“Most of the time ‘history’ is
institutionally engaged in concealing our shame.” —Gilad Atzmon
I love the words, music,
and soul of my Israeli-born truth
jihadi brother Gilad Atzmon. In fact, I enjoy his company so much that just
about every year I take up the largely thankless task of organizing a public
event for him here in Israeli-occupied Madison, Wisconsin. Last year the local
Israeli Occupation forces got Gilad banned at the last minute
from Wil-Mar Community Center. The director refunded our money
and told us, in so many words, that Wil-Mar’s obligatory suppression of free
speech was all about the Benjamins. So we directed people down the block to the Orton Park rotunda,
the local equivalent of Hyde Park Speakers Corner.
One of Gilad’s most memorable
lines was: “History exists to conceal our shame.” Citing Lyotard, who asserts
that the real historian’s task is to unveil the shame, Gilad has analyzed such events as
the Balfour Declaration. According to Gilad, the official
history of the Balfour Declaration as a magnanimous gesture by the powerful
British toward the oppressed Jews exists to conceal the shameful truth: It is
the Britons (not to mention the Palestinians) who were and still are oppressed
by the Zionist Jews, not the other way around.[1] This
truth is shameful to both Britons and Jews. It is shameful to Britons that they
have allowed themselves to be used in such degrading fashion. It is even more
shameful that they have been unable to face the awful reality for 100 years and
counting. Likewise, it is shameful to Zionist Jews that they have profited
mightily by posing as the oppressed, when in truth they are the oppressor. And
of course there is the shared British-Jewish shame at enabling and perpetrating
the Palestinian Holocaust.
Now some might argue that
Gilad’s analysis is correct insofar as it uncovers British shame. The Brits,
after all, are the world’s leading experts in hyper-politeness and its shadow,
shame, which emerges into the light when polite pretenses fail.
But the Jewish Zionists, the
argument continues, are utterly shameless. Their intelligence agency’s motto is
“By way of deception thou shalt do war.” How shameless is that? About as
shameless as the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty massacre, and 9/11, that’s how
shameless. The Zionists’ one-word slogan (and future epitaph) is chutzpah, a word whose definition is: “That
quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws
himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.” Like the
psychopath, the guy with chutzpah always plays the victim, especially when he is victimizing others.
French historian Laurent
Guyénot analyzes Jewish-Zionist shamelessness rather brilliantly in his article
“Israel, the Psychopathic Nation.”
(For the full story, read his masterpiece From Yahweh to Zion.)
Guyénot notes that this psychopathic shamelessness is orchestrated by a
manipulative, profiteering tribal elite. Most ordinary Jews are not aware that
their collective behavior is so shamelessly psychopathic. Guyénot’s insight
helps us understand how Zionist Jews, like Britons, are being manipulated by
the lying, shame-concealing historiographers.
The notion that “’history’ is
institutionally engaged in concealing our shame” obviously applies to the
Holocaust. This fact is admitted, even highlighted, by official
historiographers. But they look only at one side of the story.
The Official Story: “Holocaust
Denial” Conceals Nazi Shame
Defenders of orthodox Holocaust
history claim that holocaust revisionists conceal their shameful sympathy with
Nazis who killed six million Jews. This is in fact the main argument against
“holocaust denial” in such books as Shermer and Grobman’s Denying History and Deborah
Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust. That this argument is an empty ad-hominem with no relevance to
the empirical issues in question does not seem to have occurred to these
authors.
The reductio ad absurdum of “Holocaust denial
conceals the shame of the gas chambers” is Keith Kahn-Harris’s Denial: The Unspeakable
Truth. The author claims that “Holocaust denial is not just
eccentricity; it is an attempt to legitimate genocide through covert means.
Denials of the harmfulness of tobacco, of the existence of global warming, and
other denialisms, are, similarly, projects to legitimate the unspeakable.” This
suggests a very useful all-purpose argument, suitable for any occasion or
topic: “Anyone who disagrees with me does so to conceal their secret love of
mass murder.” The next step: “Anyone who disagrees with me is a mass murderer
and should be executed.” A fine excuse to kill your opponents en masse! This would be funny if they
weren’t already locking people in maximum
security prison, destroying YouTube
livelihoods, and burning books because the
individuals so targeted had the temerity to disagree with the likes of Keith
Kahn-Harris. It may be only a matter of time before the executions commence.
One hopes they will try to use Nazi-style hydrogen cyanide gas chambers, which
would drastically limit their ability to actually kill significant numbers of
dissidents.
But Kahn-Harris, Lipstadt,
Shermer and Grobman, and other gatekeepers are not entirely wrong. There is a
grain of truth somewhere in those vast, arid sand dunes of ad hominem bullshit. It is true that
some people of German heritage like Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf, and Monika
Schaefer voice their own versions of history in part to dispel the guilt and
shame that the sacred narrative of the Holocaust has laid on the heads of the
German people. Monika Schaefer speaks eloquently about this legacy of shame in
her masterful YouTube Sorry Mom I Was Wrong About
the Holocaust, which should have have been awarded “best
foreign short documentary” at the Oscars, but instead won her a year in
maximum-security lockup.
If it is partly true that some
Holocaust revisionists spin their histories to conceal or absolve shame—and I
personally believe that National Socialist Germany’s treatment of Jews among
others was in fact shameful, regardless of the extent to which the conventional
history of the Holocaust may be false or exaggerated—it is obvious that the
conventional story is “institutionally involved in concealing our shame.” By
focusing so relentlessly on the metaphysical evil of the big-H Holocaust, our
cultural custodians conceal the at least equally shameful behavior of World War
II’s victors.
“The Holocaust” Conceals the
Shame of World War II
The real Holocaust, of course,
was the war itself. 70 million people were massacred, two thirds of them
civilians. Those nearly 50 million civilians were singled out for extermination
on the basis of their ethnicity, just as surely as a vastly smaller number of
Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs may have been by the Reich. When the Allies firebombed
Dresden, which was not a military target, more than 100,000 innocent civilians were
deliberately burned to death for the crime of being German. Centuries of German
cultural achievement, too, went up in flames. Now that is a real holocaust: a gratuitous burnt offering.
And Dresden is just the tip of
the proverbial iceberg. Anyone who honestly explores the history of the
deliberate Allied firebombings of civilians, the respective treatment of
prisoners by both sides, the atrocities against Germans during the invasion and
occupation of their homeland, the firebombings and nuclear bombings of Japanese
civilians, the brutal torture that elicited false confessions from “Nazi war
criminals,” and so much more, will inevitably conclude that, as Pogo might say,
“We have met the Nazis and they are us.”
Not convinced? Listen to my
interviews with:
For those who would rather read
than listen, I recommend Ron Unz’s “American Pravda: Post-War
France and Post-War Germany” and more generally the excellent collection of World War II
articles at Unz.com. And concerning the shameful way the US was
hoodwinked into joining the demonic bloodbath euphemistically known as World
War II, Gore Vidal’s novel The Golden Age offers more truth, disguised as fiction, than most
supposedly nonfictional histories.
We Americans, of course, are
not the only ones who recount dubious histories of World War II to conceal our
shame. Russia, too, demonizes Hitler and bans “holocaust denial” to hide its
own shameful Stalinist history and its own war crimes against Germans. Japan
minimizes both its own crimes and the crimes committed against it—the former
for obvious reasons, the latter to save face in light of seven decades of
shamefully abject submission to its criminal civilian-nuking occupiers. France
pretends that most 1940s Frenchmen were partisans of the “heroic resistance”
and that only a tiny minority supported the “evil Nazi collaborator Pétain,”
when the reality was precisely the opposite.
What broader conclusions might
we draw about the role of history as a shame-concealment mechanism? Our best
guide along these dark and twisted paths is René Girard, the recently-deceased
Stanford professor who taught that all culture is based on a murder and a lie.
The primordial murder, according to Girard, is the lynching of a scapegoat.
This act of human sacrifice forms the basis of every culture, the foundation of
every myth. It occurs when the group’s mimetic-desire-driven rivalries get so
out of hand that mass mayhem is in the offing. Suddenly the group turns in
unison against a scapegoat—usually a marginalized or powerless figure—and
murders them. Shared blood-thirst, murderous exaltation, and guilt solves the
rivalry problem and re-unites the group. But the unifying blood-guilt cannot be
admitted to. The reality is too tawdry and horrible. So a myth—a sacred
lie—gradually takes shape around the memory of the victim. Surely the victim
must have had some sort of miraculous sacred power, since (by being murdered)
the victim has solved the rivalry problem and brought unity and cohesion to the
group! Soon a monument is designated or erected in honor of the “sacred
victim,” who eventually becomes a minor or even major deity, to be propitiated
in annual sacrificial rites that commemorate and disguise the original act of
primordial slaughter.
Every culture is held together
by foundational myths based on this template. Pagan gods are just distorted
memories of slaughtered scapegoats. The Abrahamic religions sublimate sacrifice
by asking Abraham and his descendants to stop scapegoating and sacrificing their
children (a ubiquitous practice in the ancient Mediterranean and elsewhere) and
to kill and roast a sheep instead. Christianity goes one step further and makes
Christ the scapegoat to end all scapegoats and the sacrifice to end all
sacrifices. (That didn’t work out too well, did it?) In all of the above cases,
foundational sacred stories, a.k.a. myths, arise to explain how the society in question began, and to
justify its current ways.
Secular mythologies, too, are
rooted in repressed memories of sacrifice and blood-guilt. The foundational
myth of the Enlightenment, with its deities of reason, progress, and tolerance,
grows out of the sacrificial bloodletting of the Wars of Religion and the
accompanying witch-burnings and heretic-huntings. The foundational American
myth of the Revolution and its Founding Fathers conceals the shame of equally
horrific fratricidal bloodletting of a scale and ferocity that most Americans
today have never heard about—because the “history” taught in our schools exists
precisely to erase that shame. Likewise with the Civil Rights mythologies that
emerged from the oceans of gore spilled in the Civil War.
Girard’s theory explains the
otherwise inexplicable “sacred victim syndrome.” Why is Arlington Cemetery so
sacred, especially on Memorial Day?[2] Why
are people who ask questions about 9/11 silenced by screams of “You’re
insulting the victims”?[3] And
why is it sacrilege and blasphemy, punished by maximum-security-prison time in
many leading Western countries, to question the sacred six-million-victim
Holocaust?
Differences between political
cultures are largely based on the degree of divergence of their foundational
mythologies. For Zionists, Jews in general, and the sacred six million in
particular, are eternally sanctified victims, in whose name the most appalling
excesses are legitimate and necessary. For Palestinians, by contrast, the
martyrs murdered by the Zionists, emblematic of all displaced and thus
“sacrificed” Palestinians, are the sacred victims at the foundation of the
political mythos of Resistance.
Similarly, for Americans, the
nearly 3000 people murdered on 9/11/2001 are sacred victims who deserve honor
and commemoration on each anniversary of “Black Tuesday.” (The 9/11 sacrificial
rites, designed by Philip Zelikow and other specialists in “the creation and
maintenance of public myths,” were engineered to bring about this convergence
of Israeli and American mythology.) Non-Westerners, especially Muslims, are
more likely to remember Madeleine Albright’s comment that America’s murder of
half a million Iraqi children under the Clinton regime was “worth it.” Many are
aware that the US has killed 27 million Muslims in
the continuing holocaust set off by 9/11. For them, it is
America’s victims, not its victimized, who are more notable as well as vastly
more numerous.
If, as Girard said, all culture
is based on murder and lies, can we ever stop killing and lying? Marxists think
a materialist utopia would do the trick. But murderous and uncontrollable
mimetic-desire-driven envy is ubiquitous, even (especially) among those whose
material needs are fully satisfied.
Liberal-progressive types seem
to think that exposing relatively harmless bits and pieces of their own
culture’s shameful histories might help. Take Howard Zinn—please! When liberal
progressives reveal the shame of slavery and oppression of women, they are
really buttressing the modern secular-progressive myth that celebrates the
“progress” that “we” have supposedly made—concealing our shameful slaughter of
27 million Muslims in the 9/11 wars on the grounds that “they” oppress women,
adhere to traditional religion, and in other ways remind us of our own hated,
barbarous ancestors. If people like Zinn really wanted to stop their own
countries from murdering millions, they would attack and annihilate the myths
of the Holocaust and 9/11. But that is the furthest thing from their minds.
Why? Because they are complicit in the murder of millions, and they desperately
desire to conceal that complicity.
Likewise all of the supposed
“identification and sympathy with victims” displayed in today’s fashionable
deification of sexual deviance serves to cover our ongoing mass murders of
dozens of millions of real victims. By casting homosexuals, an economically
privileged class, as sacred victims, we conceal our shameful massacres,
displacements, and exploitations of the genuinely poor and downtrodden (most of
whom don’t care much for homosexuality) including those in our own country. It
seems that the scam of leveraging fabricated or exaggerated victimhood for
tribal solidarity and profit, which should have been copyrighted by the Jews,
has now been subjected to multiple copyright infringements—which would
certainly make for an interesting and revealing series of lawsuits. But even
the ADL doesn’t have quite that much chutzpah.
If Marxism and
secular-progressive materialist liberalism can’t solve the murder-and-lies
problem, whatever possibly could? Traditional religion seems to have a mixed
record. Though Girard argued that Christianity exposes the scapegoating
mechanism (“Oh shit! We just lynched God!!”) and is responsible for all of the alleged progress in
humanitarianism since then, the historical record does not really bear this
out. Still, it must be admitted that real Christians, like the Mennonite,
Amish, and Quaker farmers here in western Wisconsin, excel at eschewing
participation in America’s periodic orgies of sacrificial carnage. Likewise,
real Muslims, unlike secularized Uncle Toms and obscurantist Wahhabis, are
blessed with unusually peaceful souls and communities,
as anyone who has lived among them knows.
Ultimately it is the mystical
dimension of traditional religion that holds the most hope for overcoming the
murderous lies at the heart of human nature and culture. The mystics have a novel
interpretation of sacrifice: Instead of materially murdering the Other, we must
learn to spiritually sacrifice the Self. The Sufis call this fana’, the annihilation of the ego
(the Self that Commands Evil). This spiritual self-sacrifice liberates us from
desire, the goal of Buddhist teaching as well. Those who have achieved such an
overcoming-of-self enjoy the freedom to reject the desire-driven Girardian
scapegoating mechanism, and step outside of its myth-based cultural constructs
into the light of al-Haqq: an Islamic term that translates as Truth, God,
Reality.
Notes
[1] One
obvious example of Jewish power and British powerlessness is the ongoing
witch-hunt against Jeremy Corbyn and the non-Zionist wing of the Labor Party.
Another was related to me by Gilad Atzmon himself: When he fled Israel and
arrived in London, Gilad, despite his anti-Zionism, was born Jewish, and
therefore able to plug into the local Jewish network and make lots of easy
money playing rigged games in London real estate. There was so much kosher
money available, Gilad said, that he eventually had to quit in order to save
his soul and his sanity. Obviously nobody of any other ethnicity could land in
London nearly penniless and friendless and receive such a lavish sinecure on a
silver platter. But well-connected Jewish nepotism networks exist everywhere
where wealthy Jewish communities are established, offering Jews power and privileges
that non-Jews do not enjoy.
[2] Answer:
Because we still sacrifice our children—only now in wars instead of on bloody
altars—and are lying about it, as we must if we are to live with ourselves.
[3] And
why have the forces of repression been so successful at deplatforming
alternative media using the “insulting the victims” ploy? Those figures in the
alternative media who have come off as insensitive in the way they talk about
alleged victims and survivors at Sandy Hook and elsewhere have provided their
opponents with a perfect excuse to silence critical voices in general.