenomenon that, from the Judeo- Darwinian point of view, is tantamount to expelling the weak from the group.
We have shown in chapter 3 that the core teaching of the Hebrew Bible deprives the individual of any other life after death than through his progeny. Man’s only destiny beyond his earthly life is the survival of his people. It is as if the Jewishness in each Jew were a piece of a collective soul. Therefore renouncing Jewishness, for a Jew, is like tearing away part of his soul. In his Essay on the Jewish Soul (1929), Isaac Kadmi-Cohen described Judaism as “the spiritualized deification of the race,” and his God as “the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.”650 This may be why many Jews who seemed detached from their community, even critical of it, suddenly begin to feel late in life—at the age when ordinary Christians begin to ponder the hereafter and the salvation of their souls—to become intensely Jewish, as if their only perspective beyond their earthly existence was to join their souls to that of the chosen people, adding another stone to the edifice. The power of this tribal rootedness is well summed up by the Jewish proverb: “You can take the boy out of Israel, but you can’t take Israel out of the boy.”651
This Jewish focus on genetic heritage, which is tantamount to creating a tribal psyche or group soul, also explains why we often see people who seem unconcerned with their Jewish origins suddenly becoming fervent defenders of the Jewish community. At the raising of the slightest alarm, involving any perceived criticism or threat to the community, they react as if, deep down inside, they themselves were gravely and personally threatened. An ethnic ego—an anima judaica that had been asleep inside them—suddenly seizes control of their being. A good example is the Hollywood scriptwriter Ben Hecht, son of Jewish immigrants, who recounts in his autobiography A Child of the Century (1954) how, after writing the 1931 bestseller A Jew in Love deemed insulting to Jews, he “turned into a Jew” in 1939: “The German mass murder of the Jews, recently begun, had brought my Jewishness to the surface.” He then became a fervent Zionist and converted the gangster Mickey Cohen to the cause of the Irgun, whose terrorism against the British he supported in his May 1947 letter to the New York Post entitled “Letter to the Terrorists of Palestine”: “My Brave Friends, The Jews of America are for you [. . .] Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British railroad train sky high, or rob a British bank, or let go with your guns and bombs at the British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.”652
The Hebrew Bible itself is the most striking achievement of this special collective genius of the Jewish people, capable of working “as one person” (Ezra 3:1). For the Bible is not the work of an individual genius, but of several lines of priests whose contributions are spread over centuries. No other known literary work has such a collective character. It is this supra-individual origin that gives the Bible a superhuman aura and justifies its sacred character, helping make the biblical Yahweh the collective soul of the Jewish people. We can say almost as much of the Talmud, which is the result of an accumulation of comments by generations of rabbis. Zionism provides another illustration of the Jews’ ability to link their individual destinies to the collective destiny of their people. No other people, it seems to me, are capable of such perseverance toward a single and unwavering goal, pursued step by step over several generations—even over a hundred generations if we trace the Zionist project back to the period of Exile.
The national orientation of the Jewish soul infuses all collective action with a spiritual force that no other community can compete with. It is this spiritual or animistic connection that explains the exceptional capacity of the Jews to work in networks. Their absolute loyalty to the national goals they set makes these networks frighteningly effective, because they are based on a tacit confidence that requires no written contract. We see this type of network at work throughout history. Neoconservatives have recently demonstrated the formidable effectiveness of this esprit de corps: in two generations, a network of a few hundred people penetrated the nerve centers of the American state with the precise aim of seizing the levers of its foreign and military policies.
In an article in The Jewish World Review of June 7, 1999, the neoconservative Michael Ledeen, disciple of Leo Strauss and founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), assumes that Machiavelli, the son of a papal financier, must have been a “secret Jew,” since “if you listen to his political philosophy you will hear Jewish music.”653 The affinity between Judaism and Machiavellianism can be understood by reading Leo Strauss’s Thoughts on Machiavelli. Strauss believes Machiavelli is a patriot of the highest degree because he understood that only the nation is immortal and has a soul, and that the best leaders are those who have no fear of damning their individual soul, since they have none.654 One understands better modern Zionism of the neoconservative kind when one has grasped this affinity between Judaism and Machiavellianism: Judaism, like Machiavellian politics, is seen as a superior kind of patriotism, because it totally subordinates the immortality of the individual to that of the nation.
On a more pragmatic level, the esprit de corps that characterizes the Jewish community and gives it this extraordinary capacity to move as a single person, sometimes scattering like a school of fish and then reconstituting itself, rests on a profound internalization of discipline and submission to the authority of the elites—in the last instance, to Yahweh, the soul of the group. Although theoretically devoid of central authority since the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish community is organically structured in concentric circles. This was noted in the 1970s by Daniel Elazar (Community and Polity: Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry, 1976): in the center is the core 5–8 percent for whom Jewishness is a permanent concern; on the periphery are Jews who are totally assimilated and who play an important role in public relations while remaining mobilizable under the banner of the fight against anti-Semitism.655 There are currently about 300 national Jewish organizations in the United States, with an annual budget of $6 billion. These organizations do not all share the same sensibilities, yet the most important ones speak with one voice through the 52 members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.656
Nomads and Refugees An often-advanced explanation of the specificity of the Jewish people is their supposed nomadic origin. This is the thesis of Yuri Slezkine, who notes, for example, that “All service nomads are endogamous, and many of them observe dietary restrictions that make fraternizing with their neighbors/clients impossible.” Or that “All nomads defined themselves in genealogical terms; most ‘service nomads’ persisted in doing so in the midst of dominant agrarian societies that sacralized space. They were people wedded to time, not land.” The sedentary peasant is rooted in the land, while the nomadic pastoralist is rooted in his genealogy. Ask a peasant where he comes from, and he will name his village; ask a nomad and he will name his tribe.657 There is exaggeration and reductionism in such stereotypes. Do they apply to the Indians of the American plains, for example? We may doubt it, and find many other counterexamples.
As early as 1929 Isaac Kadmi-Cohen explained Jewish tribalism by nomadic origin. He saw in Judaism the purest product of nomadism. “If nomadism has been the precious guardian of the unity of the race, it is because it has preserved it from lengthy contact with the same land, from a continuous fixation on the same soil, a sedentary rootedness which inevitably transforms, through adaption and selection, the variegated products of the wild meadow into a wheat field. It detaches man from the earth.” Kadmi-Cohen also attributes the Jews’ utilitarian spirit to their nomadic heritage. The peasant gains his subsistence from the earth, but his relation to the earth is transgenerational: he belongs to the earth more than the earth belongs to him. Love of the land is the basis of peasants’ patriotism, unlike the nomad; “In the (nomadic) Jew, patriotism for the homeland, like its microcosmic expression in the love of a parcel of earth, does not exist.” Consequently, land is not seen as an end in itself, but “through the prism of self-interest, through the advantage that can be derived from it.”658
There may be some truth in this explanation of the Jewish character by primordial nomadism. But it has its weaknesses. Kadmi-Cohen applies it to all the Semites, dividing them into two branches, Arabs and Jews. But he does not address the question of what distinguishes Arabs from Jews. He confines himself to this remark: “Of the two main branches of the Semitic tree, only the Jewish branch has preserved its original purity.”659 But the Arab Bedouins have remained nomadic much longer than the Jews, making it difficult to see how their nomadism could be less pure. Moreover, the nomadism of the first Hebrews is not as obvious as it seems. Genesis does not describe them as functional nomads whose migrations were regulated by the seasons, the need for game or pasture, or trade. The Hebrews, obviously, were perpetually in search of a land where they could settle permanently. As we have seen, the etymology of “Hebrew” (habiru) reminds us that they were originally refugees—migrants rather than nomads.
These considerations help us better understand the paradoxical character of Hebrew “nomadism.” “Unlike sedentary peoples, the nomad did not pay homage to the land,” writes Kadmi-Cohen. But how can we describe the Jews’ attachment to their Promised Land? And especially their peculiar way of appropriating it? Most conquering peoples borrow the place- names of the people they have conquered. Even the European pioneers of the New World adopted the Amerindian names of many of the rivers, mountains, and territories of the American continent. Not so the Israelis who, from 1947 onward, erased the Arab names of bulldozed villages, renaming them in Hebrew. The ideology of the “Redemption of the Earth” demanded no less.660 Here is the expression of an odd sort of possessiveness, radically different from the nomad’s freedom from attachment to the soil.
This brings us to another paradoxical aspect of the “nomadism” of the Jews: their relationship to property. The Jew, like the nomad, is not interested in landed property. But no other nomadic people has developed an interest in movable property comparable to that of Diaspora Jews. An ancient example is the theft of gold from the Egyptians before the flight from Egypt. The looting of precious metals also featured in the conquest of Canaan: “All the silver and all the gold, everything made of bronze or iron, will be consecrated to Yahweh and put in his treasury” (Joshua 6:19). Moreover, the Jews were undoubtedly the first to have regarded money not as a means of exchanging goods, but as a commodity. We can see, with Jacques Attali, the increasing dematerialization of money as the triumph of nomadism (that is, of the Jewish type by Darwinian selection). But we must recognize that such “nomadism” has little to do with the normal anthropological use of the term.
In conclusion, the explanation of Judaism by nomadism is not entirely convincing. The Jewish people have never defined themselves as nomads, but rather as wanderers. And their forty years of wandering in the desert are hardly a paradise lost. Jews’ obsession with the Promised Land, and their taste for mobile, transportable property, have little to do with the freedom of the nomad exalted by Kadmi-Cohen. The Jew, moreover, is atavistically urban. Let us not confuse nomadism and cosmopolitanism.
Assimilation, Dissimulation Keeping in mind that we are talking about cultural not genetic transmission, the Darwinian dialectic remains enlightening in understanding the mechanisms by which the Jewish community ensures its survival as a group and its competitiveness among other human groups.
The preservation of the group means the struggle against assimilation into other groups, through a cult of ethnic identity that begins at an early age. Referring to the Hebrew school of his childhood, which he attended after regular school hours like all American Jewish schoolchildren of his time, Samuel Roth explained: “The preservation of Jewish religion and culture are merely excuses for something else, a smoke-screen. What the Jew really wants and expects to achieve through the instrumentality of the Hebrew school is to cultivate in his son the sharp awareness that he is a Jew and that as a racial Jew—apart from all the other races—he is waging an old war against his neighbors. The young Jew must learn to remember that before anything else he is a Jew, that, before any other allegiance, comes his allegiance to the Jewish People.”661 What he learns in the synagogue, with the ritual of Kol Nidre, is that disloyalty toward non-Jews is blessed by God.
Competitiveness with non-Jews involves strategies that can be described in Darwinian terms as “crypsis” and “mimicry.” The former, also called camouflage, is defined as “the faculty of a species to merge with its environment”; the second, as “the faculty of one species to resemble another.” These are adaptive strategies conventionally attributed to the Jews, and rightly so. The Jew has an extraordinary capacity “to conform externally to his temporary surroundings,” wrote Hilaire Belloc in 1922; “a Jew takes on with inexplicable rapidity the colour of his environment.” But this must not be confused with actual assimilation. Such crypsis is an adaptive strategy for security in a potentially hostile environment. By no means is it a renunciation of Jewish identity: “while he is, within, and through all his ultimate character, above all things a Jew; yet in the superficial and most immediately apparent things he is clothed in the very habit of whatever society he for the moment inhabits.” Another commonly expressed grievance against the Jews involves their propensity for secrecy. They are accused of hiding behind borrowed Gentile names, working in occult networks, and so on. Such mimicry is often suspected of serving concealment, not assimilation.662
In A People That Shall Dwell Alone, social psychology professor Kevin MacDonald argues that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy among peoples.” He sees it as remarkably effective, providing the Jewish community with a decisive selective advantage. From his Darwinian perspective, Kevin MacDonald naturally sees crypto-Judaism as “an authentic case of crypsis quite analogous to cases of mimetic camouflage in the natural world.” This also applies, according to MacDonald, to the sincere converts who nevertheless maintain group separatism— those who, while willingly accepting the water of baptism, believe that it has not changed the nature of the blood flowing in their veins, and who feel the need to maintain the purity of this Jewish blood. “Indeed, one might note that New Christians who maintained group separatism while sincerely accepting Christianity were really engaging in a very interesting evolutionary strategy—a true case of crypsis entirely analogous to crypsis in the natural world. Such people would be even more invisible to the surrounding society than crypto-Jews, because they would attend church regularly, not circumcise themselves, eat pork, etc., and have no psychological qualms about doing so. […] Psychological acceptance of Christianity may have been the best possible means of continuing Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy during the period of the Inquisition.” 663
From the same Darwinian perspective, MacDonald analyzes Reform Judaism, which mimics Christianity in defining itself as a religion. This allows the Jewish community to maintain its cohesion and endogamy. In other words, Judaism serves as the religious mask of ethnic Jewry. Thus in 1897, at the height of the immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe, the Central Conference of American Rabbis adopted the following resolution: “Resolved that we totally disapprove of any attempt for the establishment of a Jewish State. […] We reaffirm that the object of Judaism is not political nor national, but spiritual, and addresses itself to the continuous growth of peace, justice and love of the human race, to a messianic time when all men will recognize that they form ‘one great brotherhood’ for the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.”664 Zionism is a reaction against this trend, which Moses Hess already condemned as the repression of one’s inner nature: “Those of our brethren who, for purposes of obtaining emancipation, endeavor to persuade themselves, as well as others, that modern Jews possess no trace of a national feeling, have really lost their heads.” A Jew is a Jew “by virtue of his racial origin, even though his ancestors may have become apostates.”665 According to Benzion Netanyahu, defining Jewishness as religion rather than nationality “was the fruit of self- deception rather than of hypocrisy.”666
I am inclined to believe that unconscious self-deception plays a major role, since the unconscious is the seat of the group soul, as the group thinks through the individual. But the distinction between self-deception and hypocrisy is of little importance from a Darwinian perspective. It does not matter what Nahum Goldman really means when he writes: “Even today it is hardly possible to say whether to be a Jew consists first of belonging to a people or practicing a religion, or the two together.”667 Deliberately or unconsciously, these statements serve to maintain a misunderstanding, a strategic ambivalence. Religion and race are two different things, and Wolf’s assertion has no logical meaning unless we admit that Judaism is a religion seen from the outside and a “race” (ethnicity) from the inside: “The best strategy for Judaism is to maximize the ethnic, particularistic aspects of Judaism within the limits necessary to prevent these aspects from resulting in anti-Semitism.”668 The religious facade makes it possible to benefit from the religious tolerance of an open society. But the ethnic definition is also useful in a multicultural society, and helps to disarm critics through the “anti-Semite” label.
Unfortunately, this strategy, once the Gentiles see through it, is one of the main sources of recurrent Judeophobia. Recognizing that the Jewish people everywhere form “a state within the state,” Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (1923): “It was one of the most ingenious tricks that was ever invented to let this State sail under the flag of ‘religion,’ thus securing for it the tolerance that the Aryan is always ready to grant to a religious denomination. Actually the Mosaic religion is nothing but a doctrine of the preservation of the Jewish race.”669
As the American rabbis suggested in their statement, the notion of religion, in its modern sense, presupposes a universal vocation. This vocation is unambiguous in Christianity and Islam. In the case of Judaism, on the other hand, universalism is essentially a message addressed to the Gentiles, even though it is internalized by many Jews. Universalism is interpretable in Darwinian terms as another form of crypsis by which the Jewish people of the Diaspora seek to minimize the hostility of the host peoples and maximize their sympathy. Again, it does not matter whether the double game is deliberately deceptive, or an instinctive, spontaneous way of adjusting communication according to whether one is addressing a family member or a stranger. After all, in the vast majority of people, ideas and opinions are like clothes. They are merely ways of appearing in public. One can have one opinion at home and another for social life, without necessarily feeling hypocritical. Moses Hess, addressing himself mainly to his fellow Jews, defended the national character of Judaism and denounced the assimilationist Jew’s “beautiful phrases about humanity and enlightenment which he employs as a cloak to hide his treason.”670 We are reminded of the double language of the book of Ezra, where Yahweh is “the God of heaven” for the Persian kings, but “the God of Israel” in the rest of the book. The book of Ezra is a key to understanding Judaism, since the Yahwist ideology with its tribal-universal ambiguity crystallized during this period. Put simply, it seems that Yahweh is the tribal god of the Jews that the rest of humanity takes for the universal God. This is why, although the Tanakh of the Jews and the Old Testament of the Christians are practically identical, they are two totally different books according to how they are read.
The duplicity of modern Judaism has been discussed by Gilad Atzmon, who grew up in Israel in a family of Zionist militants (his grandfather was an Irgun official), but later became a severe critic of this legacy. To him, the Haskalah insight, “Be a Jew at home and a goy on the street” (formulated by the poet Judah Leib Gordon but often attributed to Moses Mendelssohn) is fundamentally dishonest: “The Haskalah Jew is destined to live in a dual, deceptive mode, if not practically a state of schizophrenia. […] The Haskalah Jew is deceiving his or her God when at home, and misleading the goy once in the street. In fact, it is this duality of tribalism and universalism that is at the very heart of the collective secular Jewish identity. This duality has never been properly resolved.”
Zionism began as an effort to resolve this contradiction, so that a Jew could be a Jew both at home and in the street. But the result is that “there is no trace of universalism in either the Zionist’s ‘street’ or in his ‘home’.” However, since Israel has a vital need for support from the international community, the Zionist Jew still has to don the mask of universalism and humanism, not so much in the streets of Tel Aviv, but in those of New York, London, and Paris. For historical reasons, Zionism is today a global and not just a national project. Jews of the Diaspora participate in it at least as actively as Israelis do. “Within the Jewish framework, the Israelis colonize Palestine and the Jewish Diaspora is there to mobilise lobbies by recruiting international support.”671 Zionism is no longer a nationalism but a globalism, a project for a new world order.
But has it ever been anything else? Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau no doubt thought of Zionism on the model of the nationalisms of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. “Early Zionist thinkers were apparently galvanized by a deep revulsion for the diaspora Jews,” writes Gilad Atzmon. “They preached for a radical metamorphosis of the Jew. They promised that Zionism would civilize the diaspora Jew by means of a manufactured homecoming. […] They vowed to change, striving to become a ‘people like all other people.’” Atzmon cites Aaron David Gordon, founder of Labor Zionism: “We are a parasitic people. We have no roots in the soil, there is no ground beneath our feet. And we are parasites not only in an economic sense, but in spirit, in thought, in poetry, in literature, and in our virtues, our ideals, our higher human aspirations.”672
However, in retrospect, Zionist nationalism may have masked a very different project. No other nationalist movement has ever viewed the concept of a people in such exclusively genetic terms—not even Nazism. “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,” as Resolution 3379 of the United Nations General Assembly so aptly put it on November 10, 1975.673 Blood takes precedence over land. That is why Israel has never ceased to mean, for the Jews themselves, a world community rather than a national community. And that is why the ultimate goal of Zionism cannot be just Israel, as Gilad Atzmon stresses: “In fact, there is no geographical centre to the Zionist endeavor. It is hard to determine where Zionist decisions are made.” The strength of modern Zionism rests on an organic rather than hierarchical link between Jews. “While the organism functions as a whole, the particular organ fulfills an elementary function without being aware of its specific role within the entire system.”674 It is the ideology, internalized by each individual, that is the center. And this ideology, in the last analysis, is that of biblical Yahwism. Naturally there must be a cognitive elite to perpetually pump the ideology throughout the organism.
This ideology is epitomized by the book of Esther, which Atzmon illustrates by quoting an article by Rafael Medoff titled “A Purim Lesson: Lobbying Against Genocide, Then and Now.” From the story of Esther and her cousin Mordecai, Medoff draws as a lesson the importance of infiltrating power (which he euphemistically calls “lobbying”): “The holiday of Purim celebrates the successful effort by prominent Jews in the capitol of ancient Persia to prevent genocide against the Jewish people.” So, Atzmon comments, “To internalise the message of the Book of Esther is to aim for the most influential centres of hegemony, to collaborate with power and bond with rulers.” And the Esther-Mordecai tandem is the perfect illustration of the organic complementarity of the different levels of Jews. “Medoff’s reading of the Book of Esther provides a glaring insight into the internal codes of Jewish collective survival dynamics, in which the assimilated (Esther) and the observant (Mordechai) join forces with Jewish interests on their minds.” Esther not only incarnates the assimilated Jew, but the most assimilated of all, the crypto-Jew, since the king and the people are unaware that she is Jewish. In the organic onion-layer structure of the Jewish community, even “anti-Zionists of Jewish descent […] are there to portray an image of ideological plurality and ethical concern.”675
The Mission Theory
Modern Zionism is a global project because it is the child of Yahwism—a rebellious child in its youth, but loyal in maturity. Jewishness itself is a global project, for what does election mean if not a universal mission? This universal mission, too, has a double face. There are many Jews who associate this mission with a priesthood for the salvation of mankind. Jabotinsky quotes in The War and the Jew (1942), in a mocking tone, a Parisian friend who adhered to the theory “that it was the sacred mission of the Jews to live scattered among the Gentiles and help them rise to higher ethical levels.”676 The Italian rabbi Elijah Benamozegh, author of Israel and Humanity (1914), is one of the most famous representatives of this “mission theory”: “The constitution of a universal religion is the ultimate goal of Judaism,” he writes. This entails a sense of Israel’s superiority: “In Heaven, one God of all men, and on earth a single family of peoples, among whom Israel is the eldest, responsible for the priestly teaching function and the administration of the true religion of humanity.” Universal religion therefore implies “the recognition that humanity must accept the truth of the doctrine of Israel.” This universal religion will not be Judaism proper, but an inferior form, founded on the laws God gave to Noah and not on the more demanding ones given to Moses. The universal religion of the Gentiles will be Noachism. “The special cult of Israel is safeguarding the means of realization of the true universal religion, Noachism.”677 This conception deviates significantly from the Bible, whose only universalist message is that the nations (goyim) must pay tribute to Yahweh in his Jerusalem Temple. It is therefore legitimate to ask whether the fraud of Noachism and all the other versions of the “mission theory” are not simply skillful rationalizations of Jewish supremacism. The same question may be asked about the attempt of Joseph Salvador, in his book Paris, Rome and Jerusalem (1860), to outline a universal religion based on a fusion of Judaism and Christianity. He believed that the natural center for this syncretistic religion would be Jerusalem, and therefore advocated the establishment of a new state, a bridge between the Orient and the Occident, encompassing the borders of ancient Israel.678
Yet it would be wrong to suspect conscious hypocrisy in most of the countless Jewish thinkers who have echoed the Jewish people’s global “humanitarian mission.” There is certainly none in Alfred Nossig, a Jewish artist and activist who, before working for the emigration of selected Jews to Palestine by collaborating with the Gestapo in the Warsaw ghetto, wrote in Integrales Judentum (“Integral Judaism”), published in Berlin in 1922: “The Jewish community is more than a people in the modern political sense of the word. It is the repository of a historically global mission, I would say even a cosmic one, entrusted to it by its founders Noah and Abraham, Jacob and Moses. [. . .] It forms an unconscious nucleus of our being, the common substance of our soul. [. . .] The primordial conception of our ancestors was to found not a tribe but a world order destined to guide humanity in its development. This is the true meaning, the only meaning of the election of the Hebrews as a chosen people.”679
In its secular formulation, the mission theory naturally substitutes superiority for chosenness: “I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority, in our capacity to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race,” declared David Ben-Gurion. “This belief of mine is based on my knowledge of the Jewish people, not some mystical faith.”680 But this “mission” has many broad, even contradictory interpretations. The rabbi Daniel Gordis, vice president of the Jewish University of Los Angeles, offers one variant in Does the World Need Jews? “Jewish tradition has always claimed that Jews need to be different in order that they might play a quasi- subversive role in society [. . .] the goal is to be a contributing and respectful ‘thorn in the side’ of society.”681 And so the “mission theory” can never be refuted: Whether it is constructive or subversive, the Jewish contribution is always a gift to mankind. It is positive both in bringing the One God to humanity, and in dragging religion through the mud; positive both in raising humanity’s moral level, and also in undermining moral values. Everything that the chosen people do, by definition, is a “humanitarian mission.” So the mission theory is in reality only a posture aimed at compelling respect and demanding gratitude. What it disguises as a “mission,” in the minds of the Gentiles but also of progressive Jews, is nothing but chauvinism and Jewish separatism. The ultimate purpose of the mission theory is to explain that Jews must remain a separate nation, in order to fulfill their universal mission.
Implicit in the mission theory in all its forms is the inferiority of non-Jewish cultures. The Jewish historian Albert Lindemann observes in his co-religionists an instinctive propensity “to view surrounding Gentile society as pervasively flawed, polluted, or sick. The belief of Jews in premodern times that they, God’s chosen people, had been condemned by their god, because of their own sins, to live in subjugation in the polluted lands of the uncircumcised, the brutal, the unclean, the eaters of filth—of the reviled Children of Esau—took on new forms in a modern context.” So it does not astonish Lindemann “that many Jews have been, since the early nineteenth century, powerfully attracted to those modern secular ideologies that managed to reaffirm indirectly, with a new language, an older sense of the tainted qualities of prevailing Gentile life.”682 According to Andrew Heinze in Jews and the American Soul, “the story of American ideas about the mind and soul is one in which Jews have been central actors,” with the preoccupation “to purge the evils they associated with Christian civilization.”683
From the 1930s, Freudianism gained considerable influence in the United States, thanks to the immigration of a large number of members of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, almost all Jews. This current swarmed into a multitude of schools, and the 1960s produced the so-called Freudo-Marxists, equally inclined to diagnose the ills of society and the traditional family.
According to the psychoanalytic diagnosis, Christian societies suffer from sexual repression. The cure, therefore, is sexual liberation. Jewish intellectuals were the spearheads of the attack on moral and Christian values and the fight against the censorship of pornography. Norman Podhoretz pointed this out in an August 1995 Commentary article,684 and professor Nathan Abrams of the University of Aberdeen goes further in an article in The Jewish Quarterly (reprinted in the collection Jews and Sex): “Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading.”685 The sexual revolution, like the drug culture, arrived just in time to depoliticize youth during the Lyndon Johnson era, when Israel’s parasitism of America was gaining critical mass.
“The Jews are not merely out of step with Christian civilization, they hold it in utter contempt,” explains Michael Wex in his essay on Yiddish culture, Born to Kvetch.686 But the Haskalah strategy requires paying obsequious respect to Christianity. It consists not only in imitating Christianity in order to enjoy the same rights and dignity as a universal religion, but also in asserting paternity in order to absorb it. “What gave birth to the Christian gospel,” Rabbi Benamozegh claims, “is this faith in the universal religion that the Jews believed was born by their ancient doctrine and whose reign they were to establish one day.” But Christianity, like Islam, is an imperfect expression of this ideal, the true form of which should be Noachism, the universal law “which Judaism has preciously preserved and which was the starting point and impetus of Christian preaching in the world.”687 Benamozegh therefore exhorts Christianity to acknowledge its errors and return to its sources. The source is Jesus the Jew, while responsibility for Christian anti-Semitism is blamed on St. Paul, the first self-hating Jew, who wrote that the Jews “do not please God, they are enemies of all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:15–16).688 Heinrich Graetz writes in his History of the Jews: “Jesus made no attack upon Judaism itself, he had no idea of becoming the reformer of Jewish doctrine or the propounder of a new law; he sought merely to redeem the sinner, to call him to a good and holy life, to teach him that he is a child of God, and to prepare him for the approaching Messianic time.” And so, he “fell a victim to a misunderstanding. How great was the woe caused by that one execution! How many deaths and sufferings of every description has it not caused among the children of Israel!”689
This process can be described as a superficial “Christianization of Judaism”: Judaism not only mimics the universalist message of Christianity, but also claims Jesus as one of its honorable representatives. Better yet, the crucifixion of Christ becomes the symbol of the martyrdom of the Jews. In 1918, Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler, a leading figure of American Reform Judaism, wrote in his Jewish Theology: “Israel is the champion of the Lord, chosen to battle and suffer for the supreme values of mankind, for freedom and justice, truth and humanity; the man of woe and grief, whose blood is to fertilize the soil with the seeds of righteousness and love for mankind. […] Accordingly, modern Judaism proclaims more insistently than ever that the Jewish people is the Servant of the Lord, the suffering Messiah of the nations, who offered his life as an atoning sacrifice for humanity and furnished his blood as the cement with which to build the divine kingdom of truth and justice.”690
This aping of Christian soteriology (doctrine of salvation) culminates in the religion of the Holocaust, with Auschwitz replacing Calvary. And because absolute good needs its enemy absolute evil, one understands the importance of transforming Hitler into a quasi-metaphysical principle, with titles like Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil by Ron Rosenbaum (1998), which became in the French translation: Pourquoi Hitler? Enquête sur l’origine du mal (“Why Hitler? An Inquiry into the Origin of Evil”). The forelock and mustache of the Führer have replaced the horns of the devil in folk iconography.
While mimicking Christianity, Judaism also seeks to transform it. And so the counterpart of the Christianization of Judaism is the Judaization of Christianity. According to the historian of Judaism Daniel Lindenberg, “the Jewish Reformation does not only want to ‘assimilate’ unilaterally into the modern Christian world. In a way, it aims to ‘reform’ it, too. […] It is really about awakening the Hebrew ‘root’ of a Christianity reconciled with Human Rights.”691
In fact, it is really about eradicating all traces of anti-Judaism from Christianity—from the Gospel if it were possible—in order to turn Christianity into a Judeophilic religion, that is, a branch of Judaism. Jules Isaac, founder of the Jewish-Christian Friendship group in 1948, began this task in the years preceding Vatican II. He called on Catholics to renounce their anti-Judaism and to recognize Jews as their “elder brothers” on the basis of a vision of Jesus identical to that of Graetz: “The originality of Jesus did not consist of innovating in matters of faith and breaking with the religion of his fathers, but simply of extracting from Scripture and the whole Jewish oral tradition the elements of a truly pure faith and universal morality.” On December 15, 1959, Isaac delivered a lecture at the Sorbonne entitled “The Necessary Redress of Christian Teaching about Israel,” later published as L’Ensegnement du mépris (“Teaching Contempt”). To satisfy him, John XXIII appointed Cardinal Bea to head the Secretariat for the Unity of Christian Religions, which also deals with relations with Judaism. Bea’s two immediate assistants, Bishop Baum and Monsignor Oesterreicher, were converted Jews, and Bea was considered to be of Marrano origin (his real name would have been Behar). These assertions were supported in a Look magazine article of January 25, 1966, referring to secret meetings between Bea and the American Jewish Committee.692
The protagonists in this drama include the Congregation of Our Lady of Sion, founded in 1843 by two Jewish brothers in Strasbourg, Théodore and Alphonse Rastisbonne, “to testify in the Church and in the world of the faithfulness of God to his love for the Jewish people, and to work at fulfilling the biblical promises revealed to the patriarchs and prophets of Israel for all mankind.” Although initially devoted to the conversion of the Jews, it contributed to the Church’s renunciation of that mission under Vatican II.
The result of all these combined actions was the birth of a new ostensibly Judeophilic Christianity, promoted by personalities such as the Archbishop of Paris Aron Jean-Marie Lustiger. In his book The Promise, whose cover shows Pope John Paul II praying at the Wailing Wall, Lustiger explains why “though Christian by faith and baptism, [he is] as Jewish as the apostles were,” and why Jesus’s message is the continuation of the law of Moses and a confirmation of the election of the Jewish people: “One can only receive the Spirit of Jesus on the strict condition of sharing the hope of Israel,” since “the figure of the Messiah is at the same time the figure of Israel.”693
Today’s Judeophiles and crypto-Jews in the Roman Curia are, of course, ardent Zionists. The casual admission of the prelate David-Maria Jaeger, the principal architect of diplomatic relations between Israel and the Vatican, speaks volumes about the extent of this phenomenon. Born in Tel Aviv of Jewish parents and converted to Catholicism, but defining himself primarily as an “Israeli Jew,” Jaeger told a journalist from the Israeli daily Haaretz in 2011: “I’m just like any Israeli citizen who works for an international organization situated outside the country—just like there are Israelis at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, the United Nations in New York or UNESCO in Paris.”694
The Judaization of Christianity culminates in American Evangelical Christianity, the direct descendant of Calvinist Puritanism. A few decades of skillful manipulation has succeeded in transforming Evangelicals into powerful allies of Zionism. The initial impulse can be traced back to Methodist pastor William Eugene Blackstone. His book Jesus Is Coming (1878) sold millions of copies and was translated into forty-eight languages. It became the key reference of what is called “dispensationalism,” the doctrine that the gathering of Jews in Palestine is the precondition for the Return of Christ on Earth (after which, of course, the Jews will finally recognize Christ). In 1890 Blackstone organized a conference of Christian and Jewish leaders. The following year he launched a petition signed by 413 Christian leaders and a handful of Jewish ones. This petition, known as the Blackstone Memorial, proposes “Why shall not the powers which under the Treaty of Berlin, in 1878, gave Bulgaria to the Bulgarians and Servia to the Servians now give Palestine back to the Jews?”695
The Judaization of American Christianity, and English Christianity to a lesser extent, has not been a spontaneous process, but rather one controlled by skillful manipulation. An example is the Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909 and revised in 1917. It is characterized by dubious and highly tendentious footnotes. For example, the promise of Yahweh to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3 merits a two-thirds-page footnote explaining that “God made an unconditional promise of blessings through Abram’s seed to the nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever,” accompanied by “a curse laid upon those who persecute the Jews,” or “commit the sin of anti- Semitism.” In reality, at this point Jacob, who would receive the name of Israel and beget the Jewish people, was not even born yet, nor was his father. The same note explains that “Both O.T. and N.T. are full of post-Sinaitic promises concerning Israel and the land which is to be Israel’s everlasting possession.”
How was Cyrus Scofield, a lawyer without theological training, capable of publishing such a work with the prestigious Oxford University Press? The mystery has been solved: Scofield was only a front man for a project whose real sponsor was Samuel Untermeyer, a Wall Street lawyer, Federal Reserve co-founder, devoted Zionist, and close associate of Woodrow Wilson. As noted in chapter 7, Untermeyer called for a “holy war” against Germany in 1933.696
Israel’s technique for manipulating history can be interpreted in Hegelian terms. Since he formulated the dialectical law of history in the early 19th century, Hegel has had two kinds of disciples: those who examine the past to verify the law, and those who apply the law to shape the future. Marx belonged to the second category: Although he claimed to merely predict an inevitable revolution, he contributed to hastening it. Marx may have understood this better than Hegel, because such laws were long known in his Jewish social environment. Manipulating history, rather than saving souls, has been from the start the great concern of Judaism. And it has never been so successfully done than during the “Jewish century,” as Yuri Slezkine names the 20th century.
It is through dialectical oppositions that the great Jewish movements of the 19th and 20th centuries have been able to bend history. The three major Jewish movements were hatched around the same time: Reform Judaism, the fruit of 18th century Haskalah; Bolshevism, based on Marxism, which fed on earlier socialist ideas before smothering them; and Zionism. Reform Judaism and Zionism appeared in Western Europe almost simultaneously, in the same intellectual milieu which produced Heinrich Graetz’s History of the Jews. Both used the victimization of the Jews as a springboard for their ascent to positions of power. While Reform Judaism was crafting a new image of the Jews as the collective suffering Messiah, Zionism was capitalizing on the Russian pogroms to advance its claim for the Jews to have “a nation of their own, a nation like others.” While originally affirming their mutual incompatibility and competing for the heart of Jews—wealthy and destitute alike—these two movements finally joined hand and congratulated each other on their marvelous common achievement: a nation like no other, with both a national territory and an international citizenry. Except for a few unreformed orthodox Jews, most Jews today see no contradiction between Reform Judaism and Zionism. The question of whether such dialectical machinery is engineered by Yahweh or by B’nai B’rith is open to debate. But most Jews involved in such movements are certainly not aware of the full picture. The process rests on an ambiguity which is the very essence of Jewishness: the impossibility of deciding whether it is a religion or a nationality.
The dialectical opposition between Zionism and communism is another case in point. Both originated, again, in the same milieu, and the very nature of their opposition is perhaps best represented by the friendship between Karl Marx and Moses Hess. Theodor Herzl, we remember, used the threat of communism in his Zionist diplomatic overtures to Russian and the German leaders: “Support my movement, and I will rid your cities of their revolutionaries.” Churchill, also on the Zionist side, dramatized the opposition between the “good Jews” (Zionists) and the “bad Jews” (communists) in his 1920 article “Zionism versus Bolshevism.”
Similar dialectical machinery can be found in all levels of Jewish movements. Consider, for example, the opposition between pro-Nazi Zionists and anti-Nazi Zionists in the 1930s. The Hegelian synthesis between the two is best embodied by Joachim Prinz, who in 1934 expressed sympathy for the Nazi racial laws, and in 1958 was elected president of the American Jewish Congress, the very organization which in 1933 had called for total economic war on Germany.
Reshaping the Cultural Environment
The manipulation of the Christian mind to make it favorable to the Jews and to Israel is one aspect among others of a general strategy of modifying the cultural environments of host nations to make them more conducive to the Jewish community. This strategy differs from the Darwinian crypsis by which the community blends into the environment to make its ethnic character less visible. Here, on the contrary, it is a question of modifying the environment to make it more tolerant of ethnic communities, or to diffuse the ethnic problem and thus divert Gentile hostility toward other ethnic communities. The Jews are then able, using the strategy of “triangulation,” to pose as mediators of conflicts
This, for Kevin MacDonald, explains why “transforming the United States into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal since the 19th century.”697 The project entails both increasing national tolerance toward ethnic communities, but also increasing the numerical importance and diversity of ethnic communities through massive immigration, celebrating multiculturalism, and fostering ethnic pluralism. One of the emblematic figures of this cultural movement was Israel Zangwill, the successful author of the play The Melting Pot (1908), whose title has become a metaphor for American society. The hero is a Jew who emigrated to the United States to flee the pogroms that decimated his family in Russia. He falls in love with a Christian Russian immigrant, who turns out to be the daughter of the Russian officer responsible for the death of his family. The father of the bride repents, and the couple lives happily ever after. The hero makes himself the bard of assimilation by mixed marriages, through which God gives birth to a new man: “America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming.” The paradox is that when he was writing this play, Zangwill was a committed Zionist leader, that is, the leader of a movement affirming the impossibility of Jews living among Gentiles, and demanding that they be ethnically separated. Zangwill is the author of another famous formula: “Palestine is a land without people for a people without land.” There is no better illustration of the Jewish community’s double language and double game, which advocates cross-breeding among the Gentiles and ethnic purity among the Jews. The neoconservative Douglas Feith said it bluntly in a speech delivered in Jerusalem in 1997: “There is a place in the world for non-ethnic nations and there is a place for ethnic nations.”698
In the United States, the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act severely restricted immigration, especially from Asia and Eastern Europe. The lifting of this restrictive legislation was a high-priority political struggle for practically all Jewish organizations. They won in 1965, with a new immigration law that forced the doors of immigration wide open. To weaken the ethnic homogeneity of the host nation is to weaken what Ludwig Gumplowicz called its “syngeneic feeling,” of which anti-Semitism seems to be an almost inevitable by-product. A satisfying situation was achieved around 1993, according to Jewish activist Earl Raab, associated with the Anti-Defamation League, writing in the Jewish Bulletin: “The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.”699
In addition, Jews played a prominent role in the organization of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. From the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909, all of its presidents were Jews until 1975. After the Second World War, the majority of Jewish organizations were involved in the Civil Rights Movement. Jews provided its financial, legal, strategic, and even ideological support. (By contrast, no African-American has been admitted to the major Jewish organizations, much less been allowed to run them).
As was pointed out earlier, Jews contributed massively to the success of Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 march on Washington, DC, which led to his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The introductory remarks of Rabbi Joachim Prinz, then chairman of American Jewish Congress, before King’s famous “I have a dream” speech on August 28, 1963, offer a telling example of Jewish opportunism: “I speak to you as an American Jew,” Prinz begins. “As Jews, we bring to this great demonstration in which thousands of us proudly participate a twofold experience: one of the spirit, and one of our history. In the realm of the spirit, our fathers told us thousands of years ago that when God created man, he created him as everybody’s neighbour […]. From our Jewish experience of three and a half thousand years, we say: Our ancient history began with slavery and the yearning for freedom.” There followed a brief reminder of Jewish suffering from the ghettos of the Middle Ages to the recent Holocaust. Then, just when we would expect a word about the condition of black Americans, Prinz brushes away the issue: Americans “must speak up and act,” he says, “not for the sake of the negro, not for the sake of the black community, but for the sake of the image, the dream, the idea, and the aspiration of America itself.”700
Some Black American leaders like Louis Farrakhan believe that the Jews championed their cause out of self-interest, essentially hijacking it.701 Charles Silberman seemingly agrees, while extending the analysis to other battles: “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief—firmly rooted in history—that Jews are only safe in a society that welcomes a broad spectrum of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religions and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, and not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to support the rights of homosexuals.”702 And so, thanks to the “Jewish identity merchants,” as Gilad Atzmon call them, “We are transformed into a matrix of a manifold of Jew-like tribal groupings defined largely by biology (color, gender, sexual preferences, race, etc.). However, it is hardly surprising that Jewish identity merchants are way better than anyone else in being Jews. Jews have been practicing Jewish tribal survival strategies (identity politics and ethnocentrism) for 3000 years.”703
Throughout the twentieth century, cinema has been a powerful means of shaping American culture. Hollywood was founded by newly immigrated Jews from Eastern Europe in the 1920s: the Warner brothers, Carl Laemmle, William Fox, Harry Cohn, Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, Irving Thalberg, Adolph Zukor, and others. They built empires whose names became mythical: Twentieth-Century Fox, Columbia, MGM, Universal. These “giants […] dared invent their own vision of the American Dream. Even to this day, the American values defined largely by the movies of these émigrés endure in American cinema and culture.”704 Their dream factory gradually became a nightmare. In Hollywood vs. America, an angry Michael Medved asks: “Why does our popular culture seem so consistently hostile to the values that most Americans hold dear? Why does the entertainment industry attack religion, glorify brutality, undermine the family, and deride patriotism?” Medved asserts that “Hollywood ignores—and assaults—the values of ordinary American families, pursuing a self-destructive and alienated ideological agenda that is harmful to the nation at large.”705
Never mentioned in Medved’s book is the Jewish influence on Hollywood. It is not surprising, if we know that Medved was born of German and Ukrainian Jewish parents, and presides over an Orthodox synagogue engaged in proselytism among liberal Jews in Southern California, not far from Hollywood. Like all neoconservatives of his kind, Medved plays the patriot by denouncing the “self-destruction” of the nation by liberal values. Hollywood is like bolshevism: if it is good, it is Jewish; but if it is bad, Jews have nothing to do with it.
More candid is Joel Stein, who defines himself as a “proud Jew,” and replied in a 2008 Los Angeles Times article to Abe Foxman, who believes that talking about Jews’ power over Hollywood is “dangerous”: “I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”706 Only a Jew can say such a thing without suffering the wrath of the ADL. In June 2014, the British actor Gary Oldman had to apologize to the Jewish community for having affirmed, in an interview with the magazine Playboy, that Hollywood is “run by the Jews.”
Hollywood subversion exemplifies the thorn-in-the-side version of the “theory of mission,” according to which the attack on moral values is a service to society. It has largely been Jewish intellectuals who, possessed by this mission, have waged a war of attrition against Christian moral values, as Nathan Abrams noted in the article quoted above. It has also been Jews, beginning with the founder of Playboy Hugh Heffner, who, in pornography and erotica, have broken all the moral barriers one by one. “There’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana.” The testimony of its producers, cited by Abrams, suggests that pornography for them is not only a lucrative business, but also “a way of defiling Christian culture”: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks,” explains Al Goldstein.707
Changing the cultural environment of a nation requires the control of the screen and the press—the dream factory and the manufacture of opinion. The first is centered in Hollywood, on the West Coast, while the second is traditionally concentrated in the East, its two historic landmarks being The Washington Post and The New York Times. The news media act as a Darwinian mechanism of “cultural selection.” They do not really create new ideas, but instead decide whether an idea, a bit of news, an opinion, a book, or an artist is or is not admissible. In this way they indirectly determine our conceptions of truth, beauty, and goodness. In a society blessed with a truly free and independent press, a wide variety of opinion, values, and tastes will find expression. But since the end of the nineteenth century, the press has grown ever-more concentrated in the hands of Jewish owners and publishers. These media barons have a natural tendency to showcase the contributions of their own community. And they have grown more and more involved in the defense of the interests of their community and of Israel.
The Washington Post was purchased in 1933 by Eugene Meyer, who was both close to Harry Truman (who appointed him the first president of the World Bank in 1947) and the very Zionist American Jewish Committee. In 1952, the committee stated as its mission to “continue to stimulate pro-Israel sentiments among the American people, particularly on radio and television.” The other leading American newspaper, The New York Times, was bought in 1896 by Adolph Simon Ochs, whose son-in-law Arthur Hays Sulzberger became director of publication in 1938, and was succeeded by his son and then his grandson. Sulzberger denounced in 1946 the “coercive methods of the Zionists” influencing his editorial line. But from the creation of Israel to the present day, the newspaper he founded has produced singularly unbalanced coverage of Palestine.708 The two other top-selling daily newspapers, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, are also owned by Jews, as are the three main weekly magazines (Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report) as well as most political reviews (National Review, New Republic, Weekly Standard). Alongside the defense of Israel, they all promote the religion of the Holocaust.
The television industry has followed a similar path, and the concentration of Jewish power there is even more extreme. “Today, seven Jewish Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry,” writes John Whitley.709 The major news channels—ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN—are naturally included in this category, as well as Rupert Murdoch’s FOX empire, a mainstay of neoconservative propaganda. Murdoch, while not Jewish, is close to Ariel Sharon and Likud. In 2004 he directly or indirectly owned more than 175 print titles (40 million newspapers sold weekly) and 35 television channels, reaching 110 million spectators on four continents.
Given the pro-Israel bias of these media moguls, when the US Department of Justice investigates foreign groups that brought $36 million into the US to plant stories in the US media promoting Israeli foreign policy objectives, it is only pointing at the tree concealing the forest.710
In such a situation, everything Middle East-related is very carefully filtered and spun. But what is perhaps even more important is that the media has become the most important power, after money, in American democracy. The press makes and unmakes reputations, and thus elections, while maintaining the illusion of popular choice. In a conference in Israel, Haim Saban, a media magnate and multimillionaire, gave his recipe for influencing US politics: “Donations to political parties, think-tanks and media control.” Gilad Atzmon suggests this is why “democracy today, especially in the English speaking world, is a political system that specialises in positioning inadequate, unqualified and dubious types in leadership positions.”711
But what makes the power of the Jewish elite unique is the taboo that surrounds it. As the editorial writer Joseph Sobran wrote: “Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you.”712 Actually, you may refer to Jewish power if you are Jewish, like Joel Stein as quoted above, but not if you are a Gentile: star presenter Rick Sanchez was dismissed in 2010 for having said that CNN and the other media networks were all run by Jews.713 Gilad Atzmon therefore correctly characterizes Jewish Power as “the capacity to silence criticism of Jewish Power.”714
Chapter 11: CHILDREN OF THE MAD GOD
“By my own self I swear it; what comes from my mouth is saving justice, it is an irrevocable word: All shall bend the knee to me, by me every tongue shall swear.”
Yahweh, the Levites, and the People In chapter 2, I drew the portrait of Yahweh as a “sociopath among the gods,” based on his raging extermination of his peers. I also hypothesized that this little tribal god’s self-styled status as the only true God and sole creator of the universe exemplifies sociopathic narcissism. In this chapter I will discuss Yahweh not in his relationship to other gods, but to his chosen people.
From a Feuerbachian point of view (see chapter 3), Yahweh could be regarded as a personification of Jewishness, “the objectified Jewish essence,” just as the universal God of Christianity is, for Feuerbach, “the objectified human essence.” From this point of view, the “character” and “mentality” of Yahweh would be the projection of those of the Jewish people. But that is not accurate. For in the Bible, it is not the Jewish people but its religious elites who incarnate Yahweh and who speak, legislate, and rage in his name. “Yahweh” is nothing more than the voice of the priests. The prophets themselves, who speak in God’s name, are really the spokesmen of the priests, or of some priestly clan or another.
The people, on the other hand, are almost always rebels against Yahweh’s authority. The main theme of biblical history is the “alliance” between Yahweh and his people, and its leitmotiv is the alternance of submission, insubordination, and punishment.
Consider chapter 42 of the book of Jeremiah, whose ideology is so typically Deuteronomic that some biblical historians speculate that Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch were the main authors of Deuteronomy and the six following books.715 After the fall of Jerusalem, the people of Judah come to Jeremiah asking him to intercede before God, “so that Yahweh your God may show us the way we are to go and what we must do.” The prophet Jeremiah answers them: “I hear you; I will indeed pray to Yahweh your God as you ask; and whatever answer Yahweh your God gives you, I will tell you, keeping nothing back from you.” The Judeans promise to “obey the voice of Yahweh our God to whom we are sending you.” “Ten days later the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah,” who then summons “all the people from least to greatest” and reports that Yahweh has told him to tell them not to take refuge in Egypt, lest they “will die by sword, famine and plague: not a single one of them will survive or escape the disaster I [Yahweh] shall inflict on them.” But a few clever ones challenge Jeremiah and doubt whether he has really consulted with Yahweh. “When Jeremiah had finished telling all the people all the words of Yahweh their God, which Yahweh their God had sent him to tell them—all the words quoted above—Azariah son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan son of Kareah, and all those arrogant men, said to Jeremiah, ‘You are lying. Yahweh our God did not send you to say, ‘Do not go to Egypt and settle there.’ It was Baruch son of Neriah, who keeps inciting you against us, to hand us over to the Chaldaeans so that they can put us to death or deport us to Babylon’” (43:1–3). Finally, none of the leaders followed Yahweh/Jeremiah’s order. They took refuge in Egypt, and Jeremiah actually went with them. Every reader may ponder in his heart if, in the same situation, he would have been among the “arrogant” or the gullible, and thus clarify his relationship to prophetic authority and the Bible in general.
Here, as throughout biblical history, the people are presented as rebelling against the authority of Yahweh, whether it is incarnated by Moses, the priests, or the prophets. Consequently, the Jewish national character or mentality cannot be deduced directly from the character or mentality of Yahweh. What interests us is the cognitive mechanisms that Yahweh induces in his people. To study Jewish collective psychology, we must consider how the believer or ethnic Jew cognitively internalizes the foundations of his religion and identity inscribed in the Bible. This is difficult for Christians, who are not used to reading the Bible as Jews do: Christians do not identify with the Jewish people, nor do they feel directly concerned with the relationship between Yahweh and Israel. They tend to rationalize Yahweh’s behavior in the Old Testament by the notion that he was dealing with a hardened people.
In this chapter, I will suggest that Yahweh, as the sociopathic or psychopathic god, has inculcated in the Jewish people the syndrome of the “psychopath’s son.” Philip Roth has formulated this very idea through the character of Smilesburger in Operation Shylock: “A Jew knows God and how, from the very first day He created man, He has been irritated with him from morning till night. […] To appeal to a crazy, irritated father, that is what it is to be a Jew. To appeal to a crazy, violent father, and for three thousand years, that is what it is to be a crazy Jew!”716
This approach makes it possible to give a dialectical account of sociopsychological tensions in the Jewish community as a whole, and in each Jew individually insofar as he identifies with that community. The son of a psychopath, unless he escapes early on from his father, has no choice but to structure his personality by mimicking the paternal psychopathy. But his psychic autonomy also drives him to free himself from this father who lives in him, at the cost of terrible suffering.
What Is a Psychopath? Psychopathy is a syndrome of traits classified among the personality disorders. Some behaviorally oriented psychiatrists prefer the term sociopathy. In an effort to get everyone to agree, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American psychiatric bible, has decided on “antisocial personality disorder.” I prefer the term psychopathy, which is still more commonly used, but we need to keep in mind that we are talking fundamentally of a disorder of sociability. Since our personality is what connects us to society, psychopathy is the archetypal personality disorder, of which all others can be considered partial manifestations or variations.
Canadian psychologist Robert Hare, in the wake of Hervey Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity (1941), has defined the diagnostic criteria of psychopathy on the basis of a cognitive checklist that is now widely adopted.717 The most striking traits of the psychopath are lack of empathy and conscience. Other traits are common to narcissism: Psychopaths have a grand vision of their own importance. In their minds, everything is owed to them because they are exceptional. They are never wrong, and failures are always the fault of others. They often show megalomania, but some learn to hide their arrogance under false modesty. If the psychopath pretends to rise to the universal level, it is because he confuses it with his personal interests, and the truth with his own opinions. However, the psychopath is distinguished from the simple narcissist by his appetite for power, which makes him much more destructive. Moreover, his capacity for harm is not inhibited by any scruples or remorse: he is incapable of feeling guilt. Although he imagines himself a hero, and in some cases looks like a hero, the psychopath is, on the human spectrum, the polar opposite of the hero who sacrifices himself for his community. He has no qualms about sacrificing the people around him, and, when he knows he is lost, he consoles himself by causing as many people as possible to fall.
Basically, the psychopath perceives others as objects. He has a mechanical view of people and human relationships (and, in some way, of himself as well). Although devoid of conscience, he often has a keen perception of the law, which he, as a mechanic of the social engine, overestimates. He has not internalized moral law and in this sense is not socialized, but he has mastered the rules of the game and cheats without qualms if he can. For the same reason, the psychopath almost always develops an immoderate taste for money. He idealizes it as the epitome of power, the very essence of the social; he thinks that people can be bought and sold like things, and life often proves him right.
The diagnostic criteria for psychopathy also include pathological lying, cunning, and manipulative behavior. The psychopath feels only very superficial emotions and has no real feelings for anyone; but he has developed a great ability to deceive. He can be charming to the point of being charismatic. He typically shows highly developed verbal intelligence and lies with disconcerting aplomb. He is unable to feel empathy, but learns to simulate it, sometimes with a tendency to histrionism (Latin histrio, “theater actor”). But the psychopath is more than what psychoanalyst Helene Deutsche has called the “as-if personality,” endowed with purely mimetic “ungenuine pseudo emotions”: he is a manipulator. It is through his extraordinary ability to feign, trick, trap, and capture that the psychopath draws his power. Although he himself is immunized against guilt, he becomes a master in the art of using guilt to dominate others.
In any situation, the psychopath projects a persona, which can vary according to circumstances. The opinions he holds in public are all disguises that he tailors to his own advantage. However, lying is so deeply embedded in his nature that the question of his “sincerity” is almost irrelevant: the psychopath can beat a lie detector. The truth has no value in his eyes, or merges with the version of events that suits him. The psychopath is unable to put himself in the place of others, and thus to view himself critically. Confident in any circumstance of being right and innocent (and superior), he considers the resentment of his victims as irrational and pointless.
According to Hervey Cleckley: “The psychopath presents a technical appearance of sanity, often one of high intellectual capacities, and not infrequently succeeds in business or professional activities.” But this appearance of sanity is misleading, for the psychopath suffers from a profound underlying disorder Cleckley calls “semantic aphasia,” characterized by a disconnection between language and emotion.718 Although those close to the psychopath—at least those who learn the hard way his true nature—can judge him raving mad, the psychopath is not “sick” because he does not “suffer.” He is innocent of neurosis, and never requests psychiatric care (except as a strategic calculation). He is not psychotic, and cannot be regarded as maladapted to social life. On the contrary, he is, in a certain sense, over-adjusted. (That is why the real mystery, from a Darwinian point of view, is not the existence of psychopaths, but their low proportion in the population.)
Unfortunately, there have been few studies on the psychopath’s behavior as a father. Yet it is easy to understand that, if the psychopath likes to dominate, manipulate, and mentally enslave, he will find easy prey in his own children. Since we are reflecting on the relationship of Yahweh to his chosen people, what interests us specifically is the experience of the favorite son of a psychopathic father, whom the father chose as an extension of his own narcissistic self. We must also imagine a family unit whose mother is absent or erased. Let us go further: the most illuminating example might be that of a psychopath who, for one reason or another, finds himself incapable of realizing his ambitions except through his chosen or only son.
Such a father idealizes himself as God creating man in his own image. His son is his creature, and therefore he recognizes in him only what he has shaped in him. All that the son accomplishes serves to nourish the narcissism of the father, who claims credit and expects recognition. On the other hand, he makes his son pay dearly for what he considers his failures: they are proof that, left to himself, the son is a loser. The psychopathic father demands the submission of his son, and if he wills his son’s success, it is only to feed his own ego.
The fusional love that the psychopathic father feels for his son should not be confused with empathy. It is the exact opposite, even if the father, in his narcissistic self-heroization, confuses them. Far from seeking to promote the psychic autonomy of his son, the psychopath seeks to control him by all means, to keep him dependent. Consciously or not (it is always difficult to say, for the psychopath does not reflect on his own motivations), he will set up the mechanisms for his son’s enslavement by lowering his psychological defenses. These mechanisms often have an incestuous dimension. Though himself devoid of moral conscience, he does not hesitate to play on his son’s guilt, accusing him of ingratitude. Everything he gives is secretly conditional and serves to create a moral debt. The “double bind,” which deeply confuses the child and hinders his cognitive development, can be a deliberate strategy used by the psychopathic father.
The psychopath isolates his victims and seeks to undermine their confidence in others. The psychopathic father will typically prevent his son from building nurturing bonds with others, especially family members who are aware of his psychological issues. An uncle who feels a particular affection for his nephew—or, worse, worries about him—will be repulsed as a dangerous rival. The psychopathic father is a jealous god: he must secure control over any relationship that his son establishes with others. If he is sufficiently vigilant, his son will find no comfort, no substitute parent figure, and therefore no lever of resilience. He will be trained to perceive all generous attention as a threat, any gesture of sympathy as an aggression. All around him he will see only potential enemies. One of the psychopath’s favorite means of manipulation is the “triangulation” of relationships, which gives him indirect and therefore less perceptible control.
The Psychopathic God The behavior of Yahweh toward his people, as presented in biblical history, can be examined through the psychological prism we have just described. Yahweh is a father to his people, but a father who, to keep his son under his tight control, prevents him from forming any empathic alliance with other peoples. He convinces the Jews that all those who wish to be their friends are in fact their worst enemies, that all confidence in Gentiles leads only to disaster. The Jews must place their entire trust in Yahweh alone. The cultic and food prohibitions are there precisely to prevent all socialization outside the tribe: “I shall set you apart from all these peoples, for you to be mine” (Leviticus 20:26); “you, out of all peoples, shall be my personal possession, for the whole world is mine. For me you shall be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5–6). This last sentence is often cited out of context as evidence that the Jewish people are divinely commissioned to be the spiritual guide of humanity. It is a misunderstanding: what Yahweh wants is a people consecrated to his worship, just as the psychopathic father seeks, in the devotion of his son, the exaltation of his own narcissism.
It is often claimed that Yahweh demands that his people exhibit moral superiority. The claim is nonsensical. Let us repeat: there is no trace in the Torah of any struggle between good and evil, in the metaphysical sense. The only criterion of Yahweh’s approval is obedience to his arbitrary laws. The fate of the Jewish people is linked exclusively to this criterion, so that every reversal of fortune is explained by a breach of contract on the part of the people, and serves to strengthen the submission of the people. When a people attacks the Hebrews, it is never because of what the Hebrews did to it, but because of the infidelity of the Hebrew people to Yahweh. For other peoples are but vulgar instruments in the hands of Yahweh. The guilt that the Jewish people should feel about failing to obey Yahweh obliterates self-reflection and self-criticism, and prevents them from being able to even consider the grievances of the Gentiles. In Kevin MacDonald’s words: “The idea that Jewish suffering results from Jews straying from their own law occurs almost like a constant drumbeat throughout the Tanakh—a constant reminder that the persecution of Jews is not the result of their own behavior vis-à-vis Gentiles but rather the result of their behavior vis-à-vis God.”719 If the Jewish people have sinned, it is against God, never against other peoples. And if they have sinned against God, it is precisely by sympathizing with other peoples, by “assimilating” with them. A terrible double bind has seized the chosen people: It is caught between the exalting glory of the Election and the exorbitant price of the Covenant; between promises of world domination and threats of extinction. Note that when Yahweh refrains from destroying his people who “rebelled against me,” it is out of concern for his own reputation: “I then resolved to vent my fury on them in the desert and destroy them. But respect for my own name kept me from letting it be profaned in the eyes of the nations, before whom I had brought them out” (Ezekiel 20:13–14).
In his book Der jüdische Selbsthaß (“Jewish Self-Hatred”) published in Berlin in 1930, Theodor Lessing wrote: “To the question: ‘Why do not we love ourselves?’ Jewish doctrine answers since the beginning of time: ‘Because we are guilty’ […] In every Jewish man there is a deeply buried tendency to interpret any misfortune that strikes him as the atonement for a fault he has committed.” The Jews, says Lessing, are “the first and perhaps the only ones” to have developed such an attitude. He sees this as the origin of a “self-hatred” that affects all Jews in varying degrees.720
There is a deep truth in this diagnosis, but Lessing’s formulation is confusing. If to seek in oneself the causes of the violence of others means the capacity to examine oneself by putting oneself in the place of others, then it is an empathic process, based on the premise that the other shares with oneself the same humanity and therefore a comparable way of seeing and feeling things. This is not at all what Judaism teaches. And that is the problem Lessing has not grasped. As we have just seen, Judaism (biblical Yahwism as well as Talmudic rabbinism) teaches the Jews that all their misfortunes are explained by their disobedience to Yahweh, and that their most serious fault is to fraternize with the non-Jews. The biblical message, in essence, is: “Do not frequent idolaters (non-Jews), despise their traditions, and—if possible—exploit them, enslave them, and exterminate them. If, after that, they violate you, it is your fault: you have not obeyed scrupulously enough.” Such is the insane cognitive logic, internalized over a hundred generations, that encloses the Jews in the infernal cycle of chosenness and persecution. This mode of thought is based on the denial of the other’s humanity, which is indeed the essence of psychopathy. It does not occur to the psychopath to question the feelings of the other in order to try to understand his anger, because the other is fundamentally an object and not a person: his actions are events whose motivation is irrelevant. Thus, after the war that decimated the Jewish community of Alexandria between 115 and 117 CE, the fact that it was the culmination of numerous clashes between Jews and non-Jews (Greeks and Egyptians) did not lead Jews to reflect on the reasons that led the Alexandrians to collaborate with the Roman armies against them. According to the Talmudist of the second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, the Roman emperor was only the instrument of divine justice to punish the Jews for remaining in Egypt.721 Never, ever, has the Jewish community taken into account the grievances of its persecutors. Its elites forbid it.
Whoever cannot bear to see himself in others’ eyes has not learned to love himself. This answers Lessing’s question: “How is it that all peoples love themselves, while the Jew is the only one who has so much trouble loving himself?”722
Of course, in speaking here of “Yahweh” as a psychopathic or sociopathic father, and of the election he confers as a curse, I am speaking metaphorically and abstractly. I do not believe in the objective existence of such a mad god. But if Yahweh is imaginary, that does not change his psychological stranglehold. Yahweh is the persona (the mask) invented by the Levitical elites; the relationship between the people and Yahweh in the Bible is in fact only a projection of the relationship between the people and their Levitical elites. Judaism, which has the nature of an alliance—that is, a contract—between the Jews and their god, is a dictatorship based on a more or less arbitrary set of laws whose object is less the well-being of the people than the mere exercise of divine power. And since control always needs to be reinforced, the evolution of Judaism is marked by uninterrupted legalistic escalation: after Deuteronomy come the laws of Leviticus, then the innumerable laws of the Pharisees that give rise to rabbinic Judaism. According to the consecrated expression, the Talmudic laws are conceived as “a barrier around the barrier of the Torah.” Maimonides, the medieval Talmudic scholar, established a catalogue of 613 authoritative commandments (365 bans and 248 obligations).
For a non-religious Jew, the Jews are not God’s chosen people, but his “inventors.” As David Ben-Gurion put it, it was not Yahweh who chose the Jewish people, but the Jewish people who chose Yahweh. So the covenant between Yahweh and his people is really only an alliance between Jews, whose elites dictate terms. Paradoxically, this hardly affects the religious conception of chosenness. In fact, there is even more arrogance in the profane conception, for being chosen by God at least leaves room for a sacrificial interpretation, which would imply a higher moral requirement and a vocation to suffer for humanity—a conception mostly put forward in apologetic literature for non-Jews. In contrast, the secular Jews’ concept of self- election is accompanied by an exaltation of the superiority of the Jewish people, including superiority in suffering. It is no longer disobedience to God that provokes misfortunes but the eternal hatred of the Gentiles. For Nathan and Ruth Perlmutter, anti-Semitism stems from “the jealousy of the Gentiles and their fury at seeing the Jews surpass them. […] The Gentiles, more numerous and less evolved, are annoyed to see the Jews, fewer and more evolved.”723 Alternatively, in Jacques Attali’s conception, anti-Semitism stems from humanity’s ingratitude for what the Jews gave it, namely God and money.724 Thus from within this cognitive straitjacket that prevents all self-criticism, anti-Semitism seemingly confirms the superiority and generosity of the Jews. The Holocaust, the culmination of anti-Semitism, becomes “a distasteful secular version of chosenness,” according to Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary.725 The divine—diabolical—figure of the Holocaust has replaced a Yahweh who is losing authority. But it is always the same elite that uses this divinity for its own purposes. After all, in good old-fashioned Yahwist theology, it is always Yahweh who strikes Israel, using the hands of its enemies, to punish it for its infidelity.
As the son of a psychopath builds his own personality under the influence of his pathological parent, he can never be fully individualized or socialized. His psychological development will depend on his father’s investment in him, his natural capacity for resilience, his access to other meaningful relationships, and factors still unknown to psychology. To simplify, we may say that during adolescence the psychopath’s son faces a stark choice between submission or self- destruction. If he submits, he will eventually internalize the father’s psychopathy (without necessarily renouncing the desire to kill him). Psychiatrists note a hereditary factor in psychopathy, but the explanation is probably less genetic than cognitive or epigenetic: when the child’s psychic tension is resolved by surrender, the child integrates the cognitive structure of the father. In effect, he becomes his father. If, on the other hand, the son chooses the second alternative, self-destruction, he will wander in the limbo of psychosis, awaiting an improbable miracle, a rebirth he may find in faith or love. Between these two extremes lies the vast domain of neuroses and unresolved Oedipus complexes, minor personality or developmental disorders, all of which are characterized by deficiencies in the capacity for sociability.
Every Jew finds himself in such a situation, to the extent that he identifies himself as a Jew. He is torn by opposite and partly unconscious wills, which have their ultimate source in his ambivalent relationship to his ethnic god—who is, on the psychological level, merely the internalized symbolic representation of the tribal elites’ power over him. Every Jew, insofar as he believes himself to be Jewish, feels this schism, this inner tension, which is at bottom the struggle between his Jewishness and his humanity. This is the most probable explanation for the high rate of neuroses among Jews. The neurotic Jew is not just a Hollywood stereotype created by Woody Allen or the Coen brothers. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia wrote: “The Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the other races and peoples among which they dwell. Hysteria and neurasthenia appear to be most frequent.”726 Isaac Kadmi-Cohen speaks of “a congenital neurosis characterized by a lack of balance between objective data and judgment […] a nervous excitability, a chronic exaltation of passion.”727 This anomaly, often attributed to endogamy, has been a concern for many Jewish doctors and psychiatrists, including Sigmund Freud. Research by Leo Srole in the 1960s shows that the Jewish rate of neuroses and character disorders was about three times as high as that of Catholics and Protestants.728 Neurosis results from psychic tension that threatens the integrity of the self, and that can degenerate into psychosis when the tension reaches a point of rupture. Freud wrongly reduced this tension to a conflict between the id (sexual instinct) and the superego, but his schema nevertheless has the merit of emphasizing the role of the castrating image of the father. For the Jews, the symbolic image of the father internalized in the superego is superimposed on that of Yahweh.
At the first Zionist Congress (1897), Max Nordau offered Zionism as the solution to this inner schism that undermines the psyche of the “emancipated Jew,” whose “best powers are exhausted in the suppression, or at least in the difficult concealment of his own real character. For he fears that this character might be recognized as Jewish, and he has never the satisfaction of showing himself as he is in all his thoughts and sentiments. He becomes an inner cripple, and externally unreal, and thereby always ridiculous and hateful to all higher feeling men, as is everything that is unreal.”729 But Nordau’s diagnosis is incomplete. Such alienation stems not only from the effort to be “a Jew at home and a man in the street,” but more deeply from the contradictions between Jewish tribalism and Jewish supposed universalism.
Whatever role a mature Jew may play in the community, each Jew experiences during his youth an inner rupture between his Jewishness and his humanity, and for better or worse must manage this paradoxical double identity. As sociologist Daniel Bell explains: “I was born in galut [exile] and I accept—now gladly, though once in pain—the double burden and the double pleasure of my self-consciousness, the outward life of an American and the inward secret of the Jew. I walk with this sign as a frontlet between my eyes [Deuteronomy 11:18], and it is as visible to some secret others as their sign is to me.” Like many other fully assimilated Jews who have achieved social success in their host nation, Bell feels ever-more-acutely with age “that one does not stand alone, that the past is still present, and that there are responsibilities of participation even when the community of which one is a part is a community woven by the thinning strands of memory.”730
Anyone who finally submits to the communal sociopathic mentality becomes a vector of it in his turn. Although the transmission is not exclusively generational, we observe among the elites a propensity to pass this mentality from father to son. The neoconservatives, one of the most sociopathic elites in history, are a case in point: Irving Kristol was succeeded by his son William, Donald Kagan by his son Robert, Richard Pipes by his son Daniel, and Norman Podhoretz by his son John and son-in-law Elliott Abrams. The champion of the second generation, Benjamin Netanyahu, is himself the son of Benzion Netanyahu, a paranoid Zionist who in February 2009, the day before his son’s election, declared: “Today we are facing, plain and simple, a danger of annihilation. This is not only the ongoing existential danger to Israel, but a real danger of complete annihilation. People think that the Shoah [Holocaust] is over but it’s not. It is continuing all the time.”731
There has always been a minority of Jews who, by self-examination (often under painful circumstances) succeed in escaping from the mental shackles of their Jewishness. They are stigmatized as suffering from “self-hatred,” and the anathema or persecution they endure only makes their emancipation more heroic. They have symbolically killed the father. The “murder of the father” is one of Freud’s most fertile intuitions, but Freud has mistakenly generalized: only the son of the destructive and manipulative father needs to “kill the father.” This is why Freudian psychoanalysis, born of the “self-cure” of its founder, is indeed, if not a “Jewish national affair” as Freud said, at least a theory deeply marked by the Jewish collective psyche.732 For the Jewish father is the representative of the Jewish collective superego, whose other name is Yahweh, and every Jew aspires to the depths of his soul to free himself from Yahweh.
But we must also understand what is meant by “killing the psychopathic father” (as representative of the collective Jewish sociopathy). Anyone who simply hates the father is in danger of unknowingly absorbing his inheritance. He resembles him in his very rejection. Jewish revolt often assumes this character; the Jewish revolutionaries of Russia who rejected the Talmud, the synagogue, and the Kahal were, in their internationalism, just as petrified with hatred of “the nations” as their rabbis. The metaphysical revolt of the emancipated Jew sweeps away everything in its path. Perpetually on the run, he does not find the rest he aspires to, but carries away those he meets in his flight, recreating wherever he passes the disenchanted world of his native prison. To kill the sociopathic and destructive father, in the sense of true emancipation, must be understood as transcending the hatred of the father. For hatred is still a manifestation of his grip. To extirpate the toxic father from one’s soul presupposes having identified his nature and influence: an eminently perilous, almost superhuman undertaking, since the son thus emancipated finds himself without a father at all. Perhaps such emancipation is impossible without an encounter with the transcendent.
It goes far beyond family roots and uprootings. To renounce his Jewishness, for a Jew, is like tearing himself from that collective part of his soul of which we have spoken. Ideas do not flow in the blood, but each person carries within himself his ancestors, in a mysterious and largely unconscious way. In other words, ideas are not simply a question of choice, for no one chooses the way in which he structures his vision of the world and of himself, his relation to the group and to men outside the group, from early childhood onward, beginning even before the acquisition of language. Our cultural heritage is deeply rooted in an unconscious whose deepest layers are ancestral. From this point of view, tribal endogamy creates a hermetically sealed chamber that is mental and not merely genetic.
To understand this human reality, one must appeal to transgenerational psychology, one of the most enriching developments in depth psychology. Based on a few observations by Freud, Nicolas Abraham and Maria Török introduced the notion of the “phantom,” defined as “a formation of the unconscious which has the peculiarity of never having been conscious […] and resulting from transmission, the mode of which remains to be determined, from the unconscious of a parent to the unconscious of a child.”733 Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy speaks of “invisible loyalties” that unconsciously connect us with our ancestors. Such loyalties, which shape our destiny largely unconsciously, are based on value systems that vary from one culture to another: “The development of loyalty is determined by the history of the family, by the type of justice that the family practices, and by family myths. It finds resonance in each member of the family. Upon each one falls on the one hand, obligations, according to position and role; and on the other hand, a sense of debts and merits, along with a personal style and manner of compliance.”734 Vincent de Gaulejac evokes “sociopsychic knots” and “genealogical impasses,” paradoxical and neurotic situations of the type: “I do not want to be what I am.” In seeking to escape from a painful family situation that has helped form his identity, the individual is led to reproduce it. “While wanting to break away at any cost, he remains attached without understanding why. In attempting to construct himself in an elsewhere, he remains overdetermined by a filiation which imposes itself on him even if he thinks he is escaping from it. These unconscious inscriptions lead us to postulate the existence of a genealogical past that imposes itself on the subject and structures his psychic functioning.”735
Such considerations help us understand the psychological tensions that seize every person in the Jewish community who seeks to move away from it; no community cultivates a more powerful sense of ancestral loyalty. Consider the case of Robert, the son of a deportee to the concentration camps who was interviewed by Claudine Vegh for her collection of testimonies I Didn’t Say Goodbye (first published in French in 1979). Robert was fourteen when his father was deported to Auschwitz. When he was torn from his son, he shouted: “‘Robert, never forget, you are Jewish and you must remain Jewish!’ These were his last words, I hear them as if it were yesterday. He did not say to me: ‘I love you, do not fear anything, take care of yourself,’ but this one sentence. […] I resent them, you understand? Yes, I resent the dead who have paid for their lives with mine! It’s unbearable! […] My eldest daughter, who is a student, is leaving to settle permanently in Israel! She told me she had to do what I had not been able to accomplish […] The buckle is closed, he adds, the torch is passed on . . . Suddenly very tired: ‘My father would have been proud of her.’”736 This kind of personal testimony helps us understand the power of this invisible loyalty that the funeral cult of Auschwitz crystallizes in a whole generation of Jews. When considering the traumatic essence of Judaism, we must consider the issue of ritual circumcision performed on eight-day-old infants as commanded by the Biblical God to Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14). It must be distinguished from the circumcision practiced in ancient Egypt on fourteen-year-old boys as a kind of rite of passage, or from Islamic circumcision, which is not done before the age of five, generally later. Unlike the child or teenager, the infant is psychologically incapable of giving any positive meaning to the violence done to him. Eight days after emerging from his mother’s womb—a trauma in itself—what he needs most of all is to develop trust in the benevolence of those who welcomed him into this world, starting with his mother.
Because infants cannot speak, rabbis who justify the tradition speak in their place to minimize their physical pain and psychological plight. But according to Professor Ronald Goldman, author of Circumcision, the Hidden Trauma, scientific studies prove the neurological impact of infant circumcision, for which there exists no effective anesthetic. Behavioral changes observed after the operation, including sleep disorders and inhibition in mother-child bonding, are signs of a post-traumatic stress syndrome. The loss of trust in the mother is the potential source of a future unconscious hatred of women, the social consequences of which can be tremendous.737
During the Jewish ceremony, the mother is normally kept away from the scene, and the baby’s screams are partly covered by the loud cheers of the men surrounding it—a clear message to the baby if it could think about it. But mothers who happen to witness the ritual empathize with the trauma of their child, and suffer enduring trauma themselves: “The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind,” says Miriam Pollack. “His cry sounded like he was being butchered. I lost my milk.” Nancy Wainer Cohen: “I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail, and feeling somewhat responsible.” Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg: “I don’t feel I can recover from it. […] We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythm starting, and it was like something had been shattered! … When he was first born there was a tie with my young one, my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had to cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision.” These testimonies, and more, can be found on the Circumcision Resource Center web page “Mothers Who Observed Circumcision.”738 They illustrate the repressed guilt that lies behind the stereotype of the Jewish mother.
Sigmund Freud, that great explorer of infantile traumas, is rather discreet on the subject— though he didn’t have his own children circumcised. He broaches it in his latest books, but only in the context of his anthropological speculations, without delving into the psychological implications. In New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, we read: “It is our suspicion that during the human family’s primeval period castration used actually to be carried out by a jealous and cruel father upon growing boys, and that circumcision, which so frequently plays a part in puberty rites among primitive people, is a clearly recognizable relic of it.”739 Freud touches again on the subject in Moses and Monotheism, published a few months before his death: “Circumcision is a symbolical substitute of castration, a punishment which the primaeval father dealt his sons long ago out of the awfulness of his power, and whosoever accepted this symbol showed by so doing that he was ready to submit to his father’s will, although it was at the cost of a painful sacrifice.”740 Among Freud’s disciples, almost all of them Jewish, the only one to have reflected upon the trauma of infantile circumcision is Sándor Ferenczi, whom Freud long considered his most gifted acolyte, but who was ostracized when he started defending the veracity of his patients’ memories of infantile sexual abuses, rather than following the Freudian theory that these memories were mere repressed fantasies.741
The link between circumcision and paternal violence is also recognized by Jewish tradition, which has always related God’s two commands to Abraham—to circumcise his sons, and to sacrifice Isaac—although they are separate events in the Bible. Infantile circumcision physically impresses on every Jew, and on all Jews collectively, Yahweh’s abusive and traumatic domination. It is like a genetic mark, passed on from father to son, to engrave the Yahwist covenant in pain and in sexuality. It is also the ultimate sign of separation: The uncircumcised are deemed impure and the Torah forbids socializing with them, let alone marrying them. Circumcision is the lock of the “Jewish prison.”
Jewishness and Selective Empathy The most optimistic low-end estimate of the proportion of psychopaths in the Western population is one percent. They should not be confused with the proverbial one percent who own half the world’s wealth. Yet a study among senior executives of large companies, published under the title Snakes in Suits, shows that psychopathic traits are widespread among them.742 This is not surprising, since modern society values psychopathic traits and favors the upward mobility of psychopaths.
The fact that Jews today are disproportionately represented among the elite (“though barely 2% of the [American] nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews,” remarks Benjamin Ginsberg in The Fatal Embrace)743 should not lead us to conclude that psychopathy is more prevalent among the chosen people. In a way, quite the opposite is the case: Jews demonstrate among themselves an extraordinary capacity for empathy, or at least familiarity, that breeds exceptional solidarity to the point of self-sacrifice. The anti-Semitic stereotype that Jews are more egotistical, less loyal, less courageous, and less generous than non- Jews is totally unfair, as Hilaire Belloc pointed out in 1922. On the contrary, their loyalty, courage, and generosity often far outstrip those of their neighbors. However, these qualities tend to be oriented selectively toward themselves, and it is perhaps for this reason that they are more intense.744 It is true that Otto Weininger (a self-hating Jew according to Lessing) argued against the notion of “solidarity” among Jews: “When some accusation is made against some unknown member of the Jewish race, all Jews secretly take the part of the accused, and wish, hope for, and seek to establish his innocence. But it must not be thought that they are interesting themselves more in the fate of the individual Jew than they would do in the case of an individual Christian. It is the menace to Jewry in general, the fear that the shameful shadow may do harm to Jewry as a whole, which is the origin of the apparent feeling of sympathy.”745
The selective nature of this empathy suggests that it is addressed less to the humanity of others than to their Jewishness. Here is what happens when two New York Jews meet: “We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor.”746 This is Secretary of Labor Robert Reich’s memory of his first meeting with Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Council of the Federal Reserve, two very influential Americans, about whom we would like to believe that such familiarity does not affect their judgment of the American national interest.
As Tacitus suggested two thousand years ago, there seems to be a correlation between the intensity of solidarity with kinsmen and the lack of it with others: “Among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to show compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies” (Histories V.5). The relationship between these two contrary attitudes can be understood with the help of Freud. The founder of psychoanalysis studied the psychopathology of religion in three books: Totem and Taboo, Civilization and Its Discontents, and The Future of an Illusion, in which he describes religion as “the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity.” Freud was not here talking about neurosis in the strict sense. On the contrary, by adopting the cognitive framework of religious faith, “devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one.”747 Expressed in a less polemical way, the idea is that religion makes it possible to sublimate the neurotic tendencies. Freud was mainly concerned with the majority religion of the Viennese bourgeoisie he rubbed shoulders with: Catholicism. We can adopt a similar approach to Judaism, but then must turn from neurosis to psychopathy or sociopathy. In certain essential aspects, Judaism is a form of “collective sociopathy.” This does not mean that “the Jews” are sociopaths, but rather that they are victims of a mental trap inherited from their ancestors and imposed by their elites. The difference between collective sociopathy and individual sociopathy is the same as between collective neurosis and individual neurosis according to Freud: participation in a collective sociopathic mentality allows members of the community to channel sociopathic tendencies toward the outside of the community, and to maintain within it a high degree of sociability.
The idea is easy to illustrate: The individual who feels exceptional and surrounded by hostile people is a megalomaniac and a paranoiac; but the English Jew of Romanian origin Maurice Samuel speaks acceptably on behalf of his community when, in his 1924 book You Gentiles, he shares his “belief that we Jews stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts; that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences among you gentiles are trivialities compared with that which divided all of you from us.” The individual possessed by the passion to destroy is considered dangerously insane, but Samuel is simply a communitarian Jew when he writes: “We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. […] We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.”748 Maurice Samuel was undoubtedly a charming and quite sane man. It is only when the Jews think and act as representatives of the Jews and in the name of the Jews—when they say “we Jews . . .”—that their behavior toward non-Jews and their conception of relations with non-Jews betrays a sociopathic structure.
Empathy could be defined as the ability of individual souls to temporarily merge. Now, as we have seen, the Jews feel united by a kind of collective or ethnic soul that occupies a greater or lesser part of their individual souls, according to individuals and circumstances. The Jewish ethnohistorian Raphael Patai, author of The Jewish Mind, posits “consciousness of belonging as the ultimate criterion of Jewishness.”749 This is indeed how many Jews recall their Jewishness. “Being Jewish to me,” says French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, “is to feel involved, concerned, sometimes compromised by what other Jews do. It’s a feeling of belonging, affiliation; and in this affiliation, there is, for example, the tortured link to Israel.”750 This powerful “sense of belonging” is the undisputed strength of the Jewish community; every Jew experiences himself as part and parcel of the chosen people, and those who speak for the community relentlessly reinforce this feeling. Whatever commendable act a Jew achieves reflects on the community. When a Jew is a victim, the Jewish people as a whole is victimized. By contrast, if he is guilty, his Jewishness is repressed because it would implicate the whole people in his guilt: everyone knows Albert Einstein was a Jew, but who knows that Jack the Ripper was, too?751 Jewishness is in some sense a latent sentiment capable of being activated by the slightest alarm. “The feeling of Jewishness remains in me something dark, abyssal, and above all, unstable. Both powerful and labile. Nothing is as important to me as my Jewishness which, however, in many respects, has so little importance in my life,” writes Jacques Derrida.752
The self-hatred label, applied to any Jew who apostatizes or criticizes his community of origin, betrays a conception of Jewishness as a central and ineradicable element of individuality. Consider how Benzion Netanyahu analyzes the situation of the Jew who marries a non-Jewess: “His individuality, which is an extract and an example of the qualities of his nation, may then be lost in future generations, dominated by qualities of other nations. Quitting a nation is, therefore, even from a biological point of view, an act of suicide. It shows that the individual does not value his own special qualities.”753 Thus, according to Netanyahu, it is not Jewishness that is a part of the Jew’s individuality, but his individuality that is a manifestation of Jewishness. Such remarks make it possible to understand how the high degree of empathy and sociability—that is to say, in practice, mutual aid—in the Jewish community is linked to the paradigm of the Jewish group soul.
The obsessional memory of the Holocaust is also rooted in this same paradigm; for the group soul connects each Jew to the millions of Jewish victims of Nazism, with an intensity not found in any other national memorial cult. Every Jew, even the offspring of Sephardim from North Africa who never saw a Nazi uniform, feels victimized by the Holocaust, and traumatized for life as a survivor. This kind of blurred boundary between personal memory and collective memory is one of the striking symptoms of Jewishness. The phenomenon is simple to understand in the light of the sociological theory of memory of Maurice Halbwachs, who writes in Les Cadres sociaux de la mémoire (“The Social Frames of Memory,” 1925): “Most often, if I remember, it is that others give me incentive to remember, that their memory comes to the aid of mine, that mine relies on theirs.”754 This explains in part the number of “false memories” contained in the testimonies of survivors of the camps: the mythologizing of some becomes, forty years later, the memories of others.755
Another consequence: any aggression against a Jew awakens in him, and among the other members of his community, the trauma of the Holocaust. Any anti-Semitic, Judeophobic, or simply Judeo-critical speech brings to mind the fear of “the darkest hours” in history. Any injustice against a Jew is a little Auschwitz. Every Jew killed is a potential genocide; whoever kills a Jew kills the Jewish people. Such is the mental pattern of the Zionist Claude Ranel when he evokes the Israeli perception of Palestinian resistance in Moi, Juif palestinien (1970): “What the fedayeen did not understand […] is that any terrorist act will always be automatically interpreted by Israel as the simulacrum on a small scale of the generalized massacre of an entire population.”756 Here, I think, we have a psychological key to understanding the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Universalism and the Chosenness Complex The association of Judaism and universalism is endlessly harped upon. Politically correct goyim assimilate the message. “We are all Jews insofar as we care about the universal,” Jean Hyppolite is reported saying to his students at the École Normale Supérieure.757 Judaism, we are told, invented the universal God, and humanism with it. We have seen what lies behind the first proposition: the universal God invented by the Jews is actually a particularly jealous tribal god seized with an exterminating rage against all other gods, and his universalism is only a disguise hiding supremacism and contempt for all non-Jewish particularisms.
Jewish universalism is artificial. It is a posture, a persona. Johann Gottlieb Fichte, writing in 1793, was not mistaken: “The Jew who overcomes the difficult, one may say insurmountable, barriers which lie before him, and attains a love of justice, mankind, and truth—that Jew is a hero and a saint. I do not know whether such Jews ever existed or exist today. I shall believe it as soon as I meet such Jews. But dare you not sell me beautiful appearances for the real thing.”758 Jewish universalism is a fable intended to obfuscate reality and confuse the goy. Aaron David Gordon, founder of the Zionist party Hapoel Hatzair (Young Worker), puts it this way: “We always shout the word Humanity louder than all others, not because we have an ethics superior to others but because Humanity is an abstraction, an ethereal notion: In life there are only peoples (Völker).”759
Such an understanding is not given to everyone. Most Jews probably do not bother to question the paradoxical character of Jewish universalism. The paradox is repressed in the recesses of the psyche. Universalism could be seen as an unconscious compensation for tribalism; the Jew absolves himself of his atavistic tribalism by an ideal image of himself as a universalist humanist. This psychological consideration is also important for understanding the phenomenon of crypto-Jewishness, which cannot be reduced to conscious duplicity. The following remark by the historian of Judaism Daniel Lindenberg illustrates the psychological dimension of these contradictions: “Anyone who has known Communist Jews, ex-Kominternists, or even some prominent representatives of the 1968 generation will know what frustrated crypto- Jewishness means: Here are men and women who, in principle, according to the ‘internationalist’ dogma, have stifled in themselves all traces of ‘particularism’ and ‘petty-bourgeois Jewish chauvinism,’ who are nauseated by Zionism, support Arab nationalism and the great Soviet Union—yet who secretly rejoice in Israel’s military victories, tell anti-Soviet jokes, and weep while listening to a Yiddish song. This goes on until the day when, like a Leopold Trepper, they can bring out their repressed Jewishness, sometimes becoming, like the Marranos of the past, the most intransigent of neophytes.”760 The role of the unconscious in this duplicity must be relativized. There is undoubtedly a very deliberate intention on the part of many cognitive elites to bluff the goyim, but also to deceive the Jews themselves about the nature of the solidarity demanded of them.
Jewish universalism is a part of the Jews’ self-image, and amounts to an expression of limitless ethnic narcissism. Remember: the best deceivers are self-deceivers, and the psychopath typically ends up believing in his own lies, for he ignores the value of truth. There is no need to question the sincerity of Jewish thinkers claiming that the Jewish people is “the seed that is germinating the humanity of the future” (Jacob Kaplan, chief rabbi of France), or “the living ladder that meets the sky” (Emmanuel Levinas), or that “Israel equals humanity” (Emmanuel Levinas),761 or that “The Jew is closer to humanity than any other,” so that “the enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity” and therefore killing Jews is “murdering all mankind” (Elie Wiesel).762 Worse, “Hitting a Jew is hitting God Himself,” according to Cardinal Aron Jean- Marie Lustiger,763 taken almost verbatim from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 58b: “Hitting a Jew is like slapping the face of God himself”).
This explains why the strange notion of “crimes against humanity” was created specifically to describe the massacre of Jews (at the Nuremburg Trials in 1945), while the term “genocide” was coined for the same purpose by Raphael Lemkin in 1944. Their extension to other victims of history led to the choice of yet another term, the Holocaust—hard to beat. According to Abraham Foxman, chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, the Holocaust is “not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God himself.”764 Using strangely circular reasoning, Jean Daniel puts forward as proof of the incomparable character of Jewish suffering the fact that no one has ever questioned another human drama as did the (Jewish) thinkers by wondering “how to think after Auschwitz” (Emil Fackenheim) or what became of “The Concept of God after Auschwitz” (Hans Jonas). It follows that “meditating on the Jewish question amounts to meditating […] on the human condition.”765 What Daniel does not see is that the phenomenon he underlines demonstrates not the incomparable character of Jewish suffering but the incomparable character of Jewish ethnocentrism.
Yahweh, the Jewish universal God, is only a narcissistic tribal god, in the clinical sense of the term. Jewish universalism is only a hypertrophied ethnocentrism. For if the Jew is the essence of humanity, it follows implicitly that the non-Jew is a little less than human. Many rabbis have made the idea explicit. Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook, known as Rav Cook, first Ashkenazi chief rabbi in the Land of Israel until his death in 1935, explained: “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”766 Isaac Kadmi-Cohen reminds us that “in ancient Hebrew, the verb ‘to die’ applies to all living things, human or beast. For Hebrews, one uses the euphemism ‘rejoin one’s people’ (Héasef léamo).”767
It is almost always in reference to their Jewishness that Jews feel and proclaim themselves universalist. In other words, the universalism of the Jews is almost always a Jewish universalism, that is, in reality, a tribal narcissism. It is fake. Using an oxymoron, Jewishness can be defined as universalist tribalism, or tribal universalism. The Judeo-centric mode of thought is immune to the cognitive dissonance that may result from the contradiction between the universalist discourse and the tribalistic practice. If the Jew is the essence of humanity, what is good for the Jews is good for mankind, on principle: “Judaism considers only the salvation of the house of Israel, which alone will permit the salvation of the seventy nations of the universe” (Rabi, Anatomie du Judaïsme français, 1962).768 The Jews are the indispensable people. “I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority, in our capacity to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race,” proclaimed Ben-Gurion, the founding father of Israel.769 It is by remaining a separate people that the Jews will help unify humanity. And so their separatism is supposedly necessary for their universalism.
The double ethnic-religious nature of Judaism helps streamline the paradox that the Jews should remain a separate people in order to spread their universal religion. This is, for example, the thesis of Felix Adler (1851–1933): When the Jewish people has fulfilled its mission of dissolving the ethnicity of the rest of humanity, then it will be allowed to disappear. And so the world’s most ethnically oriented community succeeds in masquerading as the champion of universalism. Thus when Martin Buber called for a state for the Jews, it was so they could serve humanity. For it is only by fulfilling its messianic dream of a national home, he said, that the Jewish religion can lead humanity toward the messianic age.770 This argument, developed by Reform Judaism, is intended primarily for goyim but also for “soft” Jews, in order to convince them that their commitment in favor of the group is a service to humanity.
The ethnocentrism of communal Jewish thinkers is particularly apparent in their vision of universal history. Israelis, “the most separatist people in the world” according to Nahum Goldman (former president of the World Jewish Organization and founder of the World Jewish Congress), “have the great weakness of thinking that the whole world revolves around them.”771 Another fervent Zionist, Josef Kastein, acknowledges in his History and Destiny of the Jews (1933): “The Jewish world was Judeocentric, and the Jews could interpret everything that happened only from the standpoint of themselves as the center.”772 Josué Jehouda illustrates this perfectly in Antisemitism, Mirror of the World: “He who plumbs the depths of universal history, to gain an overall vision, finds that from ancient times until today two opposing currents are fighting over history, penetrating and shaping it constantly: the messianic current and the anti- Semitic current. […] messianism and anti-Semitism are the two opposite poles of the journey of humanity.”773 Such expressions of extreme ethnocentrism only confirm Karl Marx’s view that “the Jew […] can behave towards the state only in a Jewish way—that is, […] by deeming himself justified in separating himself from mankind, by abstaining on principle from taking part in the historical movement, by putting his trust in a future which has nothing in common with the future of mankind in general.”774
Judeocentrism is not only a way of learning history, but also a way of writing it and using it as a weapon of domination rather than as a search for truth. The founder of sociology Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), quite critical of his Jewish community, wrote: “The Jew […] seeks to learn not in order to replace his collective prejudices by reflective thought, but merely to be better armed for the struggle. […] he superimposes this intellectual life upon his habitual routine with no effect of the former upon the latter.”775 Quite often the search for truth becomes a smokescreen, the only important question being, “Is it good for the Jews?”776 But the communal pride of certain Jewish intellectuals is so outrageous that it cannot be interpreted as purely demagogic. It often appears downright pathological, as when Bernard-Henry Levy, who is accustomed to such ethnocentric delusions, declares: “The French language is perhaps one of the most precious things in this country; and it is a Jew—and what a Jew, Rashi—who deserves credit for having almost invented it.”777
Jewishness seems to induce a blind spot among some high-level intellectuals: they become irrational as soon as they approach a subject with any relationship to their community, as if an unconscious imperative—some programmed subroutine in the superego—suddenly short- circuited their objectivity. I recently came across an astonishing example of this phenomenon while opening a book by the psychiatrist Simon Baron-Cohen, The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty. Here is how the author begins his book: “When I was seven years old, my father told me the Nazis had turned Jews into lampshades. Just one of those comments that you hear once, and the thought never goes away. To a child’s mind (even to an adult’s) these two types of things just don’t belong together. He also told me the Nazis turned Jews into bars of soap. It sounds so unbelievable, yet it is actually true. I knew our family was Jewish, so this image of turning people into objects felt a bit close to home. My father also told me about one of his former girlfriends, Ruth Goldblatt, whose mother had survived a concentration camp. He had been introduced to the mother and was shocked to discover that her hands were reversed. Nazi scientists had severed Mrs. Goldblatt’s hands, switched them around, and sewn them on again so that if she put her hands out palms down, her thumbs were on the outside and her little fingers were on the inside. Just one of the many ‘experiments’ they had conducted. I realized there was a paradox at the heart of human nature—people could objectify others—that my young mind was not yet ready to figure out. […] Today, almost half a century after my father’s revelations to me about the extremes of human behavior, my mind is still exercised by the same, single question: How can we understand human cruelty?”778 I had to read this passage twice to make sure I understood correctly, and to finally admit the obvious: Baron-Cohen doesn’t doubt the stories told him by his father. And nowhere in the book does he wonder about the motivation of those who invent such stories or those who relate them to their children. The story serves only to introduce his theme: how can human beings commit such acts? This book was written in 2011 by a physician of great reputation—although not a specialist in hand surgery—whose works are, in general, models of scientific rigor.
The Holocaust Attitude
The psychopath is unable to see the other person’s point of view, and criticism strikes him as irrational aggression. He does not know the feeling of guilt, and constantly plays innocent: those who have crossed his path are solely responsible for their own destruction. Their reproaches are baseless, and their anger an irrational hatred. This is the reaction of the Jewish elites to criticism: to them it can be nothing other than the expression of visceral anti-Semitism, an atavistic goyish disease. “Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy, with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind,” writes Leon Pinsker, a medical doctor. It is “a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.” By way of consequence, the Jews are “the people chosen for universal hatred.”779 This curious formula could be the credo of secular Zionism, and reflects pretty well a widespread feeling among Jews and Israelis, as is well documented in Yoav Shamir’s excellent film Defamation (2009).
In their own eyes, the Jews have no responsibility for the hostility of the Gentiles toward them. There are certainly exceptions that confirm the rule: Thus, in a deliberately provocative way, Samuel Roth wrote (in 1934): “There is not a single instance when the Jews have not fully deserved the bitter fruit of the fury of their persecutors.”780 By such remarks, Roth has marginalized himself in his community. The politically correct point of view of a leading Jewish intellectual such as André Neher is the exact opposite: “One thing that Judaism has which other spiritualities lack is innocence. We are innocent, and we feel even more deeply that we are innocent when we are accused. […] It is this innocence that we must be aware of at present, and that we must never deny, never, in any circumstance.”781 And it works: “You will understand nothing of anti-Semitism,” wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, “if you fail to remember that the Jew, that object of so much hatred, is perfectly innocent, nay harmless” (Réflexions sur la question juive, 1946).782 Anti-Semitism is so universal and sneaky that it is there even when one does not see it: “In their great majority, Christians—or those recognized as such—are anti-Semites. For even in the best of them, the very ones who have engaged the most generous combat against Nazi anti- Semitism, it is easy to detect the traces of more or less unconscious anti-Semitism” (Jules Isaac, L’Enseignement du mépris, 1962).783 We can detect here what Yiddish writer and 1978 Nobel Prize nominee Isaac Bashevis Singer describes as a monomaniac tendency of the Jew: “When he gets an idea into his head it becomes so strong that he forgets about everything else. Let’s consider the Jew who fights anti-Semitism. He will find anti-Semitism everywhere, even on an empty island or in the Sahara. The obsessed person becomes funny because he cannot see the exception to the rule, or he creates nonexistent rules.”784 In the final analysis, this obsessive fear is only a side effect of chosenness, since the destiny of the chosen one is to be misunderstood and rejected. From the psychological point of view, chosenness leads directly to the persecution complex.
And persecution is the dominant theme of Jewish history. Michael Walzer remembers: “I was taught Jewish history as a long tale of exile and persecution—Holocaust history read backwards.”785 Persecution is also the central theme of the liturgy and Jewish feasts: Passover, Hanukkah, Purim, Yom Kippur. Persecution is so essential to the Jewish identity that, when it does not exist, there is an urgent need to invent it. An obsessive fear of anti-Semitism must be maintained in the minds of the Jews, for it is the glue that holds the community together, the only thing capable of resisting the dissolving effect of assimilation. Toward the end of his life, Jewish writer Ilya Ehrenburg repeated that he would consider himself a Jew “as long as there was a single anti-Semite left on earth.”786 (One should take him seriously: As a Soviet propagandist during WWII, Ehrenburg’s leaflets urged Red Army soldiers to “kill! kill! kill!”: “The Germans are not human beings. […] There is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. […] Kill the Germans—that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German—that is your child’s prayer. Kill the German—that is your motherland’s loud request. […] Kill, Red Army men, kill! No fascist is innocent, be he alive, be he as yet unborn.”)787 When real Judeophobia is in decline, it becomes necessary to raise the specter of imaginary anti-Semitism. Even asleep, even invisible, the beast must remain a permanent threat in everyone’s mind.
The incantatory cult of the Holocaust, developed in the 1960s, is part of the same strategy. It could be considered a sort of cannibalizing the dead, if the dead were really at the center of this cult. But that is not the case. Only their number and the power it confers are important. Recent polls indicate that being Jewish is increasingly defined as the funeral cult of the Holocaust: a 2013 Pew Research poll on the theme “A Portrait of Jewish Americans” shows that, to the question “What’s essential to being Jewish?” “Remembering the Holocaust” comes first for 73 percent of respondents. Next comes “Caring about Israel,” then “Observing Jewish laws” (not to mention those whose first reaction is to congratulate themselves by ticking “Leading an ethical and moral life”).788 The Jewish people is no longer defined as the chosen people. It is now the exterminatable people. “The Jewish religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that unifies the Jews around the world apart from the Holocaust,” once remarked Yeshayahu Leibowitz, professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.789 If the Holocaust has supplanted Yahweh as the new god of Israel, it is because its primary function is the same: separate the Jews, exile them into their exceptionality, foster a new morbid form of the chosenness complex. For if the whole Western world is now “remembering the Holocaust,” not all men are equal in this cult. Just as Yahweh divided humankind into the chosen people and the rest of the nations, the Holocaust separates the victims and their tormentors. And so the Holocaust, the absolute Evil, turns out to be functionally interchangeable with Yahweh.
The Holocaust is a jealous god: there is no museum or commemoration for the genocide of American Indians (not even a name for this unspeakable crime for which Americans are collectively responsible, while they are innocent of the Holocaust). To the Ukrainians who wished to commemorate the “Holodomor”—the death of 7 to 8 millions of them in 1932–1933 by a deliberately provoked famine against the kulaks resisting collectivization—Israeli president Shimon Peres advised, during a visit to Kiev on November 25, 2010: “Forget History.”790 The Holocaust is eternal, “It is continuing all the time,” declared Benzion Netanyahu in 2009.791 In reality, according to Israeli philosopher Gilad Atzmon, biblical Yahwism was from the start a religion of the Holocaust: “the Holocaust is actually engraved in the Jewish culture, discourse and spirit. […] To be a Jew is to see a threat in every goy, to be on constant alert.”792
The sacralization of the Holocaust and its media liturgy fulfills two complementary functions: guilt among the Gentiles, fear among the Jews. Through guilt, the Gentiles are kept in check, and all their criticisms are neutralized by equating them to gas chambers. Through fear, the Jewish community is kept under control, and its loyalty to Israel strengthened, as Israel is depicted as an “insurance policy,” a fortress (preferably well-armed), and a refuge in the event of a new Holocaust. The quasi-miraculous power of this cult is such that “the trauma of the Holocaust is transmitted genetically” by “epigenetic heredity,” according to a study by a team of researchers at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York under the direction of Rachel Yehuda.793
With its many museums and incessant media liturgy, the Holocaust cult has now replaced the worship of Christ. Remembering the martyrdom of the chosen people has become the civic religion of Western Europe. It has the added advantage of stifling the cries of the Palestinian people, Gazans in particular, who are being crucified with increasingly demonic violence. According to historian Zygmunt Bauman, Israel uses the Holocaust “as the certificate of its political legitimacy, as safe-conduct pass for its past and future policies, and, above all, as advance payment for the injustices it might itself commit.”794
The Holocaust is not only the Jews’ worst memory, it is their ever-possible future. The Israelis’ greatest fear is of another Holocaust, this time on Israelis, as Haaretz journalist Yair Sheleg explained in 2006: “It is hard to believe, but just 60 years after the Holocaust the Jewish people is again in danger of extermination.” Each anti-Semitic act, every expression of Judeophobia, is a small Holocaust, capable of prefiguring a new catastrophe. Israeli musician and philosopher Gilad Atzmon speaks of a “Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (Pre-TSS)” to characterize the fundamental mood of Jewish and Israeli culture, induced by the political and cultural elite, who, through constant reminders of the last Holocaust, keep the population under permanent expectation of the next one.795 For example, “young Israelis are brought to Auschwitz by various Zionist organizations with the aim of turning them into traumatized Jewish adults.”796 The conviction that Jew-hatred is inherent in Gentiles is so intimately linked to modern Jewish identity that the Jew who renounces Jewishness—or criticizes it too severely, like Gilad Atzmon
—is treated as a self-hating Jew, that is to say, accused of having internalized the goyim’s hatred of him.
The liturgy of the Holocaust is accompanied by a perpetually alarmist discourse on anti- Semitism. A survey conducted in 1985 indicated that one-third of the Jews in the San Francisco Bay Area believed that a Jew could not be elected to Congress, even though three of the four local representatives in Congress were Jews, as were the two Senators from California and the mayor of San Francisco. A 1990 survey shows that eight out of ten American Jews are concerned about anti-Semitism and believe it is increasing, while 90 percent of non-Jews believe that anti- Semitism is residual. The discrepancy between perception and reality suggests a form of self- deception aimed at maintaining a fantasized self-image as oppressed outsider. The need to feed the fear of anti-Semitism has led Jewish organizations to characterize as anti-Semitic attitudes such as indifference to Jewish concerns or discomfiture at the overrepresentation of Jews among cultural, intellectual, financial, and political elites.797
Ultimately, like most traits of Jewish collective psychology, the inability to accept any responsibility for the hostility of the goyim is a lesson learned in the Bible, especially in the story of Jacob and Esau, who in the rabbinic tradition symbolize respectively Israel and the nations, or Judaism and Christianity. When Jacob usurps the birthright of Esau by deceiving his father Isaac, he gains the divine blessing. Esau’s resentment, like Cain’s for Abel, is presented without a shred of sympathy. In the short book of Obadiah, Yahweh chastises Esau: “For the violence done to your brother Jacob, shame will cover you and you will be annihilated forever!” (Obadiah 1:10); “The House of Jacob will be a fire, the House of Joseph a flame, and the House of Esau like stubble. They will set it alight and burn it up, and no one of the House of Esau will survive” (1:18), “and sovereignty will be Yahweh’s!” (1:21). Thus nations that dare protest against Israel’s below-the-belt punches, which are always automatically legitimate, deserve to be annihilated. In the words of Henry Makow, “Organized Jewry (Neocons, Zionists, B’nai Brith) has the self-consciousness of a snake devouring a mouse. It regards the death spasms of the mouse as ‘hatred.’”798
The Sociopathic State
Victimization has become the essence of Israeli national identity, according to Idith Zertal, professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: “Israeli society nationalized the memory of the Holocaust.” “The Holocaust is inserted directly and metaphorically into everyday life in Israel, which is loaded, in this fashion, with meaning beyond itself, as are power and the ideology of power.” By this process, Israel has been transformed “into an ahistorical and apolitical twilight zone, where Auschwitz is not a past event but a threatening present and a constant option. By means of Auschwitz—which has become over the years Israel’s main reference in its relations with a world defined repeatedly as anti-Semitic and forever hostile—Israel rendered itself immune to criticism, and impervious to a rational dialogue with the world around her.”799
With regard to the Palestinians, “Israeli Jews’ consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians, and insensitivity to their suffering,” in the words of journalist Akiva Eldar (writing after Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in 2008–2009).800 Many lucid Israelis are worried about their country’s plunge into collective pathology. Yehoshafat Harkabi, deputy director of military intelligence, wrote: “Dazzled by its self-righteousness, Israel cannot see the case of the other side. Self-righteousness encourages nations no less than individuals to absolve themselves of every failing and shake off the guilt of every mishap. When everyone is guilty except them, the very possibility of self-criticism and self-improvement vanishes…”801 The Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz in 2010 that “Only psychiatrists can explain Israel’s behavior,” suggesting as a possible diagnosis, “paranoia, schizophrenia and megalomania.”802 Sociopathy is probably a better guess. If any nationalism is a collective egoism, Israel’s is more like a collective sociopathy.
What can be said of a state that, having received from the community of nations, by an exceptional privilege, a land whose indigenous inhabitants were thus dispossessed, bases its foreign policy on the following principle, expressed by its leader (Ben-Gurion) ten years later: “We must wean ourselves from the preposterous and totally unfounded and baseless illusion that there is outside the State of Israel a force and a will that would protect the life of our citizens. Our own capacity for self-defense is our only security”?803 What is to be said of a country that, having made the Holocaust the universal, eternal, and ultimate crime, and seeing only potential and interchangeable enemies around it, behaves as if it wanted to punish the Palestinians for the crimes committed by Europeans (as Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi often remarks)?
Our diagnosis should take into account Israel’s extraordinary manipulative capacity on the world stage via corruption and propaganda—the bank and the press. The relationship between Israel and the United States is akin to the bond between a typical psychopath and the impressionable bully he has decided to manipulate. Israel’s control of the American mind is achieved on the mass level through the press and the entertainment industry, on the governmental level through the irresistible influence of the neocons and AIPAC, and on a still deeper level through wide-scale spying and the infiltration and hijacking of intelligence and secret services. As Haaretz recently revealed, two Israeli high-tech firms (Verint and Narus) with ties to Mossad, have provided the spy software for the NSA, thus securing for Israel access to all collected data. Other Israeli software “front companies” have likewise infiltrated the US administration and military-industrial sector. And, as James Petras comments, “because of the power and influence of the Conference of Presidents of the 52 Major American Jewish Organizations, Justice Department officials have ordered dozens of Israeli espionage cases to be dropped. The tight Israeli ties to the US spy apparatus serves to prevent deeper scrutiny into Israel’s operations and political goals—at a very high price in terms of the security of US citizens.”804
The golden rule of manipulation formulated by Colonel Mandell House (who was the intermediary between the Zionist network and President Woodrow Wilson) applies generally to Israel’s manipulation of the United States: “With the President [. . .] it was invariably my intention to always to make him believe that ideas he derived from me were his own.”805 Such is also the essence of Israel’s strategy with the US; behind the mask of American patriotism, the neocons have managed to lead America into a Middle East policy that only serves Israeli interests, by pretending to the American people that it serves their interests. The psychopath tries to interfere in all the human relationships of his prey, so as to prevent any alliance that could allow him to be unmasked. Isolate and divide-and-rule are the essence of this strategy. This is precisely what Israel and its neoconservative moles have done, by trying to split the United States from its historic allies in the Middle East, with the aim of one day remaining the only ally of the United States in the area. The demonization of all heads of state in the Arab world is part of this strategy. One of Israel’s great successes has been to ensure that its own enemies, the Arab peoples, today have a fierce hatred for the United States.
The power of the Zionist manipulation of the United States, based on quasi-total control of the mainstream media alongside large-scale psychological operations such as September 11, is truly bewildering. But it becomes understandable in light of what Robert Hare names the “psychopathic bond.” It even becomes predictable to some extent, if we keep in mind that the psychopath has no ability to question, no limits to his appetite for power, and no remorse about leading humanity into ruin to save his skin. Nothing better illustrates the psychopathic nature of Zionism than the apocalyptic nuclear blackmail Israel perpetually exercises over the West, with its policy of the “Samson Option,” which Golda Meir summed up in 1974 as “Israel’s willingness in a doomsday situation to take the region down with it.”806 Using this threat, Meir blackmailed Kissinger and Nixon into coming to Israel’s rescue during the Yom Kippur War.
By drawing a parallel between psychopathy as a personality disorder and the attitude of Israel, I do not mean, of course, the Jews in general. They are the first to be manipulated by their elites, and they are part of this collective psychopathy only to the extent of their submission to those elites. Jewishness, we must not forget, is whatever idea the Jews make of it; and the idea the Jews make of it is, almost entirely, the one imposed on them by their elites. What is at issue is the prevailing ideology of Israel, and (more discreetly) of international Jewry. Dominant discourse is always shaped by the elite. Sometimes a strong current of popular thought emerges to challenge the dominant way of thinking, but nothing of this kind is yet observable in the Jewish community; it is overwhelmingly docile to its elite, which currently dominates the media and the entertainment industry and therefore enjoys considerable mind-control powers. Their ruse is to maintain in the Jews an absolute conviction of the immaculate innocence of their people, and simultaneously to inculcate a paranoid fear of anti-Semitism, this “disease transmitted for two thousand years, incurable” (Leon Pinsker).
In The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, Joel Bakan noted that large companies behave like psychopaths, insensitive to the suffering of those they crush in their pursuit of profit: “Corporate behavior is very similar to that of a psychopath.”807 Yet a company’s culture, while involving every employee to one degree or another, is driven by its ruling elite. The Enron scandal has shown the world the tremendous damage that can be done by a company run by people of high intelligence and perverse ideology.808 My analysis here of the Jewish community is based on exactly the same reasoning. Like it or not, the character of a nation is exemplified and largely determined by its leaders, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Not all elites deserve to be put in the same bag. Many Zionist leaders have had the courage to confront the monster they created, and to try to undo the damage. Moshe Sharett, foreign minister from 1948 to 1956 and prime minister from 1954 to 1955, advocated a moderate Zionism respectful of international rules, in contrast to the methods of Ben-Gurion, Pinhas Levon, Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres, the clan bent on “setting the Middle East on fire.” Yet men like Sharett have always remained isolated and never had a chance to overcome the psychopathic ideological power machine of Zionism. Israel seems destined to be directed by the most extremist, openly racist, paranoid, and Machiavellian elements—the most lacking in all inhibitions normally imposed by empathy and respect for other peoples.
In the final analysis, was not this destiny blueprinted in the Bible? If Israel seems bewitched by a sociopathic destiny, is it not the fault of its evil genius Yahweh? Does not the Zionist manipulation go back to the creation by the ancient Levites of this particularly xenophobic tribal egregore that has usurped the title of “Creator of the Universe” and “Father of Humanity”?
As a collective entity, the Jewish people has always behaved like a sociopath among other peoples. Many Jews, of course, have resisted that collective mind frame. But most have been bred into it for generations—not just by their parents, but by their tribal god, the fake Yahweh. Today’s Jews cannot be blamed for having inherited as sacred text the most extraordinary hoax in all human history. As children of a psychopathic god, they are his first victims. But although no one is responsible for the faith he has grown up with, everyone, at some stage, should take responsibility for it.
We must hope that Jewish revolt against the divine sociopath will one day take on a collective character. The Jewish community has always been torn between an assimilationist tendency and a separatist tendency, between genuine thirst for universality and tribal particularism. All the tragedies it has experienced stem from the maneuvers of its elites opposing majoritarian aspirations to integration. These elites endlessly revive the tribal spirit from which they derive their power. It is under the double banner of the Holocaust and Israel that Jews are today called upon to strengthen their communal solidarity.
Only when the biblical Yahweh is correctly diagnosed and publicly exposed as a sociopathic myth will the Jews have a chance to collectively break away from his psychopathic bond, renounce the curse of being the chosen people, and learn to empathize with the rest of humankind. Until then, courageous Jews, from Jesus and Paul to Shlomo Sand and Gilad Atzmon, will continue to pave the way in solitude, vilified as self-hating Jews by those they wish to liberate.