← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr

"Good Jew" Israel Shamir (and Alex Linder too!) gets mentioned in the UK Times!

Thread ID: 17680 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2005-04-08

Wayback Archive

Petr [OP]

2005-04-08 11:52 | User Profile

[I]My my, this Israel Shamir (who has converted to Christianity, btw) does seem to have that certain "drive" that all our activists should possess!

Alex Linder gets some undeserved publicity here - do you think that [B]he[/B] would ever get a chance to make speeches in the British parliament?

[B]Here you can read the speech Shamir gave in the House of Lords, Westminster, on February 23, 2005:[/B] [/I]

[SIZE=5]"Jews and the Empire"[/SIZE]

[url]http://www.israelshamir.net/english/Westminster.htm[/url]

[I]And here's the Times article, the inevitable PC backlash against Shamir:[/I]

[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1557932,00.html[/url]

April 07, 2005

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=4]Lord Ahmed's unwelcome guest[/SIZE] [B] Stephen Pollard

The Labour peer must admit his error in inviting an extreme anti-Semite to air his views [/B]

A TERM has returned to the lexicon of political debate in recent months; a term for which, in a decent world, we should have no need. That term is “anti-Semitism”.

In January, Labour produced two posters. One depicted Michael Howard as a Shylock or Fagin caricature. The other pasted the faces of Mr Howard and Oliver Letwin on to pigs’ bodies. In February, figures showed that anti-Semitic attacks rose to record levels in 2004 — 42 per cent higher than in 2003. Add to this Ken Livingstone’s comparison of a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard, and the odour of anti-Semitism is clearly with us once more.

But there is a more astonishing incident which has yet to receive any coverage.

Lord Ahmed, who has been a Labour life peer since 1998, is the first Muslim to have been so honoured. His presence in the House of Lords is symbolically important. His behaviour matters, both in the message it sends to his fellow Muslims and in what it represents to the rest of us.

In May, Lord Ahmed called — at considerable personal risk — for Islamic militants such as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri to be deported. The risk was real: a fatwa was immediately issued against him.

But his behaviour has not always been so admirable.

On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.

The gist of Shamir/Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the [political] parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking.” “In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.” “The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” “Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide.”

Why would Lord Ahmed have hosted such a man in the Lords? It is, of course, possible that Lord Ahmed had no idea that Shamir/Jermas was a rabid anti-Semite. [B]Yet it takes only a quick Google to discover his views and background. He has worked for Zavtra, Russia’s most anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance. [/B]

Indeed, Shamir/Jermas’s own website proudly reprints his views: “Jews asked God to kill, destroy, humiliate, exterminate, defame, starve, impale Christians, to usher in Divine Vengeance and to cover God’s mantle with blood of goyim . . . ” “The Ashkenazi Jews believed that spilled Jewish blood has a magic effect of calling down Divine Vengeance on the heads of the Gentiles . . . The picture of Jews slaughtering children for cultic reasons exerted huge impact on the Christian peoples of Europe.” On and on it goes.

Other figures at the forefront of campaigns against Israel are wise to Shamir/Jermas’s toxic anti-Semitism; Ali Abunimah, for example, who writes for the Electronic Intifada website and Hussein Ibish, press spokesman of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, gave warning in 2001 that Shamir/Jermas was not anti-Israeli but anti-Semitic. It is surely not unreasonable to expect Lord Ahmed to have exercised a cursory check on his guest.

If, however, Lord Ahmed does feel that he made a mistake in inviting him, he has yet to demonstrate it. Shamir/Jermas’s speech was made nearly two months ago. On learning of its contents, I wrote to Lord Ahmed, asking him two questions. Did he consider the invitation to have been a mistake? Did he condemn the remarks? He did not reply.

Yesterday, I phoned him. When I told him that I planned to write a piece drawing attention to his actions in hosting Shamir/Jermas and that I wanted to give him every opportunity to respond, he replied: “I am not even going to speak with you.” He then put the phone down.

Lord Ahmed’s refusal to condemn the remarks seems to indicate that he sees nothing wrong with inviting such a man to speak, or with the words Shamir/Jermas used.

There is an instructive parallel. Howard Flight was stripped of the Conservative whip for expressing a mild opinion about spending cuts. Lord Ahmed invited a known anti-Semite to speak in the House of Lords, has not uttered a word of criticism since and remains a Labour peer. Before hearing from Lord Ahmed, I also wrote to Lord Grocott, the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords. I asked him if, given Lord Ahmed’s apparent lack of contrition, Lord Grocott considered it appropriate that Lord Ahmed should still hold the Labour whip? No reply.

All Lord Ahmed need do to destroy the notion that he supports Shamir/Jermas’s views is to admit that he made a mistake in inviting him, and to condemn his words.[/COLOR]

Petr

Petr

2005-04-08 12:05 | User Profile

This PC loser writer of Times is very probably lying about Shamir only pretending to be Jewish - here you can see Shamir and his [B]many, many [/B] international friends defending his credentials against these Mossad-planted allegations:

[SIZE=4]"Does Israel Shamir Exist?"[/SIZE]

[url]http://www.rense.com/general56/isrsham.htm[/url]

Petr

Ponce

2005-04-08 12:36 | User Profile

All you have to do to put down the Jews is to tell the truth.

The Jews keep on yelling " It's a lie, it's a lie, anti-semite, anti-semite" but they never give evidence that what any one is saying about them is a lie.

"When the truth comes into the light the lies will hide in the dark"... Ponce

albion

2005-04-08 12:54 | User Profile

[img]http://www.davidduke.com/images/israelshamir.jpg[/img] Israel Shamir, a very Jewish Israeli citizen and former member of the Israeli army speaks about and against Jewish supremacism and how opposition to to it is stifled by sophistry and hypocrisy – a fascinating piece that is instructive for both Gentiles and Jews alike. [url="http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=234"]http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=234[/url]

Petr

2005-04-08 13:03 | User Profile

Well, he sure doesn't look too Swedish to me!

:tongue:

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-04-08 16:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I did not come to condemn you but to offer my condolences, for England is one of the Imperial victims.[/QUOTE] That is a very key insight, and is the central thesis of G.K. Chesterton's [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0742630358/qid=1112978239/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-2763389-2923164?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]The Crimes of England,[/URL] which is a nationalist classic, IMHO.

Here's a deep bow in the direction of the courageous Mr. Shamir.

Phantasm

2005-04-08 17:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr] [Stephen Pollard]... ...the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance. ...[/QUOTE] I have no doubt that Stephen Pollard is a typical “hack” engaged in the character assassination of Lord Ahmed and Israel Shamir. However, what he said about our Brother Alex Linder is pretty accurate.

The word “extreme” epitomizes Alex Linder. He is anti-Christian, anti-social, and anti-American. Linder's rhetoric is characterized by a mix of fanatical nihilism with a soft spot for National Socialism. Linder has proclaimed a venomous rejection of all tradition American values and has accused Christians of being Jews by proxy. Anyone that doesn't promote psychotic anti-social behavior in all areas of human endeavor is immediately regarded as a Jew surrogate and an enemy of the White Race by this mini-Fuhrer. :hitler: Alex Linder has spit in the face of every responsible White Nationalist who ever stepped forward to help him... including myself. Is it any surprise that Alex Linder has isolated himself from most of his White Nationalist cousins?

Anyone who has observed the activities over at VNN will tell you that Alex Linder is grooming his own personal band of misfits for some "collaboration" in the future. Fortunately, their dysfunction won't allow any real achievement to be made on their part. And let's be honest about this... with allies like Alex Linder... we really don't need enemies.

:smoke:

Petr

2005-04-08 17:07 | User Profile

Here's another article by Israel Shamir where he defends his existence and credentials:

[url]http://www.israelshamir.net/english/No_Cricket.htm[/url]

[COLOR=Blue] [SIZE=5]Not Cricket [/SIZE]

[B]In its September 2004 issue, the leftist American magazine Socialist Viewpoint published a ferocious attack entitled “Israel Shamir: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”, a personal libel against me by a Roland Rance. A minor British trade union functionary, Rance is a leading member of a leftish group Jews against Zionism. Despite their name, The Jews against Zionism produce mainly complaints against “antisemitism” and indulge in apology of Judaism and Jewishness. [/B]

Rance hits below the belt (probably because he can’t reach any higher). Instead of dealing with my ideas, he launches a personal attack: “Shamir’s resume* reads like a work of fantasy: grandson of a rabbi, Israeli paratrooper, translated Agnon, Herzog, Joyce and the Talmud into Russian, parliamentary spokesman for Mapam, worked for the BBC. I don’t believe a word of it”.

Rance is free to believe what he wants. He may believe in Flat Earth theory and disbelieve Galileo and Copernicus. However, the Socialist Viewpoint, if the magazine wants to be considered trustworthy, can’t publish such rubbish unchecked.

[url]http://www.israelshamir.net/ru/agnon.htm[/url] and [url]http://www.israelshamir.net/ru/ulysse.htm[/url] ; my translation of Herzog was published in London by Nina Karsov in 1986 <[url]http://hedir.openu.ac.il/kurs/pol-bibliogr.html[/url] > and republished in 2004 in Moscow < [url]http://oz.by/books/more1010690.html[/url] >, my translation of Talmud-related texts is also available on the web [url]http://www.israelshamir.net/talmud/indexoftalmud.html[/url] .

[B]* As for my paratrooper’s past, you can read another vicious attack on me published by the extreme-right Maariv newspaper with title: “Israeli Paratrooper became a darling of antisemites”. Ben Dror Yamini, the author of this eight-pages-long ‘expose’ met with many people who know me, collected all the ill rumours about my modest person; but even he did not try to take away from me my hard-earned red beret. [/B]

[B]Rance is notoriously dishonest. He writes: “Shamir’s son was deported from Israel to Sweden”, without mentioning that he was deported for breaking an Israeli army siege and for bringing food to Palestinians locked in the Bethlehem Church of Nativity. [/B]

Rance is unfair. He writes: “Shamir forwarded an email from Birmingham University academic Sue Blackwell, including contact details [and it constituted] a serious threat to the physical safety of activists”. However, he did not hesitate to publish the address and a telephone of my Swedish family, though this act clearly endangers them. Would he like to see his address and telephone published? This is just not cricket!

Why does he play so rough? Rance’s article can be summarised in a few words: “Shamir is not a Jew”. He writes: “Shamir is a right-wing Russian who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist… I am sure he was a Christian but found it useful to pose as a Jew”. This line is upheld by the editor in his introduction to the libel: “Shamir presented himself as a Russian Jew”. A non-Jew – worse, a Christian, - does not deserve fair play, one does not have to observe the rules of engagement dealing with a Goy - according to Rance, or according to the Socialist Viewpoint, the “revolutionary Marxist magazine” edited and published by Weinstein, Weinstein, Seligman and LeClair. The title of the libel carries the same racist message: a Russian Christian Wolf hides under a Jewish Sheep’s clothing. I resent the insinuation of subterfuge, but this racist insistence on racial character of Jewishness is equally inadmissible.

II

For the record: following Marx and Simone Weil, I object (and objected) to perpetuation of the Jewish identity. In an interview published in the Socialist Viewpoint in 2001, I have said: “I am against existence of a Jewish state per se. In my opinion, Jews in Palestine should become Palestinians, while Jews of France should be French.” This attitude is not exclusively Marxist: Sir Carl Popper refused to be included in the Judaic Encyclopaedia for, as he said, he “severed all ties with the Jewish religion and community”.

[B]I willingly ceased to be a Jew when I entered the Orthodox Church of the Holy Land[/B], but this is not the only way out: hundreds Israelis petitioned the Supreme Court of Israel demanding their ‘Jewish nationality’ being stricken out and replaced by ‘Israeli’ or ‘Palestinian’. Two million Israeli citizens – Palestinians, Russians and Ethiopians – are not considered ‘Jews’ by the Jewish state and do not wish to. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Israelis (many of them hail from the USSR with its internationalist upbringing) are considered ‘Jews’ but nevertheless want to give up their Jewish exclusivity. They want to be Israelis, or Palestinians – but not Jews.

This is not an academic point. The Israeli soul is the scene of struggle between two forces, between two loyalties: that to the land and that to the world-wide Jewish People. The loyalty to the land can eventually form a basis for complete unity with the native Palestinian people. The loyalty to world Jewry (Am Israel) is the basis of our xenophobia, of the Wall, of the apartheid state. The Palestinians are denied equal rights in order to sustain the ‘Jewish character’ of the state. The ugliest crimes of Zionism are perpetrated in the name of the Jewish People; ‘Jewishness’ is the engine of ethnic cleansing in our country. Thus our struggle against ‘the Jewish character of the State’ is an important spiritual element in the struggle for democracy in Palestine.

But World Jewry fights back for their hold on our souls. Roland Rance is a foremost agent of Judaic influence; he wants us, Israelis, to be Jews. Indeed, as a member of the Socialist Workers' Party he stood for “replacement of the Jewish state of Israel by an Arab-Jewish democratic, secular Palestine”[ii]. His motion was rightly dismissed, for ‘Arabs’ and ‘Jews’ are not two nations. ‘Arabs’ are a linguistic and cultural group of peoples which includes Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians of all religions; the Jews are a religious caste, ‘class-people’ as Abram Leon has termed them. Roland Rance wants to perpetuate this caste; I want it undone. Roland Rance wants Israelis to remain Jews and preserve their separateness, I want them – us! - to become Palestinians of whatever religion or of no religion at all; to renounce all connection to the Jewish People abroad, to cut off ties with Abe Foxman and Morton Zuckerman, and even with Ronald Rance.

All this talk of “Not in My Name” and “Judaism is not Zionism” is quite futile. We observe empirically: the less Jewish an Israeli is, the more likely he is to befriend Palestinians. Even General Rafael Eitan, who died a few days ago, was eulogised by many Palestinian friends; and he was an Arab-fighter, but not a Jew at all by his attitudes. There is no way around it: Israelis should be de-Judaised, or de-linked from the Jewish People overseas in order to link up with the natives.

** There is a second reason for my hostility to “Jewishness” – this concept is used to frighten ordinary Americans, Brits and Europeans away from their support of equality in Palestine by attaching the antisemitism stigma to it. Indeed, my relationship with The Socialist Viewpoint soured after publication of my essay The Marxists and the Lobby[iii] where I criticised Nat Weinstein for his senseless repetition of the ‘danger of antisemitism’ mantra. As the result, if in 2001, “Socialist Viewpoint was proud to print articles by Israel Shamir of Tel Aviv[iv]”; in the September 2004 issue I am described as “one, Israel Shamir”. The turnabout is explained by “Shamir’s thesis that the Jewish Lobby is primarily responsible for US imperialism’s crimes in the Middle East”. This thesis has “more than a hint of anti-Semitic nonsense”, they write. If even the “revolutionary Marxist magazine” repeats ADL-inspired dogma, what can one expect from ordinary Americans?

Recently, the aldermen of Somerville, Ma decided to drop their attempt to divest from Israel. The Zionists had intimidated them into submission, and I can’t blame them – when all American media from the New York Post to the Socialist Viewpoint, when all pundits from Dershowitz to Weinstein are united in their “zero tolerance to antisemitism”, it would be political suicide to risk their wrath. Even Rabbis for Human Rights, much applauded by Ronald Rance and his kin, described divestment as an act of antisemitism.

Some good Jews have tried to gainsay the otherwise united Jewish position and claimed that divestment is not antisemitism. In a similar way, the French frondeurs or the Russian Decembrists claimed they were not against the king, but rather against his ministers. Their pussyfooting could not convince the people. The really successful revolutions – 1789 or 1917 – occurred when the people sang La Carmagnole with its reckless slogan ‘Les aristocrats à la lanterne’. The tide of pro-Israeli support led us, in my belief, to the destruction of Palestine and Iraq and will soon lead to an attack on Iran. This tide will abate only if and when Americans and Europeans begin to dismiss accusations of antisemitism in the same way that now they shrug off charges of lese majesté (disrespect to the Crown). That is why we, friends and lovers of Palestine, must struggle – not only against occupation, but for making Jewishness irrelevant and Jewry broken up.

[B]The break-up of Jewry will be a wonderful development for Jews, too. The vast majority will be able to become just Americans, or just Brits, or just French; a small Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community will remain with us like the Amish or other tiny observant minorities, never again to be disturbed by hatred or power struggle. [/B]

*** The third reason for my position is intra-Palestinian. Dwellers of our land can be classified by many criteria: by their height and weight, by their age or income, by their faith or land of origin. The criterion of Jewishness is the one that unites all immigrant communities in opposition to the natives. This gives huge power to the immigrant Ashkenazi elites. But if Jewishness will be as important as hair colour, we shall find ourselves in a totally different situation – the native population, plus a plethora of middling immigrant communities from different lands. Instead of Palestinians versus Jews, there will be Palestinians – and immigrants from Poland and Germany, Russia and Morocco, Yemen and France. The natives will be able to exercise decisive influence and eventually absorb the divided immigrants.

Thus my position regarding Jews is not dictated by a whim or by religious considerations (as Rance claims) but by seeing that there is no other way to unite Palestine, to restore the native Palestinians to their natural position and to help the immigrants to strike root in the soil of the Holy Land.

[ii] [url]http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/554/secularism1.htm[/url]

[iii] [url]http://www.israelshamir.net/english...0marxists.shtml[/url]

[iv] [url]http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/j..._01/sum_01.html[/url] [/COLOR]

Phantasm

2005-04-08 17:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr] [Israel Shamir]... This is not an academic point. The Israeli soul is the scene of struggle between two forces, between two loyalties: that to the land and that to the world-wide Jewish People. The loyalty to the land can eventually form a basis for complete unity with the native Palestinian people. The loyalty to world Jewry (Am Israel) is the basis of our xenophobia, of the Wall, of the apartheid state. The Palestinians are denied equal rights in order to sustain the ‘Jewish character’ of the state. The ugliest crimes of Zionism are perpetrated in the name of the Jewish People; ‘Jewishness’ is the engine of ethnic cleansing in our country. Thus our struggle against ‘the Jewish character of the State’ is an important spiritual element in the struggle for democracy in Palestine. ...[/QUOTE] WOW! I was not aware of this struggle going on in Israel. No wonder the Zionists go all out to smear people like Israel Shamir. I really like Israel Shamir. :cheers:

[QUOTE=Petr] [Israel Shamir]... That is why we, friends and lovers of Palestine, must struggle – not only against occupation, but for making Jewishness irrelevant and Jewry broken up.

The break-up of Jewry will be a wonderful development for Jews, too. The vast majority will be able to become just Americans, or just Brits, or just French; a small Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community will remain with us like the Amish or other tiny observant minorities, never again to be disturbed by hatred or power struggle. ...[/QUOTE]
:yes:

Franco

2005-04-08 17:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That is a very key insight, and is the central thesis of G.K. Chesterton's [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0742630358/qid=1112978239/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-2763389-2923164?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]The Crimes of England,[/URL] which is a nationalist classic, IMHO.

Here's a deep bow in the direction of the courageous Mr. Shamir.[/QUOTE] Trivia: England has been largely under the control of various Jews since before WWI. That's why the neoconservatives love England.

Walter Yannis

2005-04-09 05:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Trivia: England has been largely under the control of various Jews since before WWI. That's why the neoconservatives love England.

----[/QUOTE]

Foreign domination of Enland goes way, way back, indeed to 1066.

Chesterton focuses on the (German) Hanoverian Kings and their use of Hessian troops to keep the poor, disenfranchised English peasantry down.

It's an important book, I think you'll like it.

Petr

2005-04-09 09:05 | User Profile

And here's a final proof that Shamir is [I]echt stuff[/I]: an ultra-Zionist hate site "[B]Masada2000[/B]" lists him among "self-hating Jews" and confirms that he used to articles to [I]Ha'aretz[/I] until he became too hot to handle!

If this guy really is a Swedish anti-Semite in disguise (as Stephen Pollard claims), then he's truly a master of infiltration, getting to write stuff in [I]Ha'aretz[/I]!

:biggrin:

[COLOR=DarkRed] "[B]The leftwing Ha'aretz newspaper has, for years, given free reign to the worst of the self-hating Israeli Jews[/B]. The vicious attacks from the likes of Amira (the red-nosed betrayer of her own people) Hass (right photo), who never met an Arab-Palestinian terrorist she didn't like, and Gideon Levy (see further down on this page), best known for his weekly columns describing the misery of Palestinians, made Ha'aretz the most widely quoted source of the world's Israel bashers. [B]Yet trying to get Ha'aretz to remove any of these anti-Jews from its payrolls was like trying to extract an impacted wisdom tooth buried deep into a jaw bone! [U]That is, until a certain Israel Shamir (below) came along[/U]! Even Ha'aretz had its limits[/B]!

[B]Israel Shamir is the worst of the worst. He makes Rabbi Michael Lerner look like a Kahanist[/B]! Shamir uses his credentials as a Jew to bash Israel mercilessly. In fact, he goes beyond mere criticism of Israel and Zionism into the realm of blatant anti-Semitism. For example, he condemns Israel's Jews as "Christ-killers... "[Jesus] said: you can not worship God and Mammon, the god of greed. You have to choose. That is why he was hated by supply-side economists and bankers of his day. They sentenced him to death and the [Roman] Empire obliged and carried out the execution. The [same] Jewish supremacy forces and the greed worshippers united again [today] to crucify Christ."

Palestinians, Shamir argues, are today's Christ, and history has given the Jews a "second chance" i.e. a chance to redeem their earlier crucifixion of Jesus by not crucifying the Palestinians. "If we keep our mouth shut," Shamir writes, "we deserve to be called 'Christ killers.'

In a speech at Tufts University on April 10, 2001, Shamir depicts the Palestinians as "perfect mammals; their life is deeply rooted in the ground" while Israeli people "represent a virus form of a human being because they can live anywhere."

... [B] [U]Shamir is an Israeli Neo-Nazi who is so openly anti-Semitic that even Haaretz no longer prints his ravings[/U].[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.masada2000.org/selfhate2.html[/url]

Petr

Petr

2005-04-10 11:34 | User Profile

And here's a witness statement from one Zionist at the "Little Green Footballs":

[url]http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15372_An_Antisemite_in_the_House_of_Lords#comments[/url]

[COLOR=Indigo][B][I]41 # ymedad 4/9/2005 02:59PM PDT[/I][/B][/COLOR]

[COLOR=Blue][B] I personally knew Israel Shamir when he worked in the mid-1980s as the media advisor for the Mapam (Marxist Socialist) Faction in the Knesset (I worked as MK Geula Cohen's aide of the Techiyah Party).

He was a bit weird then. He was a Russian and a bit on the small size. He had a moustache.

He was surely smart and clever but I think a normal pathological development of such people is that one grows to hate one's identity.[/B] [/COLOR]

Petr

il ragno

2005-04-11 13:00 | User Profile

Forget Shamir; let's take a closer look at (zhid or cryypto-zhid) [B]Stephen Pollard[/B], shall we?

Found variously at [url]http://www.stephenpollard.net:[/url]

[QUOTE]About Stephen Pollard Stephen Pollard is a political columnist who writes for most British newspapers, and regularly in the Times, Sunday Telegraph and Wall Street Journal Europe. He is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank, where he directs the health policy programme; and at Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, in London. In February 2005 he was an expert witness before the US Senate, testifying in the HELP Committee's inquiry into drug importation. His biography of David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, was published in December 2004. From 1998-2000 he was a columnist and Chief Leader Writer on the Daily Express. From 1995-98 he was Head of Research at the Social Market Foundation, and from 1992-95 Research Director at the Fabian Society. He is the author of numerous pamphlets and books on health and education policy, and is co-author with Andrew Adonis of the best-selling A Class Act – the Myth of Britain’s Classless Society (Penguin, 1998). He was recently described by the BBC as 'Britain's most prolific columnist'; has been called a 'Labour guru' on the front page of the Sunday Times; and is, according to the Guardian, the man who showed Tony Blair how to reform the NHS - an accusation for which he made the paper make a grovelling apology. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]Enough already[/B] » Posted on April 8, 2005 01:25 PM

999 times out of 1000 I want to scream when I read Polly Toynbee. But whatever I might think of her politics, she is a class act as a columnist. Today it's that 1 in 1000 column when I want to cheer. Her piece today on the reaction to the death of the Pope is Ms Toynbee at her best:

[COLOR=Indigo]With the clash of two state funerals and a wedding, unreason is in full flood this week. Yet again, rationalists who thought they understood this secular, sceptical age have been shocked at the coverage from Rome.

The BBC airwaves have disgraced themselves. The Mail went mad with its front-page headlines, "Safe in Heaven" and the next day "Amen". Even this august organ, which sprang from the loins of nonconformist dissent, astounded many readers with its broad acres of Pope reverencing.

...The Vatican is not a charming Monaco for tourists collecting Ruritanian stamps or gazing at past glories in the Sistine Chapel. It is a modern, potent force for cruelty and hypocrisy.

...The Vatican's deeper power is in its personal authority over 1.3 billion worshippers, which is strongest over the poorest, most helpless devotees. With its ban on condoms the church has caused the death of millions of Catholics and others in areas dominated by Catholic missionaries, in Africa and right across the world. In countries where 50% are infected, millions of very young Aids orphans are today's immediate victims of the curia. Refusing support to all who offer condoms, spreading the lie that the Aids virus passes easily through microscopic holes in condoms - this irresponsibility is beyond all comprehension.

This is said often, even in this unctuous week - and yet still it does not permeate. He was a good, caring man nevertheless, they say, as if it were a minor aberration. But genuflecting before this corpse is scarcely different to parading past Lenin: they both put extreme ideology before human life and happiness, at unimaginable human cost. How dare our prime minister go there in our name to give the Vatican our approval for this? Will he think of Africa when on his knees today? I trust history will some day express astonishment at moral outrage wasted on sexual trivia while papal celebrity and charisma cloaked this great Vatican crime.

The editor of the Catholic Herald was somewhat Jesuitical when I argued with him in a BBC studio yesterday. He asked how the Pope could be blamed when all the church calls for is sex within marriage and abstinence. But abstinence and celibacy are not the human condition. If the Vatican learned anything about humanity, it would humbly meditate on 4,450 Catholic clergy in the US alone accused of molesting children since 1950, and no doubt as many in Catholic churches elsewhere still in denial.

The scale of it is breathtaking yet not at all surprising: most humans are sexual beings. A Vatican edict in the 1960s threatened to excommunicate anyone breaking secrecy on child sex allegations, and guaranteed that ever more children continued to suffer. And within its walls the Vatican shields an American priest from allegations.

Still the Vatican turns a blind eye to this most repugnant and damaging of all sexual practices, the suffering little children whose priests come unto them. Yet at the same time it thunders disapproval of sex in every other more innocent circumstance, blighting the lives of millions with its teaching on gays, divorce, abortion and unrealistic self-denial. There is no reckoning how many of the world's poorest women have died giving birth to more children than they can survive; contraception is women's true saviour.[/COLOR]

The non-stop, fawning coverage on every channel, and in every newspaper, has made me despair. It was, of course, appropriate to mark the passing of a man who was clearly one of the most important figures of the past century. But OTT doesn't even come close to describing the coverage. Some of us, let it be pointed out, consider the Pope's edicts to have been those of a deeply misguided, dangerous man. Ms Toynbee is spot on.

And as for Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor; if I have to listen any more to his tones of supposed sweet reasonableness then I think I might throw something at my TV. This is the man, remember, who considered it appropriate to protect and then re-employ a pederast priest. Lord alone knows what else lies buried in his church's paedophile past. So far is he from being a man fit to act as a spiritual guide, he ought to pilloried at every opportunity for his behaviour.

And now we will no doubt have more coverage of the Cardinals' election of a new Pope. Stop the world, please; I want to get off. Will someone wake me up when it's over.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]Pass the hanky[/B] » Posted on April 7, 2005 01:13 PM

The poor dear:

Saddam Hussein watched the televised election of Iraq's new president from his jail cell yesterday and was "clearly upset", a senior official said. [/QUOTE]

More in a moment.

il ragno

2005-04-11 13:07 | User Profile

More on Shamir and The Other Pollard:

[QUOTE][url]http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2969[/url]

Fiction as Journalism Comments by Rixon Stewart - April 7, 2005

In the wake of a meeting he addressed at Britain’s House of Lords, yesterday's Times launched a libellous attack on writer Israel Shamir. Penned by Stephen Pollard, it was fraught with untruths and is reprinted in part, below, along with this website’s comments.

[I]Lord Ahmed's unwelcome guest Stephen Pollard – The Times April 7, 2005

“A term has returned to the lexicon of political debate in recent months; a term for which, in a decent world, we should have no need. That term is “anti-Semitism”…

On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.” [/I]

Here Pollard begins his work of character assassination using half-truths, careful omissions and downright lies. For example, far from living in Sweden, Israel Shamir usually resides in the Israeli town of Jaffa, as even the most cursory research would have revealed. As would the fact that Shamir is also descended from a long line of prominent Rabbis and Jewish intellectuals.

However Pollard does not mention any of this, nor does he mention that Shamir is a former Israeli paratrooper who fought in the 1973 Yom Kippur War under the command of Ariel Sharon. Instead Pollard implies that Shamir, “also known as Jöran Jermas”, is an impostor and a “rabid anti-Semite”.

Pollard continues:

“[I]The gist of Shamir/Jermas’s speech at the meeting (which Pollard did not attend but which this writer did) can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the [political] parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . .” [/I]

As indeed does the Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a known Zionist who is said to exert dictatorial control over his editors. Which is maybe why the Times published Pollard’s libellous article in the first place.

He continues:

[I]“Why would Lord Ahmed have hosted such a man in the Lords? It is, of course, possible that Lord Ahmed had no idea that Shamir/Jermas was a rabid anti-Semite. Yet it takes only a quick Google to discover his views and background. He has worked for Zavtra, Russia’s most anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.” [/I]

Here Pollard is very selective in his use of the Internet and in using Shamir’s employment record; making no mention of the fact that Shamir also worked for Israeli national radio, the BBC and the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz. Pollard omits this, even though it is clear from a brief visit to his website, because mentioning it would undermine the fiction he is trying to create of “Shamir/Jermas” being neo-Nazi resident of Sweden.

Pollard continues:

[I]“If, however, Lord Ahmed does feel that he made a mistake in inviting him, he has yet to demonstrate it. Shamir/Jermas’s speech was made nearly two months ago. On learning of its contents, I wrote to Lord Ahmed, asking him two questions. Did he consider the invitation to have been a mistake? Did he condemn the remarks? He did not reply.

Yesterday, I phoned him. When I told him that I planned to write a piece drawing attention to his actions in hosting Shamir/Jermas and that I wanted to give him every opportunity to respond, he replied: “I am not even going to speak with you.” He then put the phone down”. [url]www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1557932,00.html[/url] [/I]

And who can blame him? For Pollard displays all the traits that have caused journalists to be likened to “intellectual prostitutes”, ready to do the bidding of rich newspaper owners without any regard for the truth. Here he reports on a book presentation he did not attend, to a mixed crowd of Muslims, Jews and Christians all searching for peace in the Middle East. A book written by a man Pollard describes as a “rabid anti-Semite”, without mentioning his true origins or the fact that a former speaker from the Israeli Knesset also addressed the same book presentation. Nor does Pollard mention that Shamir also worked in the Knesset himeself as the spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party.

None of this is mentioned by Pollard because it would undermine the fiction he is trying spin: a story about “anti-Semitism” which masquerades as journalism. Like a growing number of Jews, Shamir is speaking out against the injustice perpetrated by Zionism, a political body that has effectively hijacked Judaism for its own purposes. Which is why Pollard never once refers to Shamir's origins or background. To do so would completely undercut his arguement and expose him for the liar he is. [/QUOTE]

Full text of Shamir's speech:

[B]Jews and the Empire[/B]

By Israel Shamir

(A Talk given in the House of Lords, Westminster, on February 23, 2005)

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=2]Ladies and Lords, Gentlemen, Friends,

It is a great honour for this small writer from far-away Jaffa to speak to you in this ancient abode of democracy and aristocracy intertwined, and I wish to thank my host tonight, my dear brother, his lordship Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham in the heather-bound Yorkshire. I would give much to have another dear friend present here, the late Sir Robin, Lord Phillimore for much of my love and understanding of England is due to this friendship. I was but a pup, a young journalist, who came to work at your renowned BBC, and the Lord Phillimore was my bridge and my guide to the good old England of Pickwick Papers, for his home stood in this most English swat of land near Henley-on-Thames. Thus England became a love of my youth, England of pubs serving Brakespear Old Fashioned ale, of neat green squares of Kensington where I lived, of milk bottles on doorstep, of the punchy smell of bacon-and-eggs and burned toast in the morning, of the pleasant feel of the Guardian pages, of the calm bonhomie of English people, of your lovely maidens who are able to propose and prepare a nice cup of tea in the least suitable moment, of your men with their fair play, the green sweet and somewhat parochial England of Blake, Hopkins, Waugh and G K Chesterton, England as opposed to the Empire.

Much as I love England I came to dislike the Empire. The Empire was a vile 19th century invention. The Empire ruined Iraq and used poison gases against its citizens long before the present Bush-and Blair offensive. No land was too far or too near to be safe from the Imperial assaults: from Shimonoseki in South of Japan to Gondor in mountains of Ethiopia, from Beijing to Archangelsk, from the fishermen’ city of Oriente in Brittany to Baghdad, from Dublin to Kandagar, from Dresden in Saxony to Akka in Palestine, the Empire bombed them all. And I do not speak of some long gone days of Queen Anne, but of last hundred fifty years since the fateful accent of your first Zionist ruler, Lord Beaconsfield.

In our country, in Palestine, much of present sorrows are result of the Imperial intervention. The first Intifada, the great Arab revolt of 1936-1939, caused by the creeping Zionist takeover, was crushed by the Imperial forces with great severity. Thousands of native Palestinians were killed, executed, hanged, expelled from their land. The Arab defeat, al-Nakba of 1948 can’t be understood without the context of the previous Imperial war against the Palestinians. The Zionist armies administered the coup-de-grace to the disarmed, bleeding, powerless rural population whose elite and best fighters were eliminated by the Empire.

Oh, you say, why should we remember it now? We can’t let bygones be bygones for the Empire is not a thing of past. Like a monstrous parasite it migrated after sucking the juice of the Brits. Its capital was relocated to Washington and New York, while England remained a subservient part of Empire, a Greece to the New Rome, or rather a Tyre to the new Carthage. Not only your RAF assists the Americans, but your BBC, once a paragon of objectivity, became a propaganda tool for the New Empire.

I did not come to condemn you but to offer my condolences, for England is one of the Imperial victims. I came first time to your land some thirty years ago, and since then the Empire eats you up as much as it eats everybody else. London became a faceless cosmopolitan city, your cinema is destroyed, your streets are taken by international chains of shops, your newspapers belong to Zionists, and there is a danger the English will be turned into human dust by the Imperial burden as the Romans and Macedonians of old, to be followed by the Americans.

The Empire is not particularly good for people, including the people of the mother country. Let us consider Palestine. Thousands of young British men died in order to conquer Palestine and give it to the Jews. They committed many atrocities, killed a lot of natives, and enforced Jewish supremacy in Palestine. They received no gratitude. Elder people maybe remember the subsequent Zionist terrorist attacks on the British troops, the assassination of Lord Moyne, maybe they remember the two British sergeants who were kidnapped and hanged by the Jews, and their dead bodies were defiled, booby-trapped by the killers. Menachem Begin, our late Prime Minister, was particularly proud of it. Younger people won’t even know it, for your media, the mind and the nervous system of the nation, is hijacked by Zionists like Conrad Black and Murdoch, and they won’t allow this knowledge to be remembered.

But it is vital to remember, for the new empire continues the ways of the old. Now in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East, for England – or even English business – has no need to be in Baghdad and Basra. Indeed, in the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble – and that is Jewish supremacy drive. In our country, Israel or Palestine, we can have peace today, if we were to agree to equality of Jew and non-Jew. But this principle, so carefully observed in Europe, is anathema to the Jews in Israel. Like in England before the reforms of 1832, your predecessors would not agree to equality of a lord and a commoner before the law; or in Rhodesia of Ian Smith, the white settlers did not want to be equal with the blacks.

Well, so Jews do not want to be equal. But why should you assist them in their pursuit of supremacy? There is an American joke [of Jay Leno]: "If God doesn’t destroy Hollywood Boulevard, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology." Indeed, if England keeps supporting the apartheid Jewish state, it owes an apology to Rhodesia and South Africa. Why, indeed, it does? This is not a rhetoric question. Why the New Empire went to war, committed itself to the vast expenses and dangers, antagonised bigger part of the world – and all that in the interests of Jewish supremacy?

In my book – that is the one I came to promote – I try to explain why the Jews have a special place in the Imperial conscience. Superficially, one can explain it by personalities, by the special position of the Neo-cons in Washington and of the Jewish media-lords in the US and elsewhere. Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking; just last month a Rothschild bought the French daily Liberacion, and an Israeli citizen bought a TV 4 channel in Sweden. This is a valid observation, but not sufficient.

The New Empire, even more than the old one, is infused with Judaic values on an ideological and theological level. This is the thing I try to deal with, because preoccupation with ethnic or religious origins of a person is not only improper but often misleading. Indeed, the strongest enemies of the Judaic values are often people of Jewish origin. Allow me to mention St Paul, Karl Marx and Simone Weil to make my point clear. Another example can be provided by Sir Carl Popper, a colleague of yours who referred to the Judaic concept of chosen-ness as ‘vile’. He also rejected an approach of a Jewish Year Book to have him included, for he said, he does not believe in race and has nothing to do with Jewish faith or values – despite his Jewish origin. Do not concentrate on ethnics, look for ideology. In your case, Michael Howard is less Judaic than Tony Blair, for the first objects to removal of British liberties and to sweeping anti-Muslim legislation, while the second brought this country into the Iraqi war for Israeli interests.

While a Judaic tendency is just an ideological tendency, a special feeling towards Jews is a symptom of certain pro-Imperial predisposition. For instance, Tony Blair is a great supporter of the Empire. But even if we would not know that, we would be able to guess: for he expressed unlimited support of the Jewish state. The Jewish state is the country where a Jew has more rights than a non-Jew. Three to four million of our native residents have neither right of vote nor citizenship rights for a single fault: they are not Jews. Do not forget, Rhodesia was dismantled for the equal sin of ethnic or racial supremacy.

This feeling that ‘Jews are special’ found now its expression in the story of Ken Livingstone and his sin coming hard on the heels of Prince Harry and his mishap. Actually, I have heard that at the next costume ball, Prince Harry will be dressed as Ken Livingstone. The Ken’s story is simple: the Mayor was rude to a hack. Being a journalist, I sympathise with the journalist; but being rude to is our professional hazard. However, the insult was blown well over normal proportions. If Ken would be equally insulting to a member of Royal family, he will be forgiven if not encouraged. But here – even the Students’ Union decided to ban Ken.

Your anti-racist feelings do not come into it. Some time ago I watched the Hard Talk with Tim Sebastian on the BBC. Tim was grilling a Uganda Asian businessman living in England. He told him: well, you Asians in Uganda were heavily engaged in the black market activities, smuggled hard currency abroad, despised the natives and refused to marry them. Actually the same accusations were traditionally levelled against Jews. If Tim would just try to say it to a Jew he would be kicked out of his job same day. But applied to the Muslims – they did not cause a stir. It was just a Hard Talk. So it is not ‘anti-racism’. In my view, this unbelievable out-of-proportion response to Ken’s affair shows again a mysterious connection of Jews and the new Empire.

One reason is that Jews like an Empire. If there is a choice between an England and an Empire, the Jews prefer an Empire. Benjamin Ginsberg, the Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University, wrote a book on this subject, called <>Jews and the State: The Fatal Embrace<> and he attests to this Jewish love of Empire. Any Empire: Franz Josef, the last Emperor of Austro-Hungarian Empire, used to say that Jews are the most loyal of his subjects. In your country, Disraeli was equally proud of his Jewish ancestry and devoted to the Empire-building.

A Jewish joke tells of two Jewish brothers in revolutionary Odessa; one of them emigrated to England and became a peer of the realm, another one remained in Russia, suffered as much as anybody, and eventually the Russian brother was invited by his British brother to London. The brother arrived, received English citizenship, had whale of time, went to Covent Garden, maybe to the Palace, at night the brothers come home, and the Russian brother began to cry. “Oh do not cry, told him the English brother, you had your life, I had mine, it could happen other way around.” “You did not understand me, - says the Russian brother, - I weep for India we have lost”.

This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance – indeed, the same people who were all for the Russian or French or British Empire now became ardent supporters on the new American Empire. Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se, and it does not matter who is the titular head of this Empire: Jews are good for an Empire, as long as they feel the Empire is good for them.

Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England. In my view, Islam is a form of Christianity, even nearer to the Nicene Creed than some Pentecostals or other American denominations. What is more important, they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide. Let us hope that its introduction will be important for England’s future.

This is the right time to overcome left-right divide: if Michael Howard stands on the right –for liberties - and Blair stands on the left – and for anti-Muslim legislation, for police control and for war, the terms have little relevance today. There are friends and enemies of the Empire in all your major political parties, and equally all the parties are Zionist-infiltrated. There is a need for new realignment in order to unite anti-Imperial forces for full withdrawal of British troops from overseas, for independence of England from the American Empire.

In the Apple Cart by Bernard Shaw, the US makes a bid to take over England, and a wise monarch keeps its independence. Disentanglement of England from the US embrace is much needed, an answer to the Boston Tea Party is called for. [/FONT] [/SIZE]

mwdallas

2005-04-11 16:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Forget Shamir; let's take a closer look at (zhid or cryypto-zhid) Stephen Pollard, shall we?[/QUOTE] He's Jewish, all right. [URL=http://www.jafi.org.il/education/hasbara/headlines/a4-4.html]Stephen Pollard[/URL]